Jetsgo in the News yet again.

speedbird829 · Post by **speedbird829** » Tue Mar 08, 2005 6:57 pm

Another safety probe after a Jetsgo engine shutdown on Friday in yyz.
Apparently the aircraft left metal debris on the runway after the shutdown and the runway was not closed immedietely. A total of seven aircraft either took off or landed after the debris were left on the runway.
Not necessarily Jetsgo's fault.
During another incident on Saturday a Jetsgo aircraft was forced to make an unscheduled stop in South Carolina again because of an engine shutdown. Apparently one of the flight attendants at the rear of the aircraft was praying out loud and crying alarming many passengers in that part of the aircraft.

DA900 · Post by **DA900** » Tue Mar 08, 2005 7:01 pm

Too funny. Keep them comming!

It never ceases to amaze me that little pecker woods like yourself spew B.S. like this with no evidence to back it up. May I see your source who said the FA was crying? At least the Air Transat had photos, but why let this troll bait me doh!

Tango01 · Post by **Tango01** » Tue Mar 08, 2005 7:30 pm

That company is an accident wating to happen. When will TC pull the plug on them???

T01

Blastor · Post by **Blastor** » Tue Mar 08, 2005 7:40 pm

Runway debris prompts safety probe

Planes still landed, took off at Pearson after Jetsgo mishap left metal on ground

By KEITH McARTHUR AND BRENT JANG
Tuesday, March 8, 2005 - Page A10

The Transportation Safety Board of Canada is looking into why seven aircraft used a runway scattered with potentially deadly debris Friday afternoon, after a Jetsgo Boeing MD83 lost one of its two engines at Toronto's Pearson International Airport.

Pilots of the Vancouver-bound flight aborted takeoff at 3:18 p.m. after an engine blew and debris spilled onto the runway.

"The aircraft notified that it had a problem, but did not indicate at the time that there might have been a risk of debris or oil on the runway," said Louis Garneau, a spokesman for Nav Canada, which runs the country's air traffic control system.

Over the next 20 minutes, seven aircraft took off and landed on the runway before Jetsgo advised traffic controllers that it may have spilled oil or debris. Only then did Nav Canada close the runway. Airport officials found an exhaust cone and several small pieces of metal on the runway.

Debris on runways can have tragic consequences. In 2000, a Air France Concorde jet plunged after takeoff from Paris's Charles de Gaulle airport. All 109 people aboard were killed when a sliver of metal from another aircraft punctured one of the Concorde's tires, which exploded and tore through the plane's wing, puncturing a fuel tank.

Jetsgo spokesman Brad Cicero said maintenance had been performed relatively recently on the Jetsgo aircraft's Pratt &Whitney engine.

On Friday, he said, "there were indications of a No. 1 engine malfunction during its takeoff role on the tarmac. Once that happened, the pilot notified the tower of the malfunction and taxied back to the gate."

He said the 66 passengers and six crew members aboard Flight 174 transferred to a different aircraft to resume the flight to Vancouver more than two hours later.

He said the pilot would not have been able to see whether there was debris on the runway because the Boeing MD-83 is a rear-engine aircraft.

Mr. Garneau said air-traffic controllers will shut down a runway if they notice debris, but he added that the tower is 2.4 kilometres from the runway and that controllers did not notice anything unusual after the aborted Jetsgo flight.

Transportation Safety Board spokesman John Cottreau said federal investigators are assessing the Jetsgo case to determine whether it warrants a deeper probe.

Transport Canada spokeswoman Lucie Vignola said the federal department is aware of the incident. Normally, a pilot would "advise the tower" about any engine problems, she said.

Friday's incident is one in a series of problems plaguing Jetsgo Corp., a privately owned company based in Montreal.

"I think that Jetsgo should be grounded temporarily," said Dianne Fraser of Toronto who was aboard another Jetsgo aircraft on Saturday that made an unscheduled stop in South Carolina in an unrelated incident. She said passengers were told that "one of the engines was leaking oil and had to be shut down."

Ms. Fraser said her family went through a "harrowing experience," made worse when "one of the flight attendants at the rear of the plane was praying out loud and crying." The passengers made it safely to Toronto Sunday on a different Jetsgo plane.

In late January, a Jetsgo plane landing at Calgary International Airport skidded partly off the runway and hit a sign, prompting a safety board investigation.

And last month, Transport Canada revoked an operating certificate, forcing Jetsgo to run its flights at lower altitude, which is less efficient for fuel consumption. That certificate has yet to be reinstated.

Just before Christmas, Jetsgo faced thousands of angry passengers left stranded amid flight cancellations in a Toronto winter storm.

The federal Air Travel Complaints Program received 160 complaints in 2004 about the airline, more than triple the number lodged in 2003.

DA900 Posted:

Too funny. Keep them comming!

What's funny? The danger to the cabin crew? The flight deck? The passengers? The potential hazard to other aircraft? Other people?

What's funny?

.

Blastor · Post by **Blastor** » Tue Mar 08, 2005 7:45 pm

Tango01 Posted:
That company is an accident wating to happen. When will TC pull the plug on them???

Air Transat grounds planes after rudder problems

Monday, March 7, 2005 - Page A11

Montreal -- Several of Air Transat's Airbus planes were temporarily grounded yesterday after the rudder on one of the aircraft flying to Quebec City from Cuba nearly fell off. The pilot reported mechanical difficulty about 30 minutes after taking off from Varadero, Cuba, on Saturday.

He immediately returned to Cuba, where the plane landed safely.

The airline then grounded three Airbuses in Toronto and two in Vancouver until they were inspected. No problems were found.

There were no flight cancellations and the planes were back in operation by yesterday evening.

An investigation into the Saturday incident continues. CP

Tango01 Maybe we should pull the plug on Air Transat? Air Canada? Sky Service? Westjet? Canjet?....

.

corn-shoot · Post by **corn-shoot** » Tue Mar 08, 2005 7:54 pm

Blastor wrote:

DA900 Posted:

Too funny. Keep them comming!
What's funny? The danger to the cabin crew? The flight deck? The passengers? The potential hazard to other aircraft? Other people?

What's funny?

.

Nothing funny about safety hazards...BUT...

I kinda chuckle when I think about you and all of your other goombas selling their dignity to the green smiley. Lighten up, old boy!

Blastor · Post by **Blastor** » Tue Mar 08, 2005 8:02 pm

Corn-shoot I’m disappointed

You’re assuming that I work for Jetsgo…
It could Big red, Teal fanatics, Maritimes Moosehead...or

flyincanuck · Post by **flyincanuck** » Tue Mar 08, 2005 8:03 pm

He said the pilot would not have been able to see whether there was debris on the runway because the Boeing MD-83 is a rear-engine aircraft.

...And you know...they were probably looking forward...seeing as they were taking off!

corn-shoot · Post by **corn-shoot** » Tue Mar 08, 2005 8:05 pm

Dreadfully impolite of me, I do suppose that's a bit of a slap. I will retract my statement, but leave the post up, because I like the term "goombas"

Sincerest Apologies...

C.S

Blastor · Post by **Blastor** » Tue Mar 08, 2005 8:06 pm

Apologies accepted.

.

DragEraser · Post by **DragEraser** » Tue Mar 08, 2005 8:21 pm

Notice how Transat grounded the fleet right away. This was a lot larger issue than an engine blowing up, but there has been more than one in the past few months. Would Jetsgo ever ground the fleet for safety concerns?

Blastor · Post by **Blastor** » Tue Mar 08, 2005 8:23 pm

What do you think?

.

CanadaEH · Post by **CanadaEH** » Tue Mar 08, 2005 9:03 pm

Michel Leblanc doesn't have the balls.

Schlem · Post by **Schlem** » Tue Mar 08, 2005 10:08 pm

You know there is an old saying... "there are 2 kinds of pilots... those that have had an engine failure/shut down and those that will"...

JetsGo pilots seem to be keeping that one going lately.

Panama Jack · Post by **Panama Jack** » Tue Mar 08, 2005 10:47 pm

Anybody else see the irony in the original post?

All we need is for some to say "the aircraft is perfectly safe to fly with one engine. There are many types of single engine turboprops and jets flying on a daily basis throughout the world with an excellent safety record." Just like another airline that operates with the callsign Speedbird

DA900 · Post by **DA900** » Tue Mar 08, 2005 11:06 pm

DA900 Posted:

Too funny. Keep them comming!

What's funny? The danger to the cabin crew? The flight deck? The passengers? The potential hazard to other aircraft? Other people?

What's funny?

Blastor I think you did not read my entire post!

complexintentions · Post by **complexintentions** » Wed Mar 09, 2005 2:01 am

Panama Jack wrote:Anybody else see the irony in the original post?

All we need is for some to say "the aircraft is perfectly safe to fly with one engine. There are many types of single engine turboprops and jets flying on a daily basis throughout the world with an excellent safety record." Just like another airline that operates with the callsign Speedbird

Are you really trying to equate a MD83 with a 747? Well, it's bit of a stretch..let me try here.........nope. Don't see the parallel. Maybe it's because when a B747 loses an engine it still has 3 times as many as it lost, whereas an MD83 on one engine has lost oh, about half of it's noisemakers....but then, you probably already knew that, with all your 744 time...

twinpratts · Post by **twinpratts** » Wed Mar 09, 2005 5:01 am

Anybody know if they got their RVSM back?

Rebel · Post by **Rebel** » Wed Mar 09, 2005 5:14 am

Folks this is a GTAA problem for not inspecting the runway for contamination after a reject due to an engine failure. Get a life, this is the real issue, not that JG lost an engine as that can happen to anyone and often does..

CanadaEH

AT had little choice in the matter as would have JG. Your inexperence is showing.

Tango01 · Post by **Tango01** » Wed Mar 09, 2005 8:01 am

Blastor wrote:

Tango01 Maybe we should pull the plug on Air Transat? Air Canada? Sky Service? Westjet? Canjet?....

Yeah maybe, but just for the record Jetsgo sucks man.

grouchy · Post by **grouchy** » Wed Mar 09, 2005 9:47 am

Did the other 6 planes that took of or landed not see the debris?
I'm assuming the 7th airplane called the tower about the debris, so did the others not report it?

capt. · Post by **capt.** » Wed Mar 09, 2005 11:16 am

WOW, I am sorry
i agree with tango, jetsgo sucks royally
however I will say that yes, the pilots probably didn't know there was debree on the runway, so also, how is it that no other pilot landing or taking off didn't see it? one can only wonder.
Now Blastor, amazing that someone can emvy a company that makes you pay 30k to work for them, and when you do, your flying pieces of crap for aircraft, Why would anyone defend a company like Jetsgo that obviously noone, pilots or public can stand, they have something new go on every month to make the headlines. i just find it funny that someone would emvy a crap ass company like this.
Or do you work there and feel you should defend your 30K investment?

prop2jet · Post by **prop2jet** » Wed Mar 09, 2005 12:13 pm

Folks... you are all basing your assumptions on what was reported in the newspaper. Just as with any incident or accident, we all like to sit comfortably at home and make some kind of analysis based on what we have read in the newspaper. Who is to say the flight crew did not make a report to ATC. They obviously must have reported something to ATC. Anyone here done a reject and not been asked by ATC as to why?

complexintentions · Post by **complexintentions** » Wed Mar 09, 2005 12:42 pm

capt. wrote:WOW, I am sorry
i agree with tango, jetsgo sucks royally
however I will say that yes, the pilots probably didn't know there was debree on the runway, so also, how is it that no other pilot landing or taking off didn't see it? one can only wonder.
Now Blastor, amazing that someone can emvy a company that makes you pay 30k to work for them, and when you do, your flying pieces of crap for aircraft, Why would anyone defend a company like Jetsgo that obviously noone, pilots or public can stand, they have something new go on every month to make the headlines. i just find it funny that someone would emvy a crap ass company like this.
Or do you work there and feel you should defend your 30K investment?

Dude, do you even know anyone who works there? I do, and what you're saying is only serving to embarass yourself. "Defending a company"? That isn't even possible, how can you argue with the idiocy of statements like "Just for the record, JetsGo sucks." Wow. You really told 'em.

"Pieces of crap" for aircraft? Have you ever flown an MD83 or F100? Again, not defending them. I don't have to - there's nothing wrong with either type, and again, you sound like a complete jackass. Sorry, but I just don't know how else to put it.

If JetsGo is so horrendously scary, they won't last. Simple enough. But it's a bit surprising the level of irrational and ignorant rantings, even here, on Avcanada where you kind of expect it.

"No one, pilots or public can stand.". Ok, whatever you say. Meanwhile the pieces of crap keep flying around full of the public you mention, flown by the pilots you mention. LOL

Get over it.

disco · Post by **disco** » Wed Mar 09, 2005 1:01 pm

capt. wrote:WOW, I am sorry
i agree with tango, jetsgo sucks royally
however I will say that yes, the pilots probably didn't know there was debree on the runway, so also, how is it that no other pilot landing or taking off didn't see it? one can only wonder.
Now Blastor, amazing that someone can emvy a company that makes you pay 30k to work for them, and when you do, your flying pieces of crap for aircraft, Why would anyone defend a company like Jetsgo that obviously noone, pilots or public can stand, they have something new go on every month to make the headlines. i just find it funny that someone would emvy a crap ass company like this.
Or do you work there and feel you should defend your 30K investment?

"Emvy"? LOL. I thought the first one was a typo until you said it again later and then there's "debree". Hard to take a guy seriously that way. Envy the company you work for? Do you mean admire or respect perhaps?

Sorry, I do realize that I digress.