And you though Ryanair was rough?

[Jonzjob]

The driver of this aircraft should be sacked!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... E-off.html

I am an ex R.A.F. aircraft eleck and worked on large transports 10 of my 12 years and I am totally appalled by this.

FTF = fit to fly and one engine U/S on a twin is NOT FTF!

 

[RobinBHM]

The article further down seems to say that the pilot was asking passengers if they wanted to leave the aircraft whilst the engines were going through a start up procedure that could take sometime.

Even so I guess passengers should not have boarded unless both engines had been passed.

Or did the start routine show up an issue, perhaps he didnt have the choke out enough......

I can remember flying back on a fruit coloured low cost airline flight that had a really noisy engine one side, Im sure it was nothing but it unverved me during take off.

 

[AES]

A bit of an "over-reaction" there - JJ AND especially the Mail!

Read the whole thing and it's clear what was being asked, AND it's clear that as "one observer" at Lulsgate said "it seems there was a bit of a misunderstanding among some of the passengers". YEAH, right (my comment)!

I'm no great fan of any of the LCCs, and certainly NOT of "sleazy jet", but make no mistake, they operate under UK CAA/EASA rules (generally VERY tight and generally VERY well run and administered) so this was simply, a typical jounalists's "non-story". NO question of taking off with 1 engine INOP.

SO - "Move along there please, don't stand around gawkping, there's nothing whatever to be seen here".

AES

P.S. Just the other day in one of our newspapers there was a big screaming headline "700 passengers removed from thru-Gottard Tunnel train".

Yeah. Read the thing fully, and what was really meant was since the new Gotthard rail Tunnel was opened to traffic (Dec 2016) 693 passengers had been asked to leave at least 10 over-full trains. Read on and you find out that "overfull" was in the sense of the max number of pax allowed to be in the tunnel at any one time for emergency evacuation reasons (the tunnel is 55 Kms long). Read further on and you find out that ALL the pax that were turned off were asked to volunteer by the respective train guards, ALL agreed/volunteered, ALL were given a 5 Franc coffee voucher, and NONE waited more than 30 mins for the next train.

Journalists? I **** 'em!

AES

 

[Jonzjob]

Firstly, I did read the article

Secondly, quote "EasyJet said the pilot was asking passengers if they wanted to get off the plane while the issue was fixed and stressed that under no circumstances would a pilot attempt to fly with one engine." "delayed for 40 hours"
"'He gave us the option, asked us what he should do. He asked for a show of hands.
'There were some who just wanted to try it, they wanted to get home. But most didn't."

"'Because he was aware that the passengers had already been considerably delayed due to a technical problem the pilot asked the passengers if they would like to get off or remain on board whilst the engine start up sequence continued."

If that was the situation then there was no rewason why the driver/skipper ever needed to say anything to the passengers.

As I said, I lived with working on large pax parcraft for over 10 years in the R.A.F. and as far as I was and still am concerned it can be FTF but other than that it's either 100% right or 100% wrong. You can make what you want of that. I treat THE DALI MAUL as something to hang in the loo in small squares, but if there is any truth in this then the driver wants hammering. He is the Captain, the Skipper and he doesn't ask non professionals for their oppinion.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

It reminds me of a story in a Reader's Digest many years ago - at a Middle Eastern airport, a voice came over the intercom apologising for the delay. "We are very sorry for the delay, it is because the pilot doesn't like the sound of one of the engines, so we're trying to find one that does".

 

[AES]

Sorry JJ, but you - and especially that article - are wrong.

Apart from any other reasons, you do NOT, NEVER, board pax with turbine engines running in the civilian aviation world. Also, the start sequence (which requires compressed air, either from internal or external sources) doesn't take more than 4 mins per engine on the A320 (shown in the article pic) - and that's VERY exceptional. Longer than 4 mins before the engine is "self-sustaining" and the engine is U/S.

There is so much wrong with the "facts" in that article it just ain't true - literally. Complete rubbish.

AES

 

[RobinBHM]

Sorry JJ, but you - and especially that article - are wrong.

Apart from any other reasons, you do NOT, NEVER, board pax with turbine engines running in the civilian aviation world. Also, the start sequence (which requires compressed air, either from internal or external sources) doesn't take more than 4 mins per engine on the A320 (shown in the article pic) - and that's VERY exceptional. Longer than 4 mins before the engine is "self-sustaining" and the engine is U/S.

There is so much wrong with the "facts" in that article it just ain't true - literally. Complete rubbish.

AES

The online articles these days of certain papers do seem to have headlines and articles that completely stretch the truth. Perhaps there is some truth that fake news does exist!

I think modern turbine engines like those from Rolls Royce keep their own log of faults and are sent automatically back to the engine manufacturers. I would have thought a malfunction would be logged automatically.

 

[novocaine]

surely our media would never publish a sensationalised head line in order to attract readers to a complete ******** none story in an attempt to sell their product to the masses. they would obviously never ask a none technical authority to confirm something instead of actually talking to the people in the know would they?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-40243766

oh, ok never mind. morons the lot of them. (hole in engine, erm, nope, lost casing, erm, yep, none issue, return to base for inspection)

 

[thetyreman]

the daily fail can't be trusted!

 

[transatlantic]

What really annoys me is that despite stories like this being twisted in newpapers, and people knowing full well, they still buy them!??

If people used common sense and stopped buying these papers, then they would go out of business and the problem would be solved. But no, for some obscure reason, people keep buying them.

 

[AES]

Robin, you wrote, QUOTE: I would have thought a malfunction would be logged automatically. UNQUOTE:

You're quite correct, all the engine manufacturers offer that service, but not all operators (airlines) take that up (it's paid for). I can't remember if "sleazy" does or not, but in any case, the on-board fault logging stuff logs it all anyway.

Transatlantic, you wrote, QUOTE: ..... and people knowing full well, they still buy them!?? UNQUOTE:

Right! That's one reason why I haven't bought ANY newspaper for many years now (and don't feel myself any worse off, ignorance-wise). As you say IF people stopped buying them, then PERHAPS they might sharpen up their act.

AES

 

[slate1234]

I haven't bought a paper for over five years, the daily fail made me laugh,
Paul

 

[AES]

Yeah, I remember hearing all the crocodile tears and sickening mealy-mouthed sycophantic platitudes from the "professional" News of the World journalists on Radio 4 after the "News of the Screws" was closed down after the Milly Dowler affair - AND all the "results" of the commission held afterwards.

And have they improved since?

IMO, not ONE iota.

In 99% of cases, scum of the earth, right up there with bankers, estate agents, personnel agencies, most lawyers, commodity brokers, and insurance companies, and (there must be someone else, surely!).

"Grumpy Old Man"

rant over

AES