SN BA A330 stuck in KGL

Twenty4 · Post by **Twenty4** » 01 Mar 2006, 13:20

Probaly the only Rwandan on this forum - you got some publicity from some websites like AllAfrica or The New Times.

Have to agrea that all this sounds silly, action reaction from somehow people that know eachother very well. Inside the real reason must be politicaly and economicly - Silverback doing business in Belgium!! Some Belgian cargo freights must be really pissef off. No Hard feelings thought.
But let's get back to the press release of the Rwandan Ministry of Foreign Affairs:

SN Brussels aircrafts that operate Rwanda route have been characterized by a series of defects that raise safety concerns. This has led Rwanda Civil Aviation Authority RCAA to pay particular attention to their airworthiness. Some of the past incidences that characterized SN aircrafts include:

- On 08/01/2005, aircraft Reg. No. 00-SFM developed a fuel leak which took two days to resolve.

- On 20/08/2005 a ramp inspection was carried out on SN Aircraft Reg. No. 00-SFO. Some of the findings of this inspection were lack of documents like the license for senior cabin attendant and flight operation manual (OM). Lack of an OM made it difficult to know the crew duty time and other critical data like cabin life rafts and radio license expiry dates.

- On 11/10/2005, SN aircraft Reg. No. 00-SFM developed a fuel leak as it landed. The problem was resolved by replacing a fuel filter.

It is against this background that on 21/02/2006 at 20:00 Hours a ramp inspection was carried out on SN aircraft Reg. No.00-SFM. A ramp inspection is a routine activity stipulated in the convention on International Civil Aviation, article 16 which states that: “The appropriate authorities of each of the contracting states shall have the right without unreasonable delay, to search aircraft of the other contracting states on landing or departure, and to inspect the certificates and other documents prescribed by the convention”.

As a result of this inspection a number of shortfalls were identified. They included:

- Lack of life span tags on both the Captain and Observer seat belts.
A life span tag indicates an expiry date, which is a critical data for seat belt. A seat belt, especially that of the pilot, is considered as a no-go item since it can jeopardise the safety of an entire aircraft if it is not in good condition.

- Hydraulic leak traces on the left inner slats. A hydraulic leak is a no-go item since most of the control mechanism use hydraulic systems and any leak could lead to control mechanism failure.

- Lack of Airworthiness Directives (ADs) Compliances. Some of the ADs are so critical that they cannot be left ignored and yet the SN aircraft was found to have not complied since August 2005.

- Fuel leakage on the left engine. As long as the exact source of the leakage is not known, it remains a hazardous defect because some of the components are zero leak tolerance.

These are the reasons that led to the grounding of SN Brussels Aircraft at Kigali International Airport. These findings were promptly communicated to SN Brussels Company and to Belgium Civil Aviation Authority (BCAA). There is nothing illegal or unacceptable in what was done by Rwanda Civil Aviation Authority.

It is however revealing that the Belgian authorities, without paying due attention to these technical problems of SN Brussels aircraft, immediately linked the grounding of this aircraft to that of Rwandan Aircraft belonging to private company Silverback Cargo Freighters (SCF).

Indeed since August 19, 2005, the BCAA grounded a Rwandan Cargo Aircraft belonging to SCF on baseless grounds. Reputable aircraft maintenance companies like SABENA TECHNICS of Belgium and Priority Aero Maintenance of Sweden can testify that Silverback aircraft is compliant with all safety requirements. Silverback aircrafts have been flying to Europe (UK, Holland, Belgium) and to Middle and Far East of Asia with no incident and are insured by the Lloyds of London, a reputable insurance company known for its stringent security and safety requirements.

Still BCAA has refused to release the aircraft. Instead the Kingdom of Belgium has requested the European Commission to ban Silverback Cargo Aircrafts from flying into Europe. However, on its part the European Commission before taking any decision as requested by the Belgian Authorities, has invited Silverback to a hearing in order to establish if there is any justification to the Belgian request.

It should be noted that Rwandan political authorities have so far treated the grounding of this Rwandan aircraft as a technical issue and not a political one, and have never made any contact whatsoever with Belgian political authorities about the issue.
The Government of Rwanda finds that the routine inspection of SN Brussels aircraft that resulted into its grounding has been given undue publicity with political overtones on the part of the SN Brussels management and Belgian Government authorities.

Source: http://www.minaffet.gov.rw/press.php?su ... om=&ucat=2&

sn-remember · Post by **sn-remember** » 01 Mar 2006, 14:30

Maybe blocking the Silverback a/c in bru can hurt some feelings...
Maybe just letting the a/c take off at that time while banning it from bru would have been more "politically correct" ?
However the European Union procedure being applied, the ball is now in SCA's hands it seems.
@Regi
BTW I did'nt know Reginal Moreel was such an aviation fan .. ;o)
@...
Ah yes I don't see the impact to know if the pilot would be the famous actor's brother...?

LX-LGX · Post by **LX-LGX** » 01 Mar 2006, 15:43

Would be great of luchtzakkers with technical knowledge could react on the above accusations

http://www.minaffet.gov.rw/press.php?su ... om=&ucat=2&

UltraSonic · Post by **UltraSonic** » 01 Mar 2006, 16:26

LX-LGX wrote:Would be great of luchtzakkers with technical knowledge could react on the above accusations

http://www.minaffet.gov.rw/press.php?su ... om=&ucat=2&

There have been some replies that can explain allot.

- Every engine looses fluid when an aircraft is not flying, it's normal. The fluid is "drained" out. It can be either oil wich gets tinner when it cools down or it can be either condense due to temperature difference.

- I personally don't by the hydraulic leak story at the left inner slats. No cockpit crew, especially not a Belgian one (sigh) would even consider taking off with any hydraulic error, being it a leak or a warning. The hydraulic fluid is the blood of the aircraft.

- The "Lack of Airworthiness Directives" baffled me, especially since they say it has been since August 2005. If i read correct they already checked this aircraft AFTER August 2005 and still it was put on green without any problem so my question would be: why did they make a problem of that socalled "lack of airworthiness directives" now and not before. Possible answer: it's simply not true.

- The lack of life span tags on both the Captain and Observer seat belts ARE infact no go reasons. Now i'm not totally 100% sure about my next comment so if somebody knows i'm wrong, please correct me but i think those are checked in the normal technical checks that every aircraft should undergo (A check and so on) and can be found back in the log. Wouldn't it be that most aircrafts don't have these but authorities mostly look at logs for stuff like that? I might be wrong though.

dna · Post by **dna** » 01 Mar 2006, 16:56

And the saga continues. According to the Rwandan foreign minister SNBA did not offer any support to stranded passengers from Rwanda and Burundi, accusing the airline of discrimination.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4758916.stm

killerwhale65 · Post by **killerwhale65** » 01 Mar 2006, 17:12

lol, thats not what the passengers tell ...

But that from the BBC? I thought they were more professional ...

Post by **sn26567** » 01 Mar 2006, 17:41

dna wrote:And the saga continues. According to the Rwandan foreign minister SNBA did not offer any support to stranded passengers from Rwanda and Burundi, accusing the airline of discrimination.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4758916.stm

Were there only passengers from The Netherlands, Rwanda and Burundi on that plane? How were the citizens from other countries treated?

Now, let's be fair: if the incident had happened in Brussels, would most Belgian passengers not have returned home until the issue was solved?

Airbus330lover · Post by **Airbus330lover** » 01 Mar 2006, 17:57

sn26567 wrote:Now, let's be fair: if the incident had happened in Brussels, would most Belgian passengers not have returned home until the issue was solved?

Just !

Back to the topic.

Everything is said, and more comments are not needed.
This gives to much publicity to Rwanda....

Enough is enough

Post by **Kapitein** » 01 Mar 2006, 18:16

Twenty4 wrote: - On 08/01/2005, aircraft Reg. No. 00-SFM developed a fuel leak which took two days to resolve.

- On 11/10/2005, SN aircraft Reg. No. 00-SFM developed a fuel leak as it landed. The problem was resolved by replacing a fuel filter.

Sorry to disappoint you but OO-SFM landed safely in BRU on 09/01/2005 and departed again the same day ---> no 2 days grounded.
Secondly: On 08/01/2005 the aircraft wasn't in KGL.

Same story on 11/10/2005 the aircraft, OO-SFM, hasn't flown to KGL.

Telspace · Post by **Telspace** » 01 Mar 2006, 18:44

Hi,

Up to now, SNBA hasn't published any comment.
Don't you think it is about time ?

Denis

Avro · Post by **Avro** » 01 Mar 2006, 18:52

Brubiac wrote:
Twenty4 wrote: - On 08/01/2005, aircraft Reg. No. 00-SFM developed a fuel leak which took two days to resolve.

- On 11/10/2005, SN aircraft Reg. No. 00-SFM developed a fuel leak as it landed. The problem was resolved by replacing a fuel filter.

Sorry to disappoint you but OO-SFM landed safely in BRU on 09/01/2005 and departed again the same day ---> no 2 days grounded.
Secondly: On 08/01/2005 the aircraft wasn't in KGL.

Same story on 11/10/2005 the aircraft, OO-SFM, hasn't flown to KGL.

Now that those 2 statements are ruled out I wonder how credible the other points in Twenty4's post are

Post by **Kapitein** » 01 Mar 2006, 20:27

Twenty4 wrote: On 20/08/2005 a ramp inspection was carried out on SN Aircraft Reg. No. 00-SFO. Some of the findings of this inspection were lack of documents like the license for senior cabin attendant and flight operation manual (OM). Lack of an OM made it difficult to know the crew duty time and other critical data like cabin life rafts and radio license expiry dates.

After doing some more searching I found this:
OO-SFO hasn't flown to KGL on date 20/08/2005.

Twenty4, I don't know if you sucked you story out of your thumb or maybe heard it somewhere, I can assure you it's B :censored: t what you where telling.

LX-LGX · Post by **LX-LGX** » 01 Mar 2006, 21:35

Brubiac, don't shoot the pianist: twenty4 has given us his source: an official press release from the Foreign Office Ruanda. Seems he lives in Kigali, and I can understand he believes his officials. Believe me: I believe you if you say it isn't true, but that not the kind of anti-proof we need against these accusations. Because, let's face it: the A330's aren't that new.

It would be excellent news for both SNBA and Guy Vrhfstdt if somebody could give a more detailled answer against each of the three accusations:

On 08/01/2005, aircraft Reg. No. 00-SFM developed a fuel leak which took two days to resolve.

anti-proof: when (= exact time) did SFM returned to BRU on 09/01/2005?

On 20/08/2005 a ramp inspection was carried out on SN Aircraft Reg. No. 00-SFO. Some of the findings of this inspection were lack of documents like the license for senior cabin attendant and flight operation manual (OM). Lack of an OM made it difficult to know the crew duty time and other critical data like cabin life rafts and radio license expiry dates.

anti-proof could be: was SFO indeed in Kigali on 20/08/2005? Was there an inspection?

On 11/10/2005, SN aircraft Reg. No. 00-SFM developed a fuel leak as it landed. The problem was resolved by replacing a fuel filter.

anti-proof could be: was SFM in Kigali on 11/10/2005? Any notice from Sabena Technics?

OO-VEX · Post by **OO-VEX** » 02 Mar 2006, 00:08

Twenty4 wrote:Inside the real reason must be politicaly and economicly - Silverback doing business in Belgium!! Some Belgian cargo freights must be really pissef off. No Hard feelings thought.

Silverback was flying for Ethiopian, now DAS Air Cargo is flying for them. So which Belgian company was upset?? It was ET cargo onboard and it still is.

Twenty4 wrote:Indeed since August 19, 2005, the BCAA grounded a Rwandan Cargo Aircraft belonging to SCF on baseless grounds. Reputable aircraft maintenance companies like SABENA TECHNICS of Belgium and Priority Aero Maintenance of Sweden can testify that Silverback aircraft is compliant with all safety requirements.

So they call SABENA TECHNICS a reputable company? But guess who is doing the maintenance of the SN A330's? Yes, SABENA TECHNICS!

Twenty4 wrote:Still BCAA has refused to release the aircraft. Instead the Kingdom of Belgium has requested the European Commission to ban Silverback Cargo Aircrafts from flying into Europe. However, on its part the European Commission before taking any decision as requested by the Belgian Authorities, has invited Silverback to a hearing in order to establish if there is any justification to the Belgian request.

An airline will be banned in Europe in the future, when that airline is banned in one of it's member states. So in this case, there was no other option for the government to pass their blacklist to the European Commission. So you cannot consider this as a Belgian request to ban Silverback in Europe. By being banned in Belgium, you could have expected this already in august. It was only a matter of time before the European Union has it's own blacklist. What happened now, is only an official letter to tell them the news.

OO-VEX

Twenty4 · Post by **Twenty4** » 02 Mar 2006, 11:06

Guys, its good to hear from both sides. But what if really the plane couldn't take off due to lack of safety documents on board and maintenance irregularities?
I've taken several times first Sabena and SN and believe delays was so common for technical reasons.
If the Rwanda Civil Aviation has act out of the law than we're waiting a serious responds from SNBA officials. Why are they so quiet??
How come the pilot of 00-SFO after detecting the technical problems and stopping the Airbus from taking-off, told the passengers that the plane was not leaving due to political issues?
SNBA is just using the Belgian Authorities as kids who asks help to protect them - it's only Verhofstad who commented on the SNBA issue.

Let's make things easier: let that Silverback go home and ban it from Belgium airspace because at the end it's SN who suffers from a very profitable routing (1.275 Euro). Air France with KLM must be happy so see the fight go on.

Dont eat me raw,
24

thermo · Post by **thermo** » 02 Mar 2006, 13:03

If I were SNBA, I would simply stop flying to Rwanda. "Countries" like that don't deserve a Western airline.

SN_fan · Post by **SN_fan** » 02 Mar 2006, 15:12

Twenty4 wrote:Let's make things easier: let that Silverback go home and ban it from Belgium airspace because at the end it's SN who suffers from a very profitable routing (1.275 Euro). Air France with KLM must be happy so see the fight go on.

Dont eat me raw,
24

It's maybe simplistic but letting the plane go. If it doesn't crash no problem but what if it crash and people on the ground die? Who will take the responsibility for that?

SN_fan · Post by **SN_fan** » 02 Mar 2006, 15:13

SN_fan wrote:
Twenty4 wrote:Let's make things easier: let that Silverback go home and ban it from Belgium airspace because at the end it's SN who suffers from a very profitable routing (1.275 Euro). Air France with KLM must be happy so see the fight go on.

Dont eat me raw,
24
It's maybe simplistic but letting the plane go. If it doesn't crash no problem but what if it crash and people on the ground die? Who will take the responsibility for that?
This said with the information that the airplane isn't airworthy

9XR-BEN · Post by **9XR-BEN** » 02 Mar 2006, 15:15

From the beginning of this saga I wondered why all this ?

As long as SNBA keeps its mouth shut, we cannot have valid ideas on the subject. Who is right who is wrong ? I can't tell !

Silverback grounded, was it the best way of handling the case ?

If the Belgian Aviation Authority decided to play it by the rules why denying this prerogative to the Rwanda Aviation Authority ?

One should be honest and recognize that when within their boundaries , Westerners tend to be more Catholics than the Pope himself if Africa is involved.

OO-SFM is an aircraft with problems. As a frequentflyer I can testify the numerous delays I encountered. This is one of the reasons why I decided not to use SNBA on this Brussels-Kigali route. A330's are getting old, no wonder for those multiple technical problems. So please guys do not have this upset virgin attitude when a foreign body grounds one of SNBA aircrafts.

Now some have seen a political case on this. They may be right, they may be wrong. But both parties do not agree on that. For sure, we know technical uncertainity was a major factor for the grounding of both aircrafts. As a pilot, as a passenger, as a person on the ground I would prefer that uncertainity be avoid in that matter.

Post by **sn26567** » 02 Mar 2006, 16:49

Latest comments from Rwanda's New Times

Again, Rwanda says there are only technical reasons, no political reasons. I agree with several other members that it is about time SN BA (and perhaps also Sabena Technics, although they have to keep some reserve) tells exactly what happened with that plane in Kigali. Only to dtop the rumours and allegations.

Did the pilot really tell the passengers that the plane was not allowed to leave for political reasons?

Did SN BA really give transit tickets from Nairobi to Rwanda only to white passengers (hard to believe)?

Come on, SN BA: you have been accused; what do you respond?