Strange Delay on YVR to MAN flight

[lowflyer]

I recently flew back from Vancouver, BC, Canada to to Manchester, UK on Thomas Cook airlines. We experienced a fairly small but annoying delay which I wondered if anybody could help explain.

flight details:

Flight no. TCX89L
Aircraft: Airbus A330
Scheduled Dep. YVR: Saturday 23rd Aug 2008, 15:35 (actual 17:10)
Scheduled Arr. MAN: Sunday 24th Aug 2008, 08:40 (actual 09:07)

15:20 We were boarded and ready to go (passenger-wise) 15 minutes before schedulded departure. The pilot announced that we would have to wait until the scheduled departure time (fair enough) as they were "just finishing some paperwork". Also says that we have a very short flight time today and should arive in MAN 40minutes early (good news!)

15:35 Pilot announces that paperwork taking longer than expected and that some information needed to be faxed over from Manchester Ops, therfore we would have a slightly longer delay but should still arrive early.

15:45 Pilot announces that paperwork now received.

16:00 Pilot announces that the Ground Engineers will have to do an "inspection" of the plane following some maintenance work. Hopes this will be done in the next 15 minutes. Turns the seatbelt warning lights off to allow pax to use restrooms. Cabin crew won't allow the downstairs restrooms to be used.

16:35 Pilot annouces that he had been down to the ground to speak to the engineers and they had given the verbal okay. Now need to wait for the engineers to do the necessary paperwork.

16:50 Pilot annouces that everything now in order and will be pushing back shortly. cabin crew just started offering orange drink to pax.

17:00 Pushback from gate D66

17:10 After a surprisingly long taxi we turned on to the runway and took off from a rolling start. Departing over the pacific (26L ?).



YVR control must have been unhappy about something to do with the maintenance records but the crew were obviously unaware about it until the last minute. Seems a bit worrying that the captain who is responsible for the safety of the a/c didn't know about an outstanding maintenance issue which required the plane to be inspected before being allowed to fly. Good job the plane passed, otherwise they could have ended up cancelling the flight.

Can anyone offer any insight in to what happened?

[RingwaySam]

lowflyer,

Have you tried PPruNe? Theres alot of people who work for Thomas Cook, and maybe the flightcrew are on there aswell.

http://www.pprune.org/

[AA 1818]

What did you mean when you said that the cabin crew did not allow passengers to use the "downstairs" restroom? What type of aircraft were you flying on?

[Highkeas]

What did you mean when you said that the cabin crew did not allow passengers to use the "downstairs" restroom? What type of aircraft were you flying on?

Apparently the A330 can have restrooms on the lower deck
http://www.airbus.com/en/aircraftfam...nnovation.html

[andrasz]

It is quite normal procedure for airlines who do not have their own engineering staff at a given location and rely on third parties to require signoff for any performed non-routine maintenance by engineering at home base. This can involve quite a bit of faxing back and forth, usually even the procedure itself is faxed from base.

[Spad13]

16:00 Pilot announces that the Ground Engineers will have to do an "inspection" of the plane following some maintenance work. Hopes this will be done in the next 15 minutes. Turns the seatbelt warning lights off to allow pax to use restrooms. Cabin crew won't allow the downstairs restrooms to be used.

16:35 Pilot annouces that he had been down to the ground to speak to the engineers and they had given the verbal okay. Now need to wait for the engineers to do the necessary paperwork.

16:50 Pilot annouces that everything now in order and will be pushing back shortly. cabin crew just started offering orange drink to pax.

17:00 Pushback from gate D66

17:10 After a surprisingly long taxi we turned on to the runway and took off from a rolling start. Departing over the pacific (26L ?).



YVR control must have been unhappy about something to do with the maintenance records but the crew were obviously unaware about it until the last minute. Seems a bit worrying that the captain who is responsible for the safety of the a/c didn't know about an outstanding maintenance issue which required the plane to be inspected before being allowed to fly. Good job the plane passed, otherwise they could have ended up cancelling the flight.

Can anyone offer any insight in to what happened?

Well, I wasn't there, but it sounds to me like possibly there was a discrepancy with the aircraft that needed to be addressed and local maintenance procedures required an inspection that may or may not be required by Thomas Cook maintenance control. In a case like that, local procedures take precedence. I see nothing strange about this, the whole thing took less than two hours and I also don't see how a 10-minute taxi can be considered "surprisingly long".

[andrasz]

In a case like that, local procedures take precedence.

Not quite. It is the procedures of the AOC holder that have overriding precedence. In this case, as the a/c was UK registered, JAR regulations will apply no matter where the aircraft is serviced. It can only be touched by a maintenance organisation that is also JAR certified. The fun begins, when FAA/CAA/JAR regulations are at odds, and a dual licensed mainenance organisation needs to perform something that is quite legal by JAR, but not permisible by FAA rules (or vice versa). Those cases usually produce paperwork equalling the weight of the plane before the plane can fly

[lowflyer]

lowflyer,

Have you tried PPruNe? Theres alot of people who work for Thomas Cook, and maybe the flightcrew are on there aswell.

http://www.pprune.org/

No - I'd never heard of it before! I'll have a look, thanks.

[Spad13]

Not quite. It is the procedures of the AOC holder that have overriding precedence. In this case, as the a/c was UK registered, JAR regulations will apply no matter where the aircraft is serviced. It can only be touched by a maintenance organisation that is also JAR certified. The fun begins, when FAA/CAA/JAR regulations are at odds, and a dual licensed mainenance organisation needs to perform something that is quite legal by JAR, but not permisible by FAA rules (or vice versa). Those cases usually produce paperwork equalling the weight of the plane before the plane can fly

I think you misunderstood me, or maybe I wasn't very clear. What I meant was that both the AOC and the local outfit may be JAR (or FAA) certified, but may nevertheless have slightly different procedures. For instance, you may have a repair that at the local outfit may be an RII write-up, but not be such at the airline. In this case, the local outfit would follow said RII procedure, even though the airline in question doesn't require it. It sounds to me that something like that may have been the case with the original poster's aircraft.