The decision to allow the use of twin-engined airliners on trans-oceanic routes (ETOPS) was predicated on strict reliability rules which dictate rigorous maintenance practices (for example, it once was, if it is not still, mandated that the same maintenance crew could not work on both engines of a given airliner, to minimize the risk of a misunderstanding or mistake compromising both engines.) This is a case of paying attention to details at the granularity of individual airplanes, and in that spirit, an unusual frequency of problems with one particular airplane warrants investigation.
The history of aviation is littered with the crashes of airplanes brought down by problems that seemed to have gone away - see the De Haviland Comet, for example.
Before you start talking about ETOPS approval, maintenance practices and crashes, it would make sense to have some shred of evidence for a safety concern on this particular airframe rather than just a couple of air returns due to minor issues — the kinds of returns that happen daily all over the world, to new and old frames. Two air returns in a week on the same frame is rare but not unheard-of, and it's notable that one of the air returns was following maintenance action in Ghana that apparently didn't solve the issue.
Doesn't even have to be about safety, but respect. Transatlantic flights that turn back is a huge inconvenience, and adds probably a day of lost time for passengers in total. Perhaps the Ghanians(?) suspect they get a problematic aircraft because of racism or that they are not considered as important as a typical business shuttle to Zurich or London? It may seem weird to westerners, but smaller countries don't always have more "sophisticated" political tools like diplomatic backdoor channels.
Good that you called for possible correction here. It's "Ghanaians", not "Ghanians". Being Ghanaian myself, the spelling is one way I can tell if an article about Ghana has done its homework and is more likely to be accurate.
[0] Older frames aren't necessarily less reliable — these issues could have happened to a brand new frame — and if maintained properly they are certainly not less safe. But they can be more economical in some ways (they're probably paid off), and higher-yielding destinations will reject the older frames since competitors run new aircraft on the same routes. There's not much competition on JFK-ACC.
You mean other than this particular Boeing objectively failing to reach its destination due to multiple consecutive failures?
Europe has banned airlines, especially African airlines, and individual aircraft pretty regularly for safety concerns [1]. America tends to ban entire countries. It is only fair for African countries to follow the similar guidelines, especially when there are problem aircraft.
[1] https://transport.ec.europa.eu/transport-themes/eu-air-safet...
This airframe has been banned to make a point about Delta scheduling their older frames on JFK-ACC. Delta probably does it because it's a low-yielding route, and making a big public stink (with safety overtones designed to scare uninformed readers) is one of the few ways Ghana can try to convince Delta to ignore the economics. Making a stink like this worked with BA, so maybe it will work with Delta too.
> Europe has banned airlines, especially African airlines, and individual aircraft pretty regularly for safety concerns [1]. America tends to ban entire countries. It is only fair for African countries to follow the similar guidelines, especially when there are problem aircraft.
To be clear, this has nothing to do with safety. If EASA or FAA banned an airline or a country because of a fuel imbalance there would be no airlines left.
The FAA/EASA not being concerned by it (from what we know), doesn’t mean that there isn’t a possible safety issue to investigate.
It’s also easy to have politics and safety i.e. regulation mix in ways that aren’t so black and white. Consider the time it took for the 737 Max to be recertified in the rest of the world vs the US. Do you think that was all safety? Or some combination of safety and politics?
So no, I don’t think it’s possible to categorically state that it has nothing to do with safety.
Do I personally think that the 2x fuel imbalance is a problem? Nope, I’d happily get on that plane
Could this situation become a safety issue? Yes it could.
Is it possible that there’s more to this situation than safety? Yeah, probably. Maybe they want shiny new planes on the route. But also, the passengers are paying customers with consumer rights - these are being enforced
Are the Ghanaian authorities not a sane regulator? I’ve got no reason to believe they aren’t being proper regulators. There is a possible safety issue that’s well within their mandate.
What happens when you’re dealing with regulators is if you’ve got a good relationship with them, then all the optional stuff (and some of the mandatory stuff) is optional. If not, then you’re gonna have to check every single box and then some. See Boeing in the US vs Europe.
Call it politics, call it whatever but it is what it is
> See Boeing in the US vs Europe. Call it politics, call it whatever but it is what it is
What you call "good relationship", I call corruption and murder. If Ghanan authorities are fighting against that, more power to them.
I would not board an aircraft that has a history of problems with this.
FWIW your EU list shows restricted airlines not individual frames. At the end there are two airlines (Iran Air and Air Koryo) where subsets of their fleets are restricted (whole types not individual frames). With Iran Air it's likely that the restricted types are ones where sanctions make maintenance or safety compliance impossible. With Air Koryo the EU banned a bunch of unpopular Russian and Soviet types that are either way too noisy, incapable of meeting current safety standards, or are unsupported by the Russians.
Then of course there’s the reality of them abusing fear of security to steer the herd, but I don’t want to wander down that rabbit hole.
With the fuel imbalance though? Sure. It would be quite inconvenient to spend two hours in flight only to end up back where I started, but if you're suggesting there was some imminent danger to the passengers, you're mistaken. Aircraft are tested and certified to fly with significant fuel imbalance; the turn-back is out of caution since it could get worse over the course of a long flight.
This incident would be nothing more than a boring tech log entry if there wasn't an influencer and some upset politicians involved.
It might be because of actual experience in the aviation industry, rather than just experience reading articles about aviation incidents that amp up safety issues because that's what the public loves to read.
If you want to ground all aircraft which have returned to their departure point twice, you will be grounding every single aircraft older than a few years. So what exactly are you trying to say?
A commercial airframe with trip-aborting issues on multiple flights within a short timeframe implies severe maintenance process issues or design issues, or both. Gains in commercial flight safety are written in blood. JT610 is one case in point.
Like I said, callous.
Would you be happy to board this plane knowing that it had these issues?
After the 737-MAX fiasco - which proved FAA ignores flaws for political reasons - they might be.
The history of aviation is littered with the crashes of airplanes brought down by problems that seemed to have gone away - see the De Haviland Comet, for example.
Airplanes can fly with all sorts of things missing or inoperative, and they do so every day. Safety issues are certainly one reason an airplane might return to the gate, but on a longer flight comfort and economic issues tend to become more important than they otherwise would. Autopilot acting up? You can fly the plane just fine, but not in the more precise RVSM corridors. Toilet clogged? Not a problem on a shorter flight, but on a long, full flight it might be easier to turn around (especially if Delta has a maintenance presence there). Bad weather at the destination?
With nothing but hand waving it feels a lot more like the sort of "safety concern" Al Baker would raise a stink about than an actual issue.
Edit: Another comment mentioned "an issue with the brakes" as the cause of a two hour delay. That's a great example of something that sounds scary but doesn't actually pose a safety risk. Something like an autobrake or anti-skid fault would not create a safety problem at departure or during flight – the problem comes from the increased (visibility, runway length, runway condition) requirements. Those increased requirements in turn increase the chance of a costly diversion. It was likely just cheaper to front load a solution at ACC.
Or, you know, the sky is falling and Ghana has blown the whistle on a major lapse in safety culture at Delta. /s
It’s entirely reasonable to prefer Heathrow over Gatwick, nobody wants to switch airports, apply for transfer visas, worry about connections, etc.
A specific airplane that has had multiple issues is definitely less reliable than one that hasn’t. Sounds like common sense to me.
Yeah, but at the same time these indicate a more serious issue with the SN
Sounds like "AA syndrome", where they dispatch these old planes on tight routes then wonder why the reliability is crap
If these were other times I'd be sure the airline and Boeing would come up with a mitigation plan for those things but now I'm not so sure
It's not just about time or inconvenience. Nationals of Ghana can transit the UK airside (at the same airport) without needing a UK visa in most cases, but changing airports means they are more likely to need a UK visa (there are fewer exemptions).
[0] International First, not what is called First in the US.
I also challenge the idea that Heathrow is ever cheaper to get to than Gatwick. The Thames Link service to Gatwick is far cheaper than the Heathrow express, much faster and more pleasant than the Piccadilly line, only the Lizzie line makes Heathrow as cheap and easy to get to by train as Gatwick.
It’s too bad Norwegian shuttered their long haul service between Gatwick and NYC/BOS. It was affordable, comfortable and convenient, so of course it went bankrupt. Now the best options are out of Heathrow (my favorite is now British Air, as long as AA isn’t operating the flight…).
Is this going to be said whenever a British company has a dispute in another country?
They could have just instructed the Heathrow operators “assign X slots for companies A, B, C and that is that”, the same way they’re telling aviation companies “you cannot fly to Moscow, and that is that”, it is all about political will at the top.
As an aside: I'm pretty damn sure that if something wasn't 'bringing in the money anymore', that Ghana would immediately fuck it off right out the window. As would anyone/anything else.
And just how should the Brits own up to their colonial past?
A fucking parade? Or, perhaps fix roads that ambulances STILL can't get down?
It is worth noting that the airframe in question has flown perfectly fine subsequent to the ban.