OO-TUC stuck in Dominican Republic.

fcw · Post by **fcw** » 06 Jan 2007, 21:34

Tommypilot wrote:
JAFflyer wrote:About the place where the incident occured the rabbit was indeed sucked into the engine at BRU but as all parameters were normal (such as engine vibrations), the flight was continued as planned.
You are kidding, right?

Perhaps the crew didn't notice that there was a rabbit strike during take off? If they did so...they should have stopped the plane...
.

I hope you are kidding!!!
Aborting a take off without a single indication of a malfunction...

TCAS_climb · Post by **TCAS_climb** » 06 Jan 2007, 21:42

Supposing you really strike a small animal during TO run...

1. Maybe you won't notice it because the damn furry ball wasn't in your field of vision just a second before you hit it. Both pilots don't look outside during the whole TO run.
2. Maybe you did notice it...

But in any case bear in mind that the TO run is both a very short and a very tense period of time. Pilots are trained to make quick decisions based on facts and any available information. What can be the facts/info in that kind of situation ?

a. sound (if the engine blows up or the compressor stalls)
b. accelerations (is the aircraft still accelerating or slowing down? is it yawing left or right ?)
c. visual cues: engine indications, bright orange glow in foggy weather, etc.

And it all happens so fast. I can understand that the pilots didn't stop if the indications were in the normal range.

Add to that the rather common "go-minded philosophy" among flight crews: if you have a problem passed ±100 kts, you continue the TO even if the problem occurs before V1... unless the aircraft slows down by itself of course. Stopping an aircraft at MTOW close to V1 is certainly not a piece of cake, and it can end up in much more trouble than if you give yourself the time to prepare the aircraft for an emergency landing. Ask Airbus what happened with their A340-600...

Tommypilot · Post by **Tommypilot** » 06 Jan 2007, 21:57

fcw wrote:I hope you are kidding!!!
Aborting a take off without a single indication of a malfunction...

And taking the risk that your engine parameters will drop to non-normal when you are over the Atlantic Ocean...I am never kidding...

They should have aborted take-off or returned back to Brussels...(sorry for the confusion in my previous sentence)

Avro · Post by **Avro** » 06 Jan 2007, 23:12

JAFflyer wrote: About the place where the incident occured the rabbit was indeed sucked into the engine at BRU but as all parameters were normal (such as engine vibrations), the flight was continued as planned.

I can agree with fcw and TECA_climb about not aboarding the T/O if there were no malfunctions noted.

However there is one thing I don't understand.

They continued the flight to the final destination without any problems. This leads to the conclusion that the engine wasn't "badly" damaged if damaged at all ? Or at least the engine was "good enough" to fly passengers in the air...
So why was it suddenly unserviceable for its return flight to Brussels ?
Did they find some damage which was beyond limits ? If yes why did the flight continue to the caribean in the first place then - the damage was already present when leaving Brussels ??? And does someone know the exact damage which caused the grounding of the aircraft ?

I know the pilots didn't find any malfunctions and continued the route, but how high is the probablity to get an unserviceable engine after such a strike ??
Wouldn't it have been a wiser solution to return to Brussels? It would have been quicker to repair the engine here I suppose as we have SN Technics right at the airport.

I would be glad if someone could answer some of my questions

Chris

rut-her · Post by **rut-her** » 06 Jan 2007, 23:19

Avro wrote: So why was it suddenly unserviceable for its return flight to Brussels ?

That's something I'd like to know too ...

Post by **Bottie** » 06 Jan 2007, 23:26

rut-her wrote:
Avro wrote: So why was it suddenly unserviceable for its return flight to Brussels ?
That's something I'd like to know too ...

As far I understood the article in the newspaper, someone of JAF said they noticed the damage when checking the engine before leaving the Dominican Republic (although I don't understand how they knew it was a rabbit, I presume after crossing the atlantic there not that much left of a rabbit that was sucked in during take-off?)

Ozzie1969 · Post by **Ozzie1969** » 06 Jan 2007, 23:42

Bottie wrote:
rut-her wrote:
Avro wrote: So why was it suddenly unserviceable for its return flight to Brussels ?
That's something I'd like to know too ...
As far I understood the article in the newspaper, someone of JAF said they noticed the damage when checking the engine before leaving the Dominican Republic (although I don't understand how they knew it was a rabbit, I presume after crossing the atlantic there not that much left of a rabbit that was sucked in during take-off?)

Lucky it wasn't an elephant, that's what I say!

Cartman · Post by **Cartman** » 07 Jan 2007, 01:33

*sigh* This can't be so hard to understand...

Take-off in BRU. Rabbit gets sucked in engine. Crew doesn't notice anything, no trembling, no smoke, no strange noise, all indicators are on normal. Hardly a reason for returning to the airport, is it?

Landing in POP (or PUJ, whatever). Before taking off again, someone checks the engines and notices some sort of damage. As a precaution (and the state of being of OO-TUC in mind) the crew decides not to take off. A wise decision I'd say.

And that's how simple it is.

Flying back to BRU to get it fixed there by SN technics? Nice thought, but if you're not sure that you can actually lift-off in a safe way, you better stay where you are.

Wise decisions from JAF, although I don't agree at all with the way the passengers were treated.

But I'm also curious to know how after a 10-hour flight, they found out it was a rabbit...

TCAS_climb · Post by **TCAS_climb** » 07 Jan 2007, 09:32

Sliced carrots stuck in the bleed valves ?

Tommypilot · Post by **Tommypilot** » 07 Jan 2007, 10:10

Cartman wrote:(and the state of being of OO-TUC in mind)

Nothing to do with it...OO-TUC or PH-MCM...every (good) crew and operations would have made the same decision...

Cartman wrote:And that's how simple it is

Aviation is never too simple...

Cartman wrote:Flying back to BRU to get it fixed there by SN technics? Nice thought, but if you're not sure that you can actually lift-off in a safe way, you better stay where you are.

Read the post of Chris again please...I am sure he meant flying back to BRU right after take-off...

So my conclusion...the crew didn't notice anything...even not that something "hit" one of the engines...then it should all become clear for me.

Kind regards,

LX-LGX · Post by **LX-LGX** » 07 Jan 2007, 16:17

Let's not make this a technical discussion. The technical problem with OO-TUC is not the main reason why this story became our top news. It was hot news because both the travel trade and the Belgian press have realized that Jetairfly and Jetair have resolved the problem at the cheapest way for them.

It was indeed high season for tourism / charter flights, but it was also low season for business / scheduled flights. Planes thus were available, but not at the cost that was calculated by Jetair's brochure makers.

The way Jetair and Jetairfly have announced that the trip was cancelled and that the 260 pax will get a refund of 30 % is a scandal (trust these tourists meanwhile know they can apply for 100 % compensation).

The damage of this attitude to the Belgian travel trade (including airlines) is huge. As a result, many Belgian tourists will choose a real LCC next time.

744rules · Post by **744rules** » 07 Jan 2007, 17:44

LX-LGX wrote: The way Jetair and Jetairfly have announced that the trip was cancelled and that the 260 pax will get a refund of 30 % is a scandal (trust these tourists meanwhile know they can apply for 100 % compensation).

I understood (from the media) the pax would get their whole holiday refunded plus 30 to 50% additional as compensation.

Of course, this doesn't justify their poor communcation

Post by **Bottie** » 07 Jan 2007, 17:48

744rules wrote:
LX-LGX wrote: The way Jetair and Jetairfly have announced that the trip was cancelled and that the 260 pax will get a refund of 30 % is a scandal (trust these tourists meanwhile know they can apply for 100 % compensation).

I understood (from the media) the pax would get their whole holiday refunded plus 30 to 50% additional as compensation.

That's what I heard also

LX-LGX · Post by **LX-LGX** » 07 Jan 2007, 20:20

Allow me to disagree.

The contract between the client (tourist) and Jetair is settled by the "Algemene Voorwaarden van de Geschillencommissie Reizen vzw" / "Conditions générales de la Commission de Litiges Voyages asbl". Translated, that's something like General Conditions from the "Commission for Travel Disputes" (an independent Foundation).

Article 14 §4 is clear: in certain circumstances, clients may ask for twice the amount paid. Because they are legally entitled to a 100 % refund, the stranded pax may ask for 100% compensation, and not 30% as offered by Jetair.

- - -

I guess Jetair will apply at the Commission that the damage was caused by an act of God (overmacht / force majeure), and that is correct.

However, that argument "hand of God" is only valid for the initial delay (our rabbit). More important are the cancellations. And they are caused by own decisions: 1) the absence of a decent back up plan, 2) Brittannia who preferred the income from Hadji-pax above satisfying TUI-clients. Furthermore, Jetair is responsible for their subcontractors: EuroAtlantic promised them an aircraft (our L-1011), but that plane finally was not ready.

- - -

NL:

http://mineco.fgov.be/protection_consum ... nl_005.htm

FR:

http://mineco.fgov.be/protection_consum ... fr_005.htm

- - -

Full text Article 14 in Dutch and French

(sorry, this is a Belgian consumer law and therefore there is no English version available):

Artikel 14: Aansprakelijkheid van de reisorganisator

De reisorganisator is aansprakelijk voor de goede uitvoering van het contract, overeenkomstig de verwachtingen die de reiziger op grond van de bepalingen van het contract tot reisorganisatie redelijkerwijs mag hebben, en voor de uit het contract voortvloeiende verplichtingen, ongeacht of deze verplichtingen zijn uit te voeren door hem zelf dan wel door andere verstrekkers van diensten en zulks onverminderd het recht van de reisorganisator om deze andere verstrekkers van diensten aan te spreken.

De reisorganisator is voor de daden van nalatigheid van zijn aangestelden en vertegenwoordigers, handelend in de uitoefening van hun functie, evenzeer aansprakelijk als voor zijn eigen daden en nalatigheden.

Indien een internationaal verdrag van toepassing is op een in het contract tot reisorganisa-tie inbegrepen dienst, wordt de aansprakelijkheid van de reisorganisator overeenkomstig dat verdrag uitgesloten of beperkt.

Voor zover de reisorganisator niet zelf de in het reiscontract voorziene diensten verleent, wordt zijn aansprakelijkheid voor stoffelijke schade en de vergoeding van de derving van het reisgenot samen beperkt tot tweemaal de reissom.

Voor het overige zijn de artikelen 18 en 19 van de wet van 16 februari 1994 van toepassing.

- - -

Article 14 : Responsabilité de l'organisateur de voyages

L'organisateur de voyages est responsable de la bonne exécution du contrat conformément aux attentes que le voyageur peut raisonnablement avoir sur la base des dispositions du contrat d'organisation de voyages et des obligations découlant de celui-ci, indépendamment du fait que ces obligations doivent être remplies par lui-même ou d'autres prestataires de services, et ce sans préjudice du droit de l'organisateur de voyages de poursuivre les autres prestataires de services en responsabilité.

L'organisateur de voyages est responsable des actes et négligences de ses préposés et représentants, agissant dans l'exercice de leurs fonctions, autant que de ses propres actes et négligences.

Si une convention internationale s’applique à une prestation faisant l'objet du contrat d’organisation de voyages, la responsabilité de l'organisateur de voyages est exclue ou limitée conformément à cette convention.

Pour autant que l'organisateur de voyages n'exécute pas lui-même les prestations de services prévues dans le contrat, sa responsabilité cumulée pour dommages matériels et la perte de la jouissance du voyage est limitée à concurrence de deux fois le prix du voyage.

Pour le surplus, les articles 18 et 19 de la loi du 16 févier 1994 sont d'application.

JAFflyer · Post by **JAFflyer** » 07 Jan 2007, 21:58

It's 130%- 150% for the pax who couldn't depart.

And @ LX-LGX: Did you go on a search on the 1st, 2nd and 3rd of January for a LONG HAUL aircraft with LONG HAUL crew available? (that equals 2 cockpit crews and 2 cabin crews) If yes, please tell me in which magical land you have found that aircraft. As also Arkefly was looking at an aircraft at that time, I'm sure they will also be interested in what you've found.
Don't make assumptions, it's not because there is a desert in Arizona full of aircraft, that you have operators to operate it.
And again, to find an airline to operate into Cuba is not that easy to find!
Today's airline industry is calculated to have just enough aircraft and just enough crew to operate it, otherwise you're not cost effective. So be sure, that at January the 1st, 2nd and 3rd, airplanes and crews were not falling out of the sky.

fcw · Post by **fcw** » 07 Jan 2007, 23:03

JAFflyer wrote:It's 130%- 150% for the pax who couldn't depart.

JAF could you be a bit clearer?

That they are entitled to 100% refund that is absolutely normal!!!
Are you saying on top of that they received 130% compensation or are we twisting figures?

Post by **Bottie** » 07 Jan 2007, 23:58

fcw wrote:
JAFflyer wrote:It's 130%- 150% for the pax who couldn't depart.

JAF could you be a bit clearer?

That they are entitled to 100% refund that is absolutely normal!!!
Are you saying on top of that they received 130% compensation or are we twisting figures?

100% of the paid money for the holiday, 30-50% compensation.

fcw · Post by **fcw** » 08 Jan 2007, 00:12

Bottie wrote:
fcw wrote:
JAFflyer wrote:It's 130%- 150% for the pax who couldn't depart.

JAF could you be a bit clearer?

That they are entitled to 100% refund that is absolutely normal!!!
Are you saying on top of that they received 130% compensation or are we twisting figures?
100% of the paid money for the holiday, 30-50% compensation.

So they spoil your holidays and don't even pay the legal compensation of 100%!

Nice publicity Jet Air.

LX-LGX · Post by **LX-LGX** » 08 Jan 2007, 00:51

Pax are offered 130 to 150%.

The first 100 % is the refund. That's not a gesture: that's a legal obligation.

The 30 % is Jetair's offer. I've also heard Hans VH (Jetair) saying it will be "30 to 50 %". But as all pax were booked on the same flight, why that difference? Could well be that some pax indeed will get 50%, but if not all pax get it, I prefer to say it's only 30%

Some pax, f.e. honeymooners, will be advised by Test-Aankoop / Test-Achats not to go to the Geschillencommissie / Litiges Voyages, but to go to court and ask for 100% refund, 100% compensation and a voucher for a second honeymoon.

JAFlyer: I'm not running an airline - I only see, like many others - that those who are paid to do so, with all respect, are unable to do so if things go wrong very badly. Taking in mind OO-TUC's history, there should have been a decent backup plan (and thus not only relying on CS-TEB). Also during peak holiday season.

The Flemish newspaper Het Laatste Nieuws wrote on 5th January: quote: "Het is lang geleden dat we in ons land nog zo'n flagrant geval van onprofessioneel gedrag van een touroperator hebben beleefd." Trust you agree I don't translate this.

Cartman · Post by **Cartman** » 08 Jan 2007, 02:36

JAFflyer wrote:So be sure, that at January the 1st, 2nd and 3rd, airplanes and crews were not falling out of the sky.

I sincerely hope for JAF that this won't happen in the future either

Today announced that OO-TUC has a further delay of 30 hours, still due to the rabbit incident. 250 passengers stuck in Mexico, lots of them are supposed to be at work monday. Departing flight JAF103/08JAN delayed till 1400 (in theory at least).

What did the rabbit say when OO-TUC's engine came too close to his nest?
- "This really sucks"

8)