Cemair grounded again

Discussions pertaining to Airline operations,safety and training for Flight Deck Crew. Open to anyone who would like to learn all aspects of the Airline industry from a pilots perspective.

Moderator: Moderators

grounded
Aircraft in Hangar
Posts: 19
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2018 9:48 pm
Closest Airfield: FAGC
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Cemair grounded again

Unread post by grounded » Fri Jan 11, 2019 11:07 pm

GL wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 10:32 pm
6. During the audit, the SACAA also learnt that an aircraft manufacturer had given CemAir an assessment of their aircraft maintenance schedule with findings and recommendations on what the operator needed to do in order to get the maintenance status of their fleet on track, and worryingly the operator could not produce sufficient evidence to authenticate that all recommendations were fully implemented. Ignoring manufacturer’s recommendations is not only bizarre but is also a very serious and dangerous omission that should be avoided at all cost by any licence-holder.
This appears the core of the CAA's issues and these are manufacturers recommendations not compulsory ADs or even SBs. So have they grounded the airline for not meeting recommendations?
And yet again why ground it on a Friday after close of business - surely one can only conclude that it was to cause maximum harm to the airline and the stranded pax? - and to keep the airline grounded again until it can once again get an urgent court order to stop the CAA?
how very convenient to highlight the recommendations portion of the statement, but totally omit the "an assessment of their aircraft maintenance schedule with findings and recommendations on what the operator needed to do"

The findings are the more serious errors.
the recommendations could be related to how Cemair should/could proceed to adress the findings
which it seems that they possibly choose to ignore
User avatar
happyskipper
Tree Tousand
Tree Tousand
Posts: 3751
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 6:55 pm
Closest Airfield: FQNC
Location: In the cloud
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Cemair grounded again

Unread post by happyskipper » Fri Jan 11, 2019 11:17 pm

cage wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 6:22 pm
So it would appear that there had been groundings of the fleet (8) aircraft so the posts here were true.
(Sorry mr skipper)

Wonder if it relates to tcas updates?
Once again, I find the wording of this press statement to be rather broad in it's explanation of the situation. I know that it is not CAA's place to bring this info to the public, but since they have begun to do so, perhaps they could be a little more specific with their accusations..... stating that Cemair cannot prove the airworthiness of their aircraft leaves a whole wide spectrum of supposition and speculation to result. So, reaching the conclusion that previous posts were true is, surely, a bit of a stretch......

I am not going to make the same mistake again, though, as I have more important priorities in my life right now, and will gracefully bow out before I am ripped apart by those who feed on others' misery and suffering. Ciao...
Mark 8)
AKA "happyslipper", "slappykipper" ... etc.. :lol:
Rga
Wanna Fly
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2019 11:14 pm
Closest Airfield: Luton
Location: Luton
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Cemair grounded again

Unread post by Rga » Fri Jan 11, 2019 11:28 pm

Incredible! A regulator grounds an airline 3 times in less than a year? Wtf is going on here. Either it’s a real safety concern for those flying Cem air ( my experiences of them are superficially very good) or the regulator is waging a vendetta to the death. The regulator’s announcement was however rather short on factual detail, preferring to reference problems as being “in a nutshell...”. Does that mean a nutcase assessment?
ArthurDent
Mags Dead Cut
Posts: 64
Joined: Sat May 26, 2018 12:05 pm
Closest Airfield: FALA
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 1 time

Re: Cemair grounded again

Unread post by ArthurDent » Sat Jan 12, 2019 5:45 am

kwest wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 10:04 pm
Not questioning the facts CAA may have but what if they applied the same scrutiny and regulation to all airlines in SA...? I suspect road traffic may increase..!
It is obvious that you have never been party to a Part 121 annual audit. The other airlines just do what they are supposed to, and when they slip up, quickly formulate CAPs and get them signed off and completed. To get grounded, you have to show an inability to implement the required correction in good time or have some other deficiency which cannot be corrected (like not being able to prove the tech status of your aircraft - ie, if SBs and ADs have been done and which spares are on which airframe).
User avatar
GL
8000 Tousand
8000 Tousand
Posts: 8898
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 10:08 am
Closest Airfield: FACT
Location: Lost for words
Has liked: 4 times
Been liked: 4 times

Re: Cemair grounded again

Unread post by GL » Sat Jan 12, 2019 6:53 am

grounded wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 11:07 pm
GL wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 10:32 pm
6. During the audit, the SACAA also learnt that an aircraft manufacturer had given CemAir an assessment of their aircraft maintenance schedule with findings and recommendations on what the operator needed to do in order to get the maintenance status of their fleet on track, and worryingly the operator could not produce sufficient evidence to authenticate that all recommendations were fully implemented. Ignoring manufacturer’s recommendations is not only bizarre but is also a very serious and dangerous omission that should be avoided at all cost by any licence-holder.
This appears the core of the CAA's issues and these are manufacturers recommendations not compulsory ADs or even SBs. So have they grounded the airline for not meeting recommendations?
And yet again why ground it on a Friday after close of business - surely one can only conclude that it was to cause maximum harm to the airline and the stranded pax? - and to keep the airline grounded again until it can once again get an urgent court order to stop the CAA?
how very convenient to highlight the recommendations portion of the statement, but totally omit the "an assessment of their aircraft maintenance schedule with findings and recommendations on what the operator needed to do"

The findings are the more serious errors.
the recommendations could be related to how Cemair should/could proceed to adress the findings
which it seems that they possibly choose to ignore
Correct me if I'm wrong here - but isn't the CAA saying that its findings were about OEM recommendations (and not ADs or SBs).
Uncommon wisdom:
The grand essentials to happiness in this life are:
• someone to love,
• something to do,
• and something to hope for

Guy Leitch
User avatar
Deanw
Six Tousand
Six Tousand
Posts: 6188
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 1:37 pm
Closest Airfield: FACT
Has liked: 2 times
Been liked: 1 time

Re: Cemair grounded again

Unread post by Deanw » Sat Jan 12, 2019 8:35 am

From my reading of the CAA statement, the OEM assessed CemAir's aircraft maintenance schedule and found that it did not meet the OEM's standards (the finding). The OEM then made recommendations to CemAir as to how to rectify the situation and get the maintenance back to the OEM standard.

If CemAir did not follow the recommendations, then they are not adhering to the OEM's maintenance schedule which means the aircraft are not being maintained according to what the OEM deems to be acceptable (and safe?). Also, further down the road, the aircraft will not be worth much to any potential purchaser if they have not been maintained to OEM standard.

Whilst I welcome the statement by the CAA, they should stick to the facts and exclude personal comments (such as "not only bizarre" and "catch-me-if-you-can") which only detracts from the professionalism of the CAA statement.
How come every time my ship comes in I'm at the airport?

http://www.SAairforce.co.za
User avatar
cage
Niner Tousand
Niner Tousand
Posts: 9391
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 9:47 am
Closest Airfield: FAGC
Location: ..for the grass 35
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 43 times

Re: Cemair grounded again

Unread post by cage » Sat Jan 12, 2019 8:46 am

Deanw wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 8:35 am
From my reading of the CAA statement, the OEM assessed CemAir's aircraft maintenance schedule and found that it did not meet the OEM's standards (the finding). The OEM then made recommendations to CemAir as to how to rectify the situation and get the maintenance back to the OEM standard.

If CemAir did not follow the recommendations, then they are not adhering to the OEM's maintenance schedule which means the aircraft are not being maintained according to what the OEM deems to be acceptable (and safe?). Also, further down the road, the aircraft will not be worth much to any potential purchaser if they have not been maintained to OEM standard.

Whilst I welcome the statement by the CAA, they should stick to the facts and exclude personal comments (such as "not only bizarre" and "catch-me-if-you-can") which only detracts from the professionalism of the CAA statement.
:smt023
Those comments seem to be a personal way of saying the operator was aware which should have been communicated in a more professional manner.
Peter John
Mags On
Posts: 40
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2018 7:33 pm
Closest Airfield: Johannesburg Internationa
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Cemair grounded again

Unread post by Peter John » Sat Jan 12, 2019 9:34 am

happyskipper wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 11:17 pm
cage wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 6:22 pm
So it would appear that there had been groundings of the fleet (8) aircraft so the posts here were true.
(Sorry mr skipper)

Wonder if it relates to tcas updates?
I am not going to make the same mistake again, though, as I have more important priorities in my life right now, and will gracefully bow out before I am ripped apart by those who feed on others' misery and suffering. Ciao...
It's not about "feeding on others misery", it's about playing by the rules and ultimately protecting your employees and travelling public. "Live the culture first"..then pontificate. In my opinion, some of those CAA quotes are bang on..almost despairing!
The CAA have chosen a course of action and made public said report..possibly out of despair?!?..cemair will comply if keen to operate again and in so doing, from a maintenance perspective at least, the CAA has upheld part of their mandate and operators may be a tad more wary.
User avatar
Jack Welles
Too Tousand
Too Tousand
Posts: 2562
Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2013 1:15 pm
Closest Airfield: FACT
Location: Muizenberg
Has liked: 6 times
Been liked: 10 times

Re: Cemair grounded again

Unread post by Jack Welles » Sat Jan 12, 2019 9:56 am

Having listened to an interview with the CAA spokesperson who I found to be a credible, knowledgeable and fair in her presentation of the facts, young lady I can understand the use of language like "catch-me-if-you-can" because that's exactly the way CAA believes Cemair behaves (rightly or wrongly, I hasten to add - I'm defending the use of the language here not the findings nor arguing about the "conspiracy theories").

As she explained it, Cemair often doesn't actually address their concerns but ducks-and-dives to cover them up, which attitude (as far as CAA is concerned) is exactly personified by the term "catch-me-if you can".

It's a pity the pair can't be divorced, it would appear as though the relationship has irretrievably broken down. The reality seems to be, as expressed in an earlier post by a regulatory employee working for a different regulator, that Cemair really needs to go out of their way to demonstrate in a positive manner that they want to be the best of the best when it comes to meeting regulatory standards if they ever hope to repair the relationship, because right now, for historical reasons, CAA is vastly suspicious of any actions taken by Cemair (again rightly or wrongly).

Here's the thing, CAA isn't going anywhere. They have the power position in this relationship. Cemair needs to totally accept this and work hard to fix things. Much like Elon Musk/Tesla and the SEC, maybe Cemair needs to have a different person (without a history of adverse interactions with CAA) at the controls (pun intended) of the operation.

PS. I don't have dog in this hunt. Don't work for CAA. Have never flown with Cemair. And don't personally know any of the involved parties.
Jack Welles (thriller_author pen name)
https://www.amazon.com/Jack-Welles/e/B073VJQTTX
Eddie Haynes-Smart
Textbook - "The Lore of Negotiation"
http://www.loreofnegotiation.com
User avatar
HJK 414
Fower Tousand
Fower Tousand
Posts: 4959
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 4:34 pm
Closest Airfield: EHTW
Location: wandering ...
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 43 times

Re: Cemair grounded again

Unread post by HJK 414 » Sat Jan 12, 2019 10:01 am

Deanw wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 8:35 am
From my reading of the CAA statement, the OEM assessed CemAir's aircraft maintenance schedule and found that it did not meet the OEM's standards (the finding). The OEM then made recommendations to CemAir as to how to rectify the situation and get the maintenance back to the OEM standard.

If CemAir did not follow the recommendations, then they are not adhering to the OEM's maintenance schedule which means the aircraft are not being maintained according to what the OEM deems to be acceptable (and safe?). Also, further down the road, the aircraft will not be worth much to any potential purchaser if they have not been maintained to OEM standard.
.........

Dean - I think you are confusing yourself.

A Recommendation is just that - nothing "forceful" about it ....... no obligation to comply if you feel you can achieve the objective along another route.

A Service Bulletin is an advisory notice to an operator - advising him of a possible improvement to service a specific part / component or time life item - yet does not compel the operator to do anything with it.

An Airworthiness Directive is a mandatory notice to the operator / and could include a Service Bulletin as a guideline - and is to be implemented by the operator / without any delay.

How an airline can be grounded on the basis on not following recommendations is beyond me.
Unless some genius at CAA (same one checking accident reports.. ? ) did not understand the above and messed up with the terminology

JK
Last edited by HJK 414 on Sat Jan 12, 2019 10:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
The wisest mind has something yet to learn. ...
User avatar
GL
8000 Tousand
8000 Tousand
Posts: 8898
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 10:08 am
Closest Airfield: FACT
Location: Lost for words
Has liked: 4 times
Been liked: 4 times

Re: Cemair grounded again

Unread post by GL » Sat Jan 12, 2019 10:02 am

Jack Welles wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 9:56 am
Having listened to an interview with the CAA spokesperson who I found to be a credible, knowledgeable and fair in her presentation of the facts, young lady I can understand the use of language like "catch-me-if-you-can" because that's exactly the way CAA believes Cemair behaves (rightly or wrongly, I hasten to add - I'm defending the use of the language here not the findings nor arguing about the "conspiracy theories").

As she explained it, Cemair often doesn't actually address their concerns but ducks-and-dives to cover them up, which attitude (as far as CAA is concerned) is exactly personified by the term "catch-me-if you can".

It's a pity the pair can't be divorced, it would appear as though the relationship has irretrievably broken down. The reality seems to be, as expressed in an earlier post by a regulatory employee working for a different regulator, that Cemair really needs to go out of their way to demonstrate in a positive manner that they want to be the best of the best when it comes to meeting regulatory standards if they ever hope to repair the relationship, because right now, for historical reasons, CAA is vastly suspicious of any actions taken by Cemair (again rightly or wrongly).

Here's the thing, CAA isn't going anywhere. They have the power position in this relationship. Cemair needs to totally accept this and work hard to fix things. Much like Elon Musk/Tesla and the SEC, maybe Cemair needs to have a different person (without a history of adverse interactions with CAA) at the controls (pun intended) of the operation.

PS. I don't have dog in this hunt. Don't work for CAA. Have never flown with Cemair. And don't personally know any of the involved parties.
I think this post is pretty much on the mark. The earlier post by tansg about them having to work extra hard to restore their reputation with the regulator is very valid. And as they say in the classics - you can't beat City Hall.
Uncommon wisdom:
The grand essentials to happiness in this life are:
• someone to love,
• something to do,
• and something to hope for

Guy Leitch
User avatar
HJK 414
Fower Tousand
Fower Tousand
Posts: 4959
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 4:34 pm
Closest Airfield: EHTW
Location: wandering ...
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 43 times

Re: Cemair grounded again

Unread post by HJK 414 » Sat Jan 12, 2019 10:06 am

Jack Welles wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 9:56 am
Trimmed for brevity...................

Here's the thing, CAA isn't going anywhere. They have the power position in this relationship. Cemair needs to totally accept this and work hard to fix things. Much like Elon Musk/Tesla and the SEC, maybe Cemair needs to have a different person (without a history of adverse interactions with CAA) at the controls (pun intended) of the operation.
.................

Agree Eddie,

If Cemair wishes to resolve this - they have 2 options:

Satisfy SACAA - whatever it takes / and learn to live with it

or - if they feel they are being "targeted" by the regulator -

Engage the ICAO - ask for an independent assessor / audit and let them formulate a report on the actual state of affairs.
and if they are right in having been unfairly targeted - they have a case for damages

JK
The wisest mind has something yet to learn. ...
User avatar
cage
Niner Tousand
Niner Tousand
Posts: 9391
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 9:47 am
Closest Airfield: FAGC
Location: ..for the grass 35
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 43 times

Re: Cemair grounded again

Unread post by cage » Sat Jan 12, 2019 10:37 am

HJK 414 wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 10:06 am
Jack Welles wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 9:56 am
Trimmed for brevity...................

Here's the thing, CAA isn't going anywhere. They have the power position in this relationship. Cemair needs to totally accept this and work hard to fix things. Much like Elon Musk/Tesla and the SEC, maybe Cemair needs to have a different person (without a history of adverse interactions with CAA) at the controls (pun intended) of the operation.
.................

Agree Eddie,

If Cemair wishes to resolve this - they have 2 options:

Satisfy SACAA - whatever it takes / and learn to live with it

or - if they feel they are being "targeted" by the regulator -

Engage the ICAO - ask for an independent assessor / audit and let them formulate a report on the actual state of affairs.
and if they are right in having been unfairly targeted - they have a case for damages

JK
That isn't the role of icao.
I wouldnt get hung up on the use of "recommendation" - no manufacturer can make you maintain your aircraft, they can only recommend that you do.
The issues as I understand it go way deeper than recommendations, both the operator and others were aware of this, it's just fowls coming home to roost.
User avatar
Jack Welles
Too Tousand
Too Tousand
Posts: 2562
Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2013 1:15 pm
Closest Airfield: FACT
Location: Muizenberg
Has liked: 6 times
Been liked: 10 times

Re: Cemair grounded again

Unread post by Jack Welles » Sat Jan 12, 2019 11:10 am

cage wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 10:37 am
HJK 414 wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 10:06 am
or - if they feel they are being "targeted" by the regulator -
Engage the ICAO - ask for an independent assessor / audit and let them formulate a report on the actual state of affairs.
and if they are right in having been unfairly targeted - they have a case for damages JK
That isn't the role of icao.
Agree with this, the courts are the only way, but that's bit like suing your employer and then, win or lose, expecting the relationship to continue as though nothing happened. In fact, that's the very attitude that seems to underpin the current relationship and which it would appear needs fixing.
I wouldnt get hung up on the use of "recommendation" - no manufacturer can make you maintain your aircraft, they can only recommend that you do. The issues as I understand it go way deeper than recommendations, both the operator and others were aware of this, it's just fowls coming home to roost.
Anyway, I read the "recommendation" element to be a way of sorting out the (adverse?) findings, meaning that "if you can find a better way that's also all right, we're just trying to be helpful in charting a way forward".
Jack Welles (thriller_author pen name)
https://www.amazon.com/Jack-Welles/e/B073VJQTTX
Eddie Haynes-Smart
Textbook - "The Lore of Negotiation"
http://www.loreofnegotiation.com
User avatar
AnAV8R
Reaching altitude
Posts: 230
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2010 11:10 am
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Cemair grounded again

Unread post by AnAV8R » Sat Jan 12, 2019 11:18 am

cage wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 10:37 am
HJK 414 wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 10:06 am
Jack Welles wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 9:56 am
Trimmed for brevity...................

Here's the thing, CAA isn't going anywhere. They have the power position in this relationship. Cemair needs to totally accept this and work hard to fix things. Much like Elon Musk/Tesla and the SEC, maybe Cemair needs to have a different person (without a history of adverse interactions with CAA) at the controls (pun intended) of the operation.
.................

Agree Eddie,

If Cemair wishes to resolve this - they have 2 options:

Satisfy SACAA - whatever it takes / and learn to live with it

or - if they feel they are being "targeted" by the regulator -

Engage the ICAO - ask for an independent assessor / audit and let them formulate a report on the actual state of affairs.
and if they are right in having been unfairly targeted - they have a case for damages

JK
That isn't the role of icao.
I wouldnt get hung up on the use of "recommendation" - no manufacturer can make you maintain your aircraft, they can only recommend that you do.
The issues as I understand it go way deeper than recommendations, both the operator and others were aware of this, it's just fowls coming home to roost.
Just a comment about "recommendations"....
All ICAO "approved authorities" internationally have their regulations based on "ICAO recommendations"....unless they file a difference with ICAO.....
Just saying..... :wink:

Return to “Airline Chatter”