Panic aboard SAA flights

[Geoff.D]

204,500 litres full tanks.

265t max take off weight
251t max landing weight

That's a 14t difference. Obviously the plane won't be at max take off or landing weight, but the difference is 14t so in theory only up to 17 000 litres must be dumped, roughly R120k worth. So R200k or less. Never R1 mil.

The facts are always welcome! There goes the last bit of justification for any sensationalism!

 

[falcon786]

I havent flown SAA since the whole pilot based on race issue - and of course, with Dudu Myeni at the helm, as a matter of principle I refuse to support SAA or Mango for that matter.

Choice is a wonderful thing

Your tax money will support it regardless.

The problem is, do they get the correct parts? How is that maintenance done. Yes, bad parts, bad workmanship may last for a while. But at some point it will fail. I've seen this air crash stuff on Natgeo(mentioned ealier) Some airline bought parts that weren't the actual authorised parts. Part failed, plane down. you don't know this stuff until something bad happens. Thats the problem.

So you have proof that SAA is using incorrect parts?Until some evidence points to that then basically it's the same as flying with any other airline.

It's like me asking are you freddster?Except in this case there is a lot to suggest you might indeed be him.:erm:

 

[Idiosyncratic]

The problem is, do they get the correct parts? How is that maintenance done. Yes, bad parts, bad workmanship may last for a while. But at some point it will fail. I've seen this air crash stuff on Natgeo(mentioned ealier) Some airline bought parts that weren't the actual authorised parts. Part failed, plane down. you don't know this stuff until something bad happens. Thats the problem.

Considering Rolls Royce actually owns most of the engines on the aeries SAA fly (they pay per cycle if I understand correctly although they get penalized if the pilot elects not to use Flex power - correct me if I'm wrong about it being RR) and the fact that many of the aircraft are leased will ensure that correct parts are bought. SAA is not some new start-up airline looking to cut corners with older 737-200s - their technical department is world class (for now).

 

[genetic]

Have been avoiding SAA since early 2000s. Even mechanics working there told me they won't fly with SAA.

SAA Technical maintain most airline's aircraft.

 

[Oppiekoffie]

Your tax money will support it regardless.



So you have proof that SAA is using incorrect parts?Until some evidence points to that then basically it's the same as flying with any other airline.

It's like me asking are you freddster?Except in this case there is a lot to suggest you might indeed be him.:erm:

Where did I say, that SAA are using unauthourised cheaper parts?

 

[ponder]

SAA Technical maintain most airline's aircraft.

Yeah no nothing wrong with those guys, they can keep their heads high.

https://www.flysaa.com/us/en/SAA_Technical/about/flysaa_technical_company.html
https://www.flysaa.com/us/en/SAA_Technical/about/flysaa_technical_maintenance.html
https://www.flysaa.com/us/en/SAA_Technical/about/flysaa_technical_repair_capabilities.html
https://www.flysaa.com/us/en/SAA_Technical/about/flysaa_technical_special_services.html

 

[Geoff.D]

Where did I say, that SAA are using unauthourised cheaper parts?

No you did not say so, but I can see why some interpreted what you said as meaning the above.

SAA has an excellent track record regarding maintenance. And so does the airline, safety first, hence why they turned back.

 

[falcon786]

Where did I say, that SAA are using unauthourised cheaper parts?

You questioned it as if you have a valid reason to doubt their safety standards.

 

[The_Librarian]

I am questioning SAA's safety record(s) due to their financial difficulties. Once you start to hit financial difficulties, you will start cutting corners on many things.

Airlines like Kulula, BA (and others) does not require bailing out from the tax payer, yet they don't have issues like SAA do recently.

One have to ask if SAA is starting to take any shortcuts due to them being in a difficult financial situation... (and that includes Mango).

 

[Oppiekoffie]

You questioned it as if you have a valid reason to doubt their safety standards.

go back and read R13's post (quoted in my 16) then read mine again. Sound technical management, good track record etc etc. How long will it last until something happens, and the bad parts might be working now, and fail later as an example. There are lots of things that I'd be worried about, but I'm not. I know pilots, and they have the training to deal with about anything up there.
Whats also questionable is why didn't they pick up anything before taking off? Lots of factors at play.

 

[kat06sa]

Whats also questionable is why didn't they pick up anything before taking off?

Really now.

 

[genetic]

...and the situation will only get worse.

Really?

Look at the incidents that happen every day across the globe with all airlines.

Aircraft are mechanical machines, and things go wrong every day - nearly all planes suffer from glitches no matter their maintenance track record.

Incident Qatar B773 over Atlantic on Dec 4th 2016, turbulence causes 3 injuries
Incident SAA A346 at New York on Dec 3rd 2016, could not retract flaps
Incident Delta B763 near London on Dec 2nd 2016, smoke in cockpit
Incident Azul E195 near Fortaleza on Dec 2nd 2016, burning odour on board
Incident Eurowings A332 at Phuket on Nov 26th 2016, rejected takeoff due to bird strike
Incident VivaColombia A320 near Medellin on Nov 28th 2016, suspected fuel leak
Incident Lufthansa A346 near Florence on Nov 24th 2016, engine shut down in flight
Incident Skywest CRJ2 at Pellston on Dec 4th 2016, runway excursion on landing
Accident Skywest E175 at San Antonio on Dec 4th 2016, nose gear collapse on landing

http://avherald.com/

 

[Idiosyncratic]

I am questioning SAA's safety record(s) due to their financial difficulties. Once you start to hit financial difficulties, you will start cutting corners on many things.

Airlines like Kulula, BA (and others) does not require bailing out from the tax payer, yet they don't have issues like SAA do recently.

One have to ask if SAA is starting to take any shortcuts due to them being in a difficult financial situation... (and that includes Mango).

There's a couple of things I want to say as a pilot. Not saying "you said this" and "you said that" - I'm just commenting on a few things.

SAA technical maintains other airlines' aircraft as well as their own. If they were trash, other airlines wouldn't come near them. As for the question about sub-standard parts - this is SAA we're talking about - in a country were CAA grounds aircraft for the stupidest of reasons. All SAA's aircraft are type certified as opposed to non-type certified. This means that in ZA, even a Cessna undercarriage saddle costs upwards from R50 000 as the regs regarding parts are extremely strict. There are a few AMOs out there that do crappy work with "cheap workarounds" (think car battery to power electric starter of a C175), but SAA tech doesn't fall under this category. CAA has grounded state owned airlines before, and cheaper parts are hard to come by in SA without anyone finding out. A friend of mine was recently grounded in Abuja after the green hydraulic system of his A340-600 failed in-flight... I'll repeat that - inflight (there was no detecting the fault on the ground - the fluid leaked out). Naturally a crap-load of paperwork had to be done - reports sent to SAA, CAA, Airbus, the works. The spares for the aircraft came straight from Germany...they waited quite some time for them. Both the technicians, Airbus, and pilots are aware that stuff like this happen from time to time - airlines like Emirates experience situations like these even more often due to their larger number of aircraft. I understand pax are concerned about their lives, but the sensationalism attached to these incidents shouldn't warrant switching airlines. Principle? Well, that's another thing.

 

[buka001]

Really?

Look at the incidents that happen every day across the globe with all airlines.

Aircraft are mechanical machines, and things go wrong every day - nearly all planes suffer from glitches no matter their maintenance track record.

Incident Qatar B773 over Atlantic on Dec 4th 2016, turbulence causes 3 injuries
Incident SAA A346 at New York on Dec 3rd 2016, could not retract flaps
Incident Delta B763 near London on Dec 2nd 2016, smoke in cockpit
Incident Azul E195 near Fortaleza on Dec 2nd 2016, burning odour on board
Incident Eurowings A332 at Phuket on Nov 26th 2016, rejected takeoff due to bird strike
Incident VivaColombia A320 near Medellin on Nov 28th 2016, suspected fuel leak
Incident Lufthansa A346 near Florence on Nov 24th 2016, engine shut down in flight
Incident Skywest CRJ2 at Pellston on Dec 4th 2016, runway excursion on landing
Accident Skywest E175 at San Antonio on Dec 4th 2016, nose gear collapse on landing

http://avherald.com/

Exactly. Overly sensationalist reporting. Really not much of an event, these types of incidents happen all the time.

 

[Idiosyncratic]

SAA Technical (SAAT) operates a full-service MRO organisation, the largest in Africa. SAAT has held full and uninterrupted US Federal Aviation Authority certification since the late nineteen eighties, serving a range of local and international airlines. SAAT is currently providing MRO services to International , Regional and local airlines to customers such as Comair, Air Austral; Air Botswana; Air France; Air Madagascar; Air Mauritius; Air Namibia; Air Zimbabwe; Arik Air; Global Aviation; LAM-Mozambique; Lufthansa; Matram; Midex ; Rwandair; TAAG-Angola and Trans Air Congo.

For those who don't know - Comair is BA SA and Kulula. Think about that next time you choose Kulula over SAA because you're scared of SAA maintenance

 

[Geoff.D]

There's a couple of things I want to say as a pilot. Not saying "you said this" and "you said that" - I'm just commenting on a few things.

SAA technical maintains other airlines' aircraft as well as their own. If they were trash, other airlines wouldn't come near them. As for the question about sub-standard parts - this is SAA we're talking about - in a country were CAA grounds aircraft for the stupidest of reasons. All SAA's aircraft are type certified as opposed to non-type certified. This means that in ZA, even a Cessna undercarriage saddle costs upwards from R50 000 as the regs regarding parts are extremely strict. There are a few AMOs out there that do crappy work with "cheap workarounds" (think car battery to power electric starter of a C175), but SAA tech doesn't fall under this category. CAA has grounded state owned airlines before, and cheaper parts are hard to come by in SA without anyone finding out. A friend of mine was recently grounded in Abuja after the green hydraulic system of his A340-600 failed in-flight... I'll repeat that - inflight (there was no detecting the fault on the ground - the fluid leaked out). Naturally a crap-load of paperwork had to be done - reports sent to SAA, CAA, Airbus, the works. The spares for the aircraft came straight from Germany...they waited quite some time for them. Both the technicians, Airbus, and pilots are aware that stuff like this happen from time to time - airlines like Emirates experience situations like these even more often due to their larger number of aircraft. I understand pax are concerned about their lives, but the sensationalism attached to these incidents shouldn't warrant switching airlines. Principle? Well, that's another thing.

For those who don't know - Comair is BA SA and Kulula. Think about that next time you choose Kulula over SAA because you're scared of SAA maintenance

Well said!

SAA and the crew in these reported instances did the absolute correct thing. We should all be grateful instead of speculating about things most us know nothing or very little. At least we got a response from a few members that are able to set the facts right.

BTW, there is another forum where I had the expectation that there would be less speculation going dealing with Airline matters.

I was unfortunately rudely made aware that speculation is now an incurable disease on just about every social media forum even highly specialised ones.

 

[ForceFate]

Considering this country's track record with the lack of maintenance...I'll be avoiding SAA like the plague.

(Yeah, I know they may have awesome engineers / aviation technicians, etc or whatever, but no thanks. Rather paranoid than possibly injured / dead somewhere down the line. [Which, incidentally, goes for a number of airlines with "bad" track records.])

Visit avherald to see how many other airlines have "malfunctions". They're not unigue to SAA (Not Myeni fan btw). Credit to hardworking engineers and technicians working hard to keep people safe every mile of the journey.

 

[ForceFate]

The problem is, do they get the correct parts? How is that maintenance done. Yes, bad parts, bad workmanship may last for a while. But at some point it will fail. I've seen this air crash stuff on Natgeo(mentioned ealier) Some airline bought parts that weren't the actual authorised parts. Part failed, plane down. you don't know this stuff until something bad happens. Thats the problem.

What does this have to do with SAA planes?

 

[ForceFate]

There's a couple of things I want to say as a pilot. Not saying "you said this" and "you said that" - I'm just commenting on a few things.

SAA technical maintains other airlines' aircraft as well as their own. If they were trash, other airlines wouldn't come near them. As for the question about sub-standard parts - this is SAA we're talking about - in a country were CAA grounds aircraft for the stupidest of reasons. All SAA's aircraft are type certified as opposed to non-type certified. This means that in ZA, even a Cessna undercarriage saddle costs upwards from R50 000 as the regs regarding parts are extremely strict. There are a few AMOs out there that do crappy work with "cheap workarounds" (think car battery to power electric starter of a C175), but SAA tech doesn't fall under this category. CAA has grounded state owned airlines before, and cheaper parts are hard to come by in SA without anyone finding out. A friend of mine was recently grounded in Abuja after the green hydraulic system of his A340-600 failed in-flight... I'll repeat that - inflight (there was no detecting the fault on the ground - the fluid leaked out). Naturally a crap-load of paperwork had to be done - reports sent to SAA, CAA, Airbus, the works. The spares for the aircraft came straight from Germany...they waited quite some time for them. Both the technicians, Airbus, and pilots are aware that stuff like this happen from time to time - airlines like Emirates experience situations like these even more often due to their larger number of aircraft. I understand pax are concerned about their lives, but the sensationalism attached to these incidents shouldn't warrant switching airlines. Principle? Well, that's another thing.

Well said.

 

[kat06sa]

Well said!

SAA and the crew in these reported instances did the absolute correct thing. We should all be grateful instead of speculating about things most us know nothing or very little. At least we got a response from a few members that are able to set the facts right.

BTW, there is another forum where I had the expectation that there would be less speculation going dealing with Airline matters.

I was unfortunately rudely made aware that speculation is now an incurable disease on just about every social media forum even highly specialised ones.

There was a dude in this thread who watched a few air crash investigations on natgeo and now questions the work done by SAAT without any facts whatsoever. Hence why I don't like commenting here.