Cemair

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

User avatar
Marius Schrenk
Niner Tousand
Niner Tousand
Posts: 9072
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 3:34 pm
Closest Airfield: 300m from home
Location: Inni skadu van n kameeldoringboom.

Re: Cemair

Unread post by Marius Schrenk » Thu Feb 15, 2018 11:09 pm

Moderators Message:
[-X
Politics attracts crooks and lawyers,most of the time its the same person.
fly...fisher
Engine Still Cranking
Posts: 48
Joined: Sun Nov 10, 2013 7:17 am
Closest Airfield: FABB
Location: Boksburg

Re: Cemair

Unread post by fly...fisher » Fri Feb 16, 2018 7:31 am

What amazes me with this saga is how many people are so determined to burn CAA at the stake they do not care what is said or shown..so anyone or anything that is in their favour is wrong.. illegal..a liar..a pathetic disgruntled ex employee..have no lives. Ha ha I actually am amused at how every post in terms of news gets shot down sitting seconds..
Yet none of the shooters actually know any facts AT ALL of the grounding. I thought that was quite a well written article from the CAA. And I personally believe that if you really think the CAA would ground and airline for weeks with no real facts or problems just for fun you must be smoking something good..how do you think they would get away with it if Cemair gets lawyers involves..well they wouldn't. So I'm sure they legitimate reasons. Please don't attack me I am entitled to my own opinion..although I'm sure the die-hard supporters will shoot me now to...
Jel
FREDA checks
Posts: 373
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 4:16 pm
Closest Airfield: FALA

Re: Cemair

Unread post by Jel » Fri Feb 16, 2018 8:31 am

Yup I also thought a pretty well worded statement... true there are things it doesn't say but they are being burned at the stake here because they didn't release anything and now being burned again for releasing a statement...

It basically says calm down there are processes being followed here and the rumours are not true... because Avcom is all about rumors... 'int it?

Some of the more relevant comments from the CAA IMHO:
“It was therefore disheartening to read reports that suggest that CemAir refers to the comprehensive findings outlined in the audit safety report as a “mere paperwork discrepancy” whilst its corrective action plan has acknowledged the existence and root cause of the deficiencies. Surely, if indeed that was the case, the matter would have taken a few hours, and not weeks, to resolve by “producing the right paperwork”. As such, any talk of a “mere paperwork discrepancy” is an ill-advised public relations exercise.
The aviation authority also mentioned that it is important to note that no grounding is ever a surprise to an operator. This is because immediately upon discovery of a non-compliance or deficiency, and whilst still at the premises of the operator and on completion of an audit, SACAA holds a closing meeting with the operator to, among others, indicate the non-compliance or deficiency or findings raised and propose ways to close those findings.
“There are also reports of an alleged affidavit that “purports that the regulator is out to ‘nail’ this particular operator”. The alleged affidavit remains suspiciously elusive as we are yet to receive it. This is despite SACAA meeting with CemAir representatives on several occasions.
I haven't seen any facts on Avcom to the contrary to rebut the regulator... anyone in a position to provide FACTS or shall we simply acknowledge that Avcom is a rumor mill :?: :?: :?: Failing which perhaps now is the time for FACTS to the contrary, or will we hide behind the "lawyers are going to have a field day on this one".... :?:
User avatar
richard C
8000 Tousand
8000 Tousand
Posts: 8235
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 4:02 pm
Closest Airfield: FASY
Location: Joeys

Re: Cemair

Unread post by richard C » Fri Feb 16, 2018 8:37 am

Tend to agree with catch-and-release and Lubricant here (the previous two posters).

As is always the case in public disputes, generally the entire content of what is being banded publically is completely off the mark wrt to the real issues of the case.

Clearly there is much more to this than we are aware. Clearly there is a history to this that extends to some time before even the Margate incident. Maybe one day we get to see the real story, maybe we don't. In my experience on Avcom, in cases such as these, the real story is generally a completely different narrative, and normally one that makes sense, especially when all the rumours and hearsay discussed beforehand most decidedly does not.
Grant all equity and dignity.
Monzeglio Cook + Gibson Architects
User avatar
happyskipper
Tree Tousand
Tree Tousand
Posts: 3507
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 6:55 pm
Closest Airfield: FQNC
Location: In the cloud

Re: Cemair

Unread post by happyskipper » Fri Feb 16, 2018 9:06 am

.
Last edited by happyskipper on Fri Feb 16, 2018 6:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
:roll:
"There are no new ways to crash airplanes"
Jel
FREDA checks
Posts: 373
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 4:16 pm
Closest Airfield: FALA

Re: Cemair

Unread post by Jel » Fri Feb 16, 2018 9:22 am

Nope no facts from me, therefore the wait and see approach but with a statement like this I would suggest that you should have facts failing which perhaps a little more caution should be exercised :?:
Re: Cemair
Postby happyskipper » Fri Feb 02, 2018 8:04 pm
Executor - How on earth do you think any airline could possibly cope with this kind of disaster? The CAA has overstepped their authority - they have, in effect, attempted to destroy an airline overnight....
......I am disgusted by the CAA's actions in this regard, and I hope that there is action taken against those involved.
Post above asks what the CAA is saying, I suggest they are actually saying is ,"you don't know whats going on, keep your panties on, and allow the process to happen"... (wish they would have put a valium voucher in there but they didn't)...
User avatar
Whirly
10000 and still climbing
10000 and still climbing
Posts: 10899
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 3:25 pm
Closest Airfield: Ermelo
Location: Mpumalanga

Re: Cemair

Unread post by Whirly » Fri Feb 16, 2018 10:12 am

How long before they will find it impossible to return to service? :?

Whirly.
Jacobus Adriaan
(FSS,SSAW,NSC)
Of all things in life I have lost,I think I miss my mind the most!!
One of very few people never to have posted anything under the "NO" topic!!
I live by Hook's law........he said Murphy was an optimist!!
Mustang
Pre-take off checks
Posts: 89
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 2:00 pm
Closest Airfield: FATP

Cemair, Bloemfontein needs you!

Unread post by Mustang » Fri Feb 16, 2018 12:23 pm

We had only Cemair flying between Bloemfontein and Port Elizabeth daily and could attend meetings with clients on a day's notice. Now we are stuck and have to drive to attend meetings with clients in PE (as flying to ORT and then to PE takes the same time as driving). Or we have to take the more expensive charter route or start up our much more expensive private jets for 1 or 2 people. Cemair was the only on time provider to fly us daily to OR Tambo and back.

SACAA please resolve this issue as soon as possible because our business' time and money are wasted by whoever is responsible for grounding Cemair. If Cemair is indeed responsible of something, hope you (Cemair) gets it sorted out soon as we need you (Cemair) to fly us on time to PE and ORT daily.

Cemair, Bloemfontein needs you!
Aviation is a passion towards greater achievement in life! - Mustang
grjplanes
Frequent AvComer
Posts: 792
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2009 2:17 pm

Re: Cemair

Unread post by grjplanes » Fri Feb 16, 2018 12:59 pm

Looks like there's some limited services today, with chartered aircraft? Flights to MGH, BFN and HDS today
User avatar
ian16th
Flight Planning
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:43 pm
Closest Airfield: Margate
Location: KZN

Re: Cemair, Bloemfontein needs you!

Unread post by ian16th » Fri Feb 16, 2018 4:03 pm

Mustang wrote:We had only Cemair flying between Bloemfontein and Port Elizabeth daily ..............

Cemair, Bloemfontein needs you!
For Margate, Cemair are the only airline to anywhere!
CWS
Ooops forgot to turn the fuel back on!
Posts: 496
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2011 6:34 pm
Closest Airfield: Morningstar

Re: Cemair

Unread post by CWS » Fri Feb 16, 2018 7:14 pm

I have now waded through 21 pages of this saga and sad to say it follows a typical Avcom trend of opposing views having a go at each other and adding very little to the discussion interspersed with a few posts that take a measured view. I think it is highly unlikely that CAA would still be grounding Cemair at this stage over a few misplaced bits of paper or incorrect compass swings. Was the manner in which CAA grounded the company with a midnight e-mail spiteful and unnecessary, I think so, but would they be putting themselves in line for a multimillion Rand lawsuit for discriminating against the airline by stuffing them around for 2 weeks, just because they feel they can, in my opinion it’s so unlikely. Cemair is no longer the two-bit operation it was 10 or 12 years ago operating a Cessna Caravan and a few B1900’s it’s now a major player in our airline industry with +- 22 planes in its fleet and with that size comes a bigger responsibility firstly for the safety of all its passengers and the reputation of aviation in South Africa in general.
If there is any cause for the CAA to believe they need to delve into Cemair’s records because of a potential for a bending of the rules, sloppy maintenance, overloading, flying below minimum fuel levels etc etc we should welcome it because I don’t believe any of us want to see a major accident. If I am wrong I am certain the CAA is going to rue the day they they grounded an airline for two weeks without just cause. Under our new, and hopefully, enlightened government I am pretty sure we are going to see a big improvement in “customer” relations from all government departments including CAA and they must already be taking note of that. I am not sure if it was fair for Carte Blanche to bring up 20 year old accidents that were prior to the formation of Cemair but possibly, much more relevant, they should have brought up that Cemair itself has had 3 complete hull losses, all about 9-10 years ago IIRC.A leased out Islander at Margate (no fatalities) a leased out B1900 in the Sudan (21 fatalities) and a wet lease B1900 in the DRC that flew into a hill in bad weather, everyone on board died. I don’t have any idea of what the official accident reports said in those cases, or what part Cemair played in those accidents, if any, but who knows they may have been on the back of the CAA’s mind and a contributing factor in its current attitude?
User avatar
HJK 414
Fower Tousand
Fower Tousand
Posts: 4534
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 4:34 pm
Closest Airfield: EHTW
Location: wandering ...

Re: Cemair

Unread post by HJK 414 » Fri Feb 16, 2018 8:04 pm

CWS wrote:............ I am not sure if it was fair for Carte Blanche to bring up 20 year old accidents that were prior to the formation of Cemair but possibly, much more relevant, they should have brought up that Cemair itself has had 3 complete hull losses, all about 9-10 years ago IIRC.A leased out Islander at Margate (no fatalities) a leased out B1900 in the Sudan (21 fatalities) and a wet lease B1900 in the DRC that flew into a hill in bad weather, everyone on board died.

I don’t have any idea of what the official accident reports said in those cases, or what part Cemair played in those accidents, if any, but who knows they may have been on the back of the CAA’s mind and a contributing factor in its current attitude?

As with Carte Blanche - you might have read up on the accident reports - and determined whether there was any relevance ....... #-o
Now - you are smearing the airline with insinuation (by association) as well - and then - lamely state that you do not know whether it played any part or whether that was in any way related to Cemair.........

JK
Can the magic of Flight ever be carried by words ....
User avatar
PlanetPrison
Aircraft in Hangar
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2018 12:47 pm
Closest Airfield: Pomfred

Re: Cemair

Unread post by PlanetPrison » Fri Feb 16, 2018 8:21 pm

CWS wrote:much more relevant, they should have brought up that Cemair itself has had 3 complete hull losses, all about 9-10 years ago IIRC.

1.A leased out Islander at Margate (no fatalities)
2. a leased out B1900 in the Sudan (21 fatalities) and
3. a wet lease B1900 in the DRC that flew into a hill in bad weather, everyone on board died.

4. ... I don’t have any idea of what the official accident reports said in those cases,
5. ....or what part Cemair played in those accidents, if any,
6. ... but who knows they may have been on the back of the CAA’s mind and a contributing factor in its current attitude?
1-3 What has that got to do with the AMO of Cemair ? AMO maintains aircraft , AMO's don't lease or wet lease aircraft.

4. Then better to keep your mouth shut then.

5. So you don't know what is the difference between leasing and an AMO licence . (You can lease, sub-lease, sell aircraft and even burn an aircraft for the fun of it all without an AMO. Remember the reason for the grounding )

6. "Contributing factors" if so then Cemair can nail CAA with millions if not hundreds of millions. (Totally ridiculous assumption.)
User avatar
PlanetPrison
Aircraft in Hangar
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2018 12:47 pm
Closest Airfield: Pomfred

Re: Cemair

Unread post by PlanetPrison » Fri Feb 16, 2018 9:27 pm

CWS wrote:C.A leased out Islander at Margate (no fatalities) a leased out B1900 in the Sudan (21 fatalities) and a wet lease B1900 in the DRC that flew into a hill in bad weather, everyone on board died. I don’t have any idea of what the official accident reports said in those cases, or what part Cemair played in those accidents, if any, but who knows they may have been on the back of the CAA’s mind and a contributing factor in its current attitude?
May I suggest that you familiarize with basic terminology and understanding.

Air Service licensing Act No 115 of 1990

(Sorry but is PUN intended )

Actually on page 1 of the Act , Point 1, Definitions; the very first definition is, sorry to tell you dude, "air service" and then the meaning: " means any service operated by means of an aircraft for reward, but shall not include -
(a) the hiring out of an aircraft together with the crew to a licencee (b) - (e)

You missed the very first definition on the very first page of the Act in the very first sentence . And then you have the audacity to came and make idiotic remarks about something you have no clue about no knowledge and no insight about.

Google " Hire"
the action of hiring someone or something.
"car hire is recommended"
synonyms: rent, rental, hiring, lease, leasing, charter; More

Google "Lease"
a contract by which one party conveys land, property, services, etc. to another for a specified time, usually in return for a periodic payment.
"a six-month lease on a shop"
synonyms: rent, hire, charter, engage, take, borrow, pay for the use of
synonyms: leasehold, rental agreement, hire agreement, charter,

You said ;"but who knows they may have been on the back of the CAA’s mind and a contributing factor in its current attitude"

Moderators Message:
You were going so well, then you had to spoil it with a personal attack. [-X
CWS
Ooops forgot to turn the fuel back on!
Posts: 496
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2011 6:34 pm
Closest Airfield: Morningstar

Re: Cemair

Unread post by CWS » Fri Feb 16, 2018 9:57 pm

PlanetPrison wrote:
CWS wrote:much more relevant, they should have brought up that Cemair itself has had 3 complete hull losses, all about 9-10 years ago IIRC.

1.A leased out Islander at Margate (no fatalities)
2. a leased out B1900 in the Sudan (21 fatalities) and
3. a wet lease B1900 in the DRC that flew into a hill in bad weather, everyone on board died.

4. ... I don’t have any idea of what the official accident reports said in those cases,
5. ....or what part Cemair played in those accidents, if any,
6. ... but who knows they may have been on the back of the CAA’s mind and a contributing factor in its current attitude?
1-3 What has that got to do with the AMO of Cemair ? AMO maintains aircraft , AMO's don't lease or wet lease aircraft.

4. Then better to keep your mouth shut then.

5. So you don't know what is the difference between leasing and an AMO licence . (You can lease, sub-lease, sell aircraft and even burn an aircraft for the fun of it all without an AMO. Remember the reason for the grounding )

6. "Contributing factors" if so then Cemair can nail CAA with millions if not hundreds of millions. (Totally ridiculous assumption.)
For someone who joined Avcom a week ago and has a total of 7 posts you need to have a good look at the T&C’s,you have no right to tell me to “keep my mouth shut” this is a discussion forum and I am well within my rights to have an opinion and state it as I see fit even if it hits a raw spot for you. What I stated is fact, Cemair has had 3 hull losses (actually 4 I think but one was not used by Cemair just owned by it). If you don’t believe me it’s all on Wiki. I never even mentioned an AMO so I don’t know what you are on about not knowing the difference. If you are trying to say the only problem is with the AMO license maybe you missed the point as it looks to me the CAA closed down the whole airline not just the AMO.

Return to “Airline Chatter”