Cemair grounded - wins Appeal yet 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

User avatar
GL
Niner Tousand
Niner Tousand
Posts: 9120
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 10:08 am
Closest Airfield: FACT
Location: Lost for words
Has liked: 30 times
Been liked: 72 times

Re: Cemair grounded again

Unread post by GL » Sat Jan 12, 2019 5:06 pm

apollo11 wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 3:27 pm
..........I'm asking why the whole operation is shut down cold rather than finding some sort of the middle ground path to continue operations whilst those issues are addressed on the said aircraft or again the question, is the whole fleet problematic?
I think this did in fact happen - remember posters asking where the CemAirs CRJs were after Christmas? IPara 4 of the CAA press release says:
4. On 26 December 2018, the SACAA, and in the interests of aviation safety, grounded eight (8) of the airline’s aircraft with immediate effect.
- Maybe it was just the CRJ fleet?
Our body is made to move, and our mind is made to connect with other people.
– Sjur Nesheim, Norwegian mountaineer

The essentials to happiness:
• someone to love,
• something to do,
• something to hope for

Guy Leitch
ArthurDent
Taxiing
Posts: 75
Joined: Sat May 26, 2018 12:05 pm
Closest Airfield: FALA
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 13 times

Re: Cemair grounded again

Unread post by ArthurDent » Sat Jan 12, 2019 5:37 pm

Ned Yakman wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 4:53 pm
IOSA is an internationally benchmarked and standardised safety audit process carried out every two years. Without it a carrier cannot belong to IATA, which carries with it a whole bunch of financial and commercial implications. So what did the auditors miss that the SACAA picked up?
IOSA is a completely different box-ticking exercise from an AOC audit and there is no in-depth probing. IOSA auditors observe, ask for some documents and fill in a few forms. You can download the IOSA Standards manual if you are really interested in what an IOSA audit entails.

https://www.iata.org/whatwedo/safety/au ... ion_12.pdf
Joker11
Power off stall
Posts: 330
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 11:11 am
Closest Airfield: OMDB
Location: Sandpit
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Cemair grounded again

Unread post by Joker11 » Sat Jan 12, 2019 5:53 pm

Jack Welles wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 3:07 pm
apollo11 wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 2:31 pm
Tks for the clarification Eddie, what I actually was alluding to was why not allow those aircraft that are conforming to continue operations rather than shut the whole airline down? Or is the whole damn fleet a problem?
Possible overweight wasn't the only problem. For example, an airline has to have an overall responsible person for the fleet (can't remember title) and there are certain laid-down regs (I think) that state what that sort of qualifications that would entail. Cemair appointed a very, very, vastly experienced pilot to that position, but he didn't tick all the regulatory boxes in terms of actual qualifications. When this was questioned they said CAA must apply a discretion because he must be considered good enough because of his background. I'm not sure if this has ever been resolved, if I've got it right in the first place, of course.
Was that overloading not a point of debate on how the figure was being calculated at check in?
I'm getting out of my depth now on the specifics but AIUI the service provider tallied the weights on check-in then (standard practice???) when the pilots did their calcs the std is to allow 60kgs (or something?) against the weight of each passenger to cater for carry on luggage. In the specific instance the aircraft didn't have overhead luggage racks so Cemair's argument was that they didn't have to allow so much for each passenger. Please note that I have no clue as to what the right answer is and merely relating what I understand the parties to be saying.
Who does the W&B at Cemair? The PIC or an actual load controller?
In the battle between aeroplanes and the ground. The ground has yet to lose.

Aviation would be great, if it wouldn't be for passengers.
Joker11
Power off stall
Posts: 330
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 11:11 am
Closest Airfield: OMDB
Location: Sandpit
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Cemair grounded again

Unread post by Joker11 » Sat Jan 12, 2019 5:58 pm

apollo11 wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 2:31 pm
Tks for the clarification Eddie, what I actually was alluding to was why not allow those aircraft that are conforming to continue operations rather than shut the whole airline down? Or is the whole damn fleet a problem?
Was that overloading not a point of debate on how the figure was being calculated at check in?

Absolutely agree would never consider flying an overweight out of balance aircraft no consciences pilot would.
I was load controller for 3 years, I would never issue a L/S where an aircraft is either overloaded or out of balance. I remember being audited by an airline and the gentleman asked me "Where do you get this booking figures from if they do not flow into the system?" I said I would call the station and ask them. He then asked what if your colleagues don't do this. I simply replied "They should be fired immidiately as they should not be load controllers."
In the battle between aeroplanes and the ground. The ground has yet to lose.

Aviation would be great, if it wouldn't be for passengers.
grounded
Tripped over wheel chock
Posts: 26
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2018 9:48 pm
Closest Airfield: FAGC
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 4 times

Re: Cemair grounded again

Unread post by grounded » Sat Jan 12, 2019 6:43 pm

Radio interview with Phindi Gwebu

indicates/aludes that a portion of the grounding relates to traceability of parts/components that are subject to a time or expiry, and Cemair's inability to provide proof of part/components source and fitment and control of timex parts/components.

https://iono.fm/e/643288
Yesterday, the South African Civil Aviation Authority (SACAA) suspended the operation of Cemair. The Civil Aviation Authority says the suspension was necessitated by concerns over the systemic failure of the airline's maintenance controls. Elvis Presslin spoke to South African Civil Aviation Authority, Phindi Gwebu...
User avatar
GL
Niner Tousand
Niner Tousand
Posts: 9120
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 10:08 am
Closest Airfield: FACT
Location: Lost for words
Has liked: 30 times
Been liked: 72 times

Re: Cemair grounded again

Unread post by GL » Sat Jan 12, 2019 6:59 pm

grounded wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 6:43 pm
Radio interview with Phindi Gwebu

indicates/aludes that a portion of the grounding relates to traceability of parts/components that are subject to a time or expiry, and Cemair's inability to provide proof of part/components source and fitment and control of timex parts/components.

https://iono.fm/e/643288
That was pretty much what killed off Nationwide.
Our body is made to move, and our mind is made to connect with other people.
– Sjur Nesheim, Norwegian mountaineer

The essentials to happiness:
• someone to love,
• something to do,
• something to hope for

Guy Leitch
User avatar
HJK 414
Fife Thousand feet
Fife Thousand feet
Posts: 5271
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 4:34 pm
Closest Airfield: EHTW
Location: wandering ...
Has liked: 38 times
Been liked: 220 times

Re: Cemair grounded again

Unread post by HJK 414 » Sat Jan 12, 2019 8:27 pm

Jack Welles wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 3:07 pm

Trimmed for brevity ......

Possible overweight wasn't the only problem.

I'm getting out of my depth now on the specifics but AIUI the service provider tallied the weights on check-in then (standard practice???) when the pilots did their calcs the std is to allow 60kgs (or something?) against the weight of each passenger to cater for carry on luggage. In the specific instance the aircraft didn't have overhead luggage racks so Cemair's argument was that they didn't have to allow so much for each passenger. Please note that I have no clue as to what the right answer is and merely relating what I understand the parties to be saying.

Eddie,

Here is a part of the statement - following the court ruling ref : overweight aircraft.

Quote:

As far as the weight safety issue is concerned, the CAA stated that CemAir had manipulated
passenger weight in order to disguise its alleged overloading. We then filed a Replying Affidavit to
answer that allegation. During argument it emerged that the CAA officials had overlooked regulation
CATS91.07.11, paragraph 5(b) which provides that an airline may deduct 6 kg from the standard
passenger mass where there is no hand luggage or where it is accounted for separately. Of the 20,000
flights which CemAir conducts annually the CAA cited 2 examples in its court papers in which CemAir
had allegedly used a standard average mass of 86 kg per male passenger instead of the regulated
standard 92kg with a similar deduction for female passengers. The Aircraft in question upon which
the CAA relied for its overweight allegation is a Beechcraft 1900D (“1900D”). It became clear to
CemAir that the officials who conducted the audit and who made the finding of overloading as well as
the officials who issued the notice suspending our license may not have appreciated the design of the
1900D. In order to assist them CemAir took a photograph of the internal cabin of the 1900D and
attached it to its court papers. The photograph showed that the 1900D does not have an overhead
stowage compartment. In fact anybody who knows the 1900D which carries only 19 passengers will
know that there is no space for any cabin luggage. The Judge asked CAA’s Senior Counsel about
regulation CATS91.07.11, paragraph 5(b), because this demonstrated decisively that the flights in
question were underweight rather than overweight and that the CAA was wrong in its judgement in
finding that CemAir was overweight. At this point the CAA’s Senior Counsel immediately stopped the
argument and asked the court to adjourn the matter for a short while so as to allow him to take
instructions from the relevant senior CAA officials including Mr Simon Segwabe who at all times sat
in court

End Quote:

JK
The wisest mind has something yet to learn. ...
User avatar
Burner
Fower Tousand
Fower Tousand
Posts: 4088
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2006 2:21 pm
Closest Airfield: LIMB
Location: Milan and Algeria
Has liked: 12 times
Been liked: 96 times

Re: Cemair grounded again

Unread post by Burner » Sat Jan 12, 2019 8:42 pm

With reference to the hand luggage on the 1900. Can anyone who has flown Cemair on their 1900's comment on how the hand luggage was handled? It's common on aircraft with limited overhead stowage, to ''skycheck'' the baggage at the bottom of the aircraft stairs, then return it after landing again at the bottom of the aircraft stairs. I find it hard to believe that this was not offered in places like ORT/CPT where theft from baggage is rather rampant, and hand luggage does contain valuables/electronics.

When I use Iberia Regional regularly on their CRJ 1000, this is done and the hand luggage isn't weighed at any time, presumably because it is part of the standard weight calcs. My question is was Cemair perhaps weighing both checked in, and hand luggage at the check in desks, and then passing this onto the crew for their W+B calcs? Then when the passengers arrived at the aircraft, the hand luggage was stowed in the rear cargo hold with the rest of the luggage. If it was the case, then they were quite entitled to subtract the 6 kgs. If the hand luggage was ''sky checked'' but not weighed, then they were not entitled to subtract the 6 kgs.

Honest question...
Joker11
Power off stall
Posts: 330
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 11:11 am
Closest Airfield: OMDB
Location: Sandpit
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Cemair grounded again

Unread post by Joker11 » Sun Jan 13, 2019 4:04 am

Burner wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 8:42 pm
.

When I use Iberia Regional regularly on their CRJ 1000, this is done and the hand luggage isn't weighed at any time, presumably because it is part of the standard weight calcs. My question is was Cemair perhaps weighing both checked in, and hand luggage at the check in desks, and then passing this onto the crew for their W+B calcs? Then when the passengers arrived at the aircraft, the hand luggage was stowed in the rear cargo hold with the rest of the luggage. If it was the case, then they were quite entitled to subtract the 6 kgs. If the hand luggage was ''sky checked'' but not weighed, then they were not entitled to subtract the 6 kgs.

Honest question...
When I was doing L/S's for the CRJ700/900 for a certain European carrier we calculated hand baggage 6kgs per person. The ground dispatcher would give us total pieces of hand baggage loaded before releasing the final figures. Hand baggage was ALWAYS included in the final L/S. We sometimes moved hand baggage into the main compartment if we were out of trim, but that didn't happen very often.
In the battle between aeroplanes and the ground. The ground has yet to lose.

Aviation would be great, if it wouldn't be for passengers.
DJB
Climbing Out
Posts: 210
Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2006 1:40 pm
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Cemair grounded again

Unread post by DJB » Sun Jan 13, 2019 7:09 am

I think the focus is on the W and B when there are more issues like maintenance etc which are potentially more serious.
User avatar
tansg
Climbing Out
Posts: 213
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 8:29 pm
Closest Airfield: OMAA
Has liked: 21 times
Been liked: 25 times

Re: Cemair grounded again

Unread post by tansg » Sun Jan 13, 2019 7:29 am

Ned Yakman wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 4:53 pm
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
Last time I looked, CemAir was on the IATA Operational Safety Audit (IOSA) register. IOSA is an internationally benchmarked and standardised safety audit process carried out every two years. Without it a carrier cannot belong to IATA, which carries with it a whole bunch of financial and commercial implications. So what did the auditors miss that the SACAA picked up?
2 Different audits auditing to 2 different checklists with 2 different objectives.
SACAA Audit = Regulatory Compliance Audit
IOSA = IATA Operational Safety Audit
2 very different audits
User avatar
tansg
Climbing Out
Posts: 213
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 8:29 pm
Closest Airfield: OMAA
Has liked: 21 times
Been liked: 25 times

Re: Cemair grounded again

Unread post by tansg » Sun Jan 13, 2019 7:39 am

Rga wrote:
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?
What is causing this operator not to comply with regulations? Are they a rogue operator? Are they simply incompetent? Should they even be in operation if they can't comply with the regulations, regulations that have been written in blood?
User avatar
tansg
Climbing Out
Posts: 213
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 8:29 pm
Closest Airfield: OMAA
Has liked: 21 times
Been liked: 25 times

Re: Cemair grounded again

Unread post by tansg » Sun Jan 13, 2019 7:49 am

HJK 414 wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 10:06 am
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
They only have 1 option the first one. If you go to ICAO you will be laughed out the door. ICAO provides SARPs for States not operators. States then create their own Regulations and Standards to enable compliance with ICAO. ICAO does not deal with operators. The only way an operator could possibly get extra wasta is to possibly appeal to IATA for assistance but IATA has a policy of facilitatin between State and operator. I am afraid they are up the creek and have broken the paddle themselves. So time to ride out the current and see where they end up.
User avatar
tansg
Climbing Out
Posts: 213
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 8:29 pm
Closest Airfield: OMAA
Has liked: 21 times
Been liked: 25 times

Re: Cemair grounded again

Unread post by tansg » Sun Jan 13, 2019 7:57 am

Jack Welles wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 11:54 am
Does anyone know whether the official ICAO Safety and Recommended Practices (AIUI tech specs basically) get down to the level of, for example, how an airline deals with it's paperwork? Or would there be a degree of individuality allowed in fundamental business practices as long as the basic safety parameters were met?

The answer to that would give some idea of the degree of "checklist ticking" that needs to go on both by an airline and an auditing regulatory authority and how much subjective flexibility is involved in daily decision-making. Subjective flexibility would be a fertile field for disagreements as to whether appropriate standards had been met or not.
ICAO SARPs are meant for States not operators. It is the State responsibility to implement Regulations and Standards to enable the ICAO SARPs. Operators comply with State Regulations. So no SARPs do not "get down to the level of, for example, how an airline deals with it's paperwork?" this is the role of the Regulations.

With a Compliance Audit it is simple comply with the Regulations or if you think you have an Alternative Means of Compliance, propose this method of compliance to the regulator with all appropriate evidence and Safety Risk Assessments and if the Regulator accepts it then it will be considered as compliance. If the Regulator does not accept your Alternative Means of Compliance then it is back to option 1, comply.
User avatar
Jack Welles
Tree Tousand
Tree Tousand
Posts: 3271
Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2013 1:15 pm
Closest Airfield: FACT
Location: Muizenberg
Has liked: 13 times
Been liked: 101 times

Re: Cemair grounded again

Unread post by Jack Welles » Sun Jan 13, 2019 8:15 am

With the continuing caveat that I know very little about this stuff I picked up in an article that the "recommendations" allegedly ignored by Cemair were not ICAO recommendations (as in SARPS) but the aircraft manufacturers' recommendations with regard to recommended maintenance of the relevant aircraft. CAA's claim is that Cemair doesn't follow the aircraft manufacturers' recommendations but waits to see whether the CAA audit will pick up on the fact that they have not been followed before doing something. That's where the "catch-me-if-you-can" comment comes from.

On the "relationship" front after the out-of-court settlement was made an order of court Cemair publicly declared it as a "court victory" over CAA. In the interests of repairing the relationship (like it or lump it CAA isn't going anywhere) perhaps they could have been a little more gracious ...

EDIT: thanks for the feedback, tansg. I find this all very interesting, not from a technical compliance point of view, but from how to live with a regulator (even if you don't like it/them) point of view. It's really all about a negotiating posture - which one will bring the greatest reward?
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

Return to “Airline Chatter”