Some countries already have blacklists

B737229 · Post by **B737229** » 29 Aug 2005, 13:36

Silverback is also on the Belgian Blacklist! Do they still operate into Brussels?

n5528p · Post by **n5528p** » 29 Aug 2005, 13:42

HorsePower wrote:Here is the french black list.
5 airlines involved so far.

Great - really helpul in plannig my vacations in September. :plane:

Regards, Bernhard

Rago · Post by **Rago** » 29 Aug 2005, 14:11

The only thing you get with a blacklist is that you kick the problem to another location... That's the easiest way of playing it "safe"...
If you ground the planes instead, that will hurt the bad companies, and will push them to respect the rules.
Now instead of solving the safety risks, they are only re-locating the potential disaster-zones...

Lyulka · Post by **Lyulka** » 29 Aug 2005, 14:27

B737229 wrote:Silverback is also on the Belgian Blacklist! Do they still operate into Brussels?

yes, for Ethiopean I think

B737229 · Post by **B737229** » 29 Aug 2005, 14:34

Lyulka wrote: yes, for Ethiopean I think

Ok for ET or not, should not matter. If Silverback is banned from B, their aircraft should also be banned, independant if operating for other companies,or not?

Pluto777 · Post by **Pluto777** » 29 Aug 2005, 17:27

A few weeks ago I posted my opinion about safety versus economics.
According to some persons, there was absolutely nothing wrong with safety, nor with the maintenance, in europe.
Now a few weeks later, there are already 4 countries starting-up a black list.
So, i don't think these blacklists are intended to deal with bad quality of the on-board services of some companies, but rather to compare the safety.

I agree, the question is... will a black-list solve the problem ? I have my doubts.
I think a better solution is to decrease the number of unattended technical inspections on airplanes.
If they discover critical malfunctions or malfunctions that have not being solved for a certain time, the company (not the captain) is obliged to pay high penalties, ex. up to 1.000.000 Euros

SilverJET · Post by **SilverJET** » 29 Aug 2005, 19:38

May we conclude this is the reason why Johnson Air is flying to MST since a couple of weeks. 9G-PEL DC-8 is visiting MST, next flight is due on 31/08

LJ · Post by LJ » 29 Aug 2005, 22:26

Have I dreamed something as I really thought I saw a Silverback DC-8 at BRU on August 21st... However they're now seem to be blacklisted.

LX-LGX · Post by **LX-LGX** » 30 Aug 2005, 00:24

Yes, LJ : look at the Spotters Database on this site for August:

15/08/2005 : 9XR-SC

DC8-62F

Silverback Cargo Freighters for Ethiopean Airlines

also on 18,19,22,24 August

http://www.planepictures.net/netshow.php?id=374786

HorsePower · Post by **HorsePower** » 30 Aug 2005, 00:48

It should be noted that these airlines may be permitted to offer services to the UK (Belgium?), and issued with a permit, if these services are contracted out and operated by another airline.

Seb.

Pluto777 · Post by **Pluto777** » 30 Aug 2005, 09:25

Please guys, start a new topic about silverback...

chunk · Post by **chunk** » 30 Aug 2005, 10:35

A blacklist in this form is a pretty blunt instrument. Who is it punishing? The airline blacklisted could in theory just start flying to another country - in which they are not blacklisted and the problem is not solved, it is just shifted. One idea may be to blacklist entire countries if an airline is not deemed safe - this would need to be done by the EU to have any real power. Given that it is (usually) government that is responsible for monitoring airline safety then maybe it will provide a rocket up the ass to those that allow these airlines to fly in the first place? I know that this would punish, for example, Thai Airlines because Phuket is on there - but it may also prompt action by the Thai authorities to make sure these airlines play by the rules or go away. Bit of a sledgehammer to crack a nut maybe but it could work. One problem however would be where we have owners in one country but operating in another - which to be fair is often the case with owners wishing to by-pass more stringent laws!

LJ · Post by LJ » 30 Aug 2005, 11:09

The spokesperson of the IVW (the Dutch equivalent of the FAA) made a very valid point. Why make a blacklist public if these airlines are already banned from ones airspace?? It's impossible to fly an already banned airline thus making it public is strange.

However warn about specific airlines is better

The airline blacklisted could in theory just start flying to another country - in which they are not blacklisted and the problem is not solved, it is just shifted

As happenned in the Onur Air case

Moreover one can start a new airline (different name, same management, same problems)

n5528p · Post by **n5528p** » 30 Aug 2005, 12:18

LJ wrote:Moreover one can start a new airline (different name, same management, same problems)

New airline

strict checks....

Not only it would prevent airlines to just change their name, it would also provide for equal conditions in the market, since EVERYONE has to comply with the same standards and no airline is tempted to start with killer fares which are completely unreasonable.

I wonder why it is so difficult to get that in the heads of the authorities.

Regards, Bernhard

n5528p · Post by **n5528p** » 30 Aug 2005, 12:34

chunk wrote:A blacklist in this form is a pretty blunt instrument. Who is it punishing? The airline blacklisted could in theory just start flying to another country - in which they are not blacklisted and the problem is not solved, it is just shifted. One idea may be to blacklist entire countries if an airline is not deemed safe - this would need to be done by the EU to have any real power.

Well in the case the airline just chooses to serve other countries, the blacklist may even help a bit since also an Australian Pax could access the French database - of course only theoretically, because the website where it is available is not provided in English.

(And yes, we are talking about INTERNATIONAL aviation, and yes, one would hope that other authorities would also access this database to check theirs - no glue why such important things are not available in English. Perhaps this show is also for the people who are alowed to vote in France and not for aviation safety???)

And when we are talking about blunt instruments: Banning entire countries is absolutely useless - we are talking about identifying airlines which are unsafe - it is not the intention (at least I hope so) to bash entire countries for the sins of some citizens.

Regards, Bernhard

chunk · Post by **chunk** » 30 Aug 2005, 14:06

As a deterrent it could work though. It would have to get pretty bad for a country to be banned but if the threat is there then maybe that countries civil aviation authoirty would be more inclined to do its job properly! Just an idea.....ultimately though there needs to be some serious internation policing done to solve this problem. And it ain't just in less developed countries either - remember the Alaska Airlines crash a few yrs ago off the pacific? Was that not down to dodgy maintenance procedure? I seem to recall it was.....

n5528p · Post by **n5528p** » 30 Aug 2005, 14:12

chunk wrote:ultimately though there needs to be some serious internation policing done to solve this problem.

I absolutely agree with you ni that.

But I think it serves the people more if you punish the company who does not stick to the rules and not other companies who face higher costs for correct maintenance and again costs because they have to cancel flights because their nation has been banned. There is no use in that, its just rude and offending from my point of view.

This measure should only be taken if the authority in this case does not fulfill its duties - consequently they certificates issued by them are useless.

Regards, Bernhard

chunk · Post by **chunk** » 30 Aug 2005, 16:43

This measure should only be taken if the authority in this case does not fulfill its duties - consequently they certificates issued by them are useless.

Looks like we are in violent agreement here! Unfortuately this does appear to be the case in some contries at the moment - otherwise these death traps wouldn't have operating licenses!

Rago · Post by **Rago** » 30 Aug 2005, 20:15

Pluto777 wrote: According to some persons, there was absolutely nothing wrong with safety, nor with the maintenance, in europe.

Nobody pretended that there's nothing wrong with safety or maintenance, but "some people" tried to make it clear to you that if you're accusing somebody of something, you must make your accusations hard with hard evidence, and you didn't or couldn't...