Globespan Airways.... Draw your own conclusions

cyrusdvirus

Plane struck by lightning flew to NY
In this section »
Dublin cleans up its act - litter levels improve significantlyOver 95% of concrete rubble from Ballymun flats to be reusedNeighbours can apply for energy-saving grantsInquiry into food poisoning casesSix die on roads over holiday weekendDriver fined, disqualified over deathsJAMES MEIKLE and MELVYN HOWEA BUDGET airline that flew a faulty jet via Knock airport from Liverpool to New York after it was struck by lightning, was fined £5,000 (€6,300) yesterday.

Globespan Airways was fined at Southwark crown court in London after it used "optimistic interpretation" of the rules to clear the Boeing 757 to complete a 6,000-mile round trip from New York to Liverpool via Knock despite knowing there was a problem with its engine monitors after it had been struck by lightning.

The failure was discovered during an inbound flight from New York's JFK airport to Liverpool. Despite this, the Edinburgh-based airline breached Civil Aviation regulations by declaring the aircraft "serviceable" to fly later that day and allowing it to return to America via Knock.

Two indicators which measure engine thrust were out of action, leaving the crew to manually adjust the throttle, the court was told.

The company admitted offences under Britain's Air Navigation Order 2005 of flying a plane without a valid certification of airworthiness or a valid operator's certificate. It was also ordered to pay £4,280 costs.

James Curtis QC said the engine pressure ratio indicators (EPRs) did not provide "core" information but provided an "extra layer of information" for the pilot.

"I am told, and I am satisfied, that the failure of the EPRs on this flight did not render the aircraft unsafe and did not in any way endanger the public who were flying on the aircraft."

On the plane's landing in Liverpool, an investigation carried out by the airline's contract engineers, Storm Aviation, could neither identify the cause of the failure nor correct the fault.

This was reported to the airline's flight operations director who "rather optimistically" interpreted the rules governing which equipment the Civil Aviation Authority required to be functioning before a plane could depart on a flight.

By heading back across the Atlantic, the plane broke the law. In New York, it was examined again and the problem rectified. (Guardian service/PA)

© 2008 The Irish Times

Davidth88

Yes I saw this in the papers yesterday.

I thought this was pretty shocking, but what do I know ? , any pilots out there care to comment would you fly with this fault ?

Fratton Fred

Davidth88 wrote: »

Yes I saw this in the papers yesterday.

I thought this was pretty shocking, but what do I know ? , any pilots out there care to comment would you fly with this fault ?

I would guess because EU rules on the level of compensation passengers get for late flights is far higher than a £5000 fine for flying with a dodgy instrument.

Fabio

Sure it's not illegal but still it points to other factors at the company that may be dangerous...

...rushing aircraft to service quicker than is safe

...pressure on pilots to fly in aircraft not wholly safe but "safe enough"

...cost cutting on safety in other areas that have not yet come to light?

Mr Benevolent

James Curtis QC said the engine pressure ratio indicators (EPRs) did not provide "core" information but provided an "extra layer of information" for the pilot.

Depends on the engines fitted. Some use N1 as primary power setting, others EPR. EPR is generally not used much anymore, it's not as reliable as N1. That said, if the engines used N1 they wouldn't have EPR readouts, so they were probably EPR engines. If that's true it's time to dig out the MEL (Minimum Equipment List) to see if continued flight without primary engine instrumentation is permitted.

The fact that they had to 'adjust thrust manually' suggests that the problem disabled the autothottles, suggesting an engine sensor issue.

...rushing aircraft to service quicker than is safe

...pressure on pilots to fly in aircraft not wholly safe but "safe enough"

...cost cutting on safety in other areas that have not yet come to light?

Pure speculation. Aer Arran has had three engine shutdowns in as many years, but I haven't heard anybody suggesting that they're unsafe.

*Kol*

Confab wrote: »

Depends on the engines fitted. Some use N1 as primary power setting, others EPR. EPR is generally not used much anymore, it's not as reliable as N1. That said, if the engines used N1 they wouldn't have EPR readouts, so they were probably EPR engines. If that's true it's time to dig out the MEL (Minimum Equipment List) to see if continued flight without primary engine instrumentation is permitted.

The fact that they had to 'adjust thrust manually' suggests that the problem disabled the autothottles, suggesting an engine sensor issue.



Pure speculation. Aer Arran has had three engine shutdowns in as many years, but I haven't heard anybody suggesting that they're unsafe.

They would be using Rolls Royce RB211 engines which use EPR as the thrust setting parameter. Only 1 is allowed to be inop according to the MEL


11-1 Engine Pressure Ratio (EPR) Systems
1) RB211 C 2 1 (O) EICAS and/or STANDBY indications for one
engine may be inoperative provided:
a) Appropriate procedures, AFM limitations, and
performance decrements are applied,
b) N1, N2 and N3 EICAS indications for
associated engine operate normally,
c) N1 STANDBY indications for associated
engine operate normally,
d) Fuel flow indications for associated engine
operate normally, and
e) Approach minimums do not require its use.

Mr Benevolent

Thanks for that *Kol*, looks like they've stuck themselves in hot water.

Wonder how they lost both EPR sensors? Seems odd. It's possible they were flying on one to start with. Either way, EASA and the CAA won't be happy bunnies as they've broke the airworthiness and ETOPS regs.

Mythago

"I am told, and I am satisfied, that the failure of the EPRs on this flight did not render the aircraft unsafe and did not in any way endanger the public who were flying on the aircraft."

On the plane's landing in Liverpool, an investigation carried out by the airline's contract engineers, Storm Aviation, could neither identify the cause of the failure nor correct the fault.

This was reported to the airline's flight operations director who "rather optimistically" interpreted the rules governing which equipment the Civil Aviation Authority required to be functioning before a plane could depart on a flight.

Hmmm, Storm Aviation......... not the most reputable of Engineering Contractors, allegedly.

Davidth88

Sure it's not illegal but still it points to other factors at the company that may be dangerous...

Really , in which case why were they fined ?

I have no idea what these sensors do, any comments ?

*Kol*

Davidth88 wrote: »

Really , in which case why were they fined ?

I have no idea what these sensors do, any comments ?

EPR indicators give an indication of the ratio of pressure at the inlet of the engine to the pressure at the exhaust. It's a primary indication for thrust on the RB211. The FMC would use the EPR inication to set the thrust using the autothrottles.

Davidth88

*Kol *

Sorry, the biggest thing I have piloted is a PA28.... what is the implication of that problem in laymans terms

Sorry to sound thick ....

FlutterinBantam

Unexpected/unreliable response from the A/Ts