EASA Audit/SAFA inspections
-
- Registered Member
- Posts: 127
- Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 6:38 pm
Guys, only 6percent of total PIA revenue comes from continental Europe. We could shut down AMS, ROM, MIL, PAR and ATH, and operate daily or 6 times a week to FRA and have non stop FRA-PAK flights with 777s, Special Prorate Agreement with LH already exists from all these cities to FRA. Believe me this could be a blessing in disguise.
Regarding CPH and OSL, we could shut down CPH and operate to OSL with 777.
Regarding CPH and OSL, we could shut down CPH and operate to OSL with 777.
-
- Registered Member
- Posts: 53
- Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 3:21 pm
- Location: multan
MLR52 revisited. Combi Fan. Are you referring to the Booze-Allen episode? MLR52 was desirous of restricting PIA to a regional airline.CombiFan wrote:Guys, only 6percent of total PIA revenue comes from continental Europe. We could shut down AMS, ROM, MIL, PAR and ATH, and operate daily or 6 times a week to FRA and have non stop FRA-PAK flights with 777s, Special Prorate Agreement with LH already exists from all these cities to FRA. Believe me this could be a blessing in disguise.
Regarding CPH and OSL, we could shut down CPH and operate to OSL with 777.
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 54078
- Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 11:52 pm
- Location: Pakistan
Re: MoD mantra: fly high - but on merit
PIA clarifies news reportThe news - 23 Feb
MoD mantra: fly high  but on merit
ISLAMABAD: The Ministry of Defence suggests the appointment of qualified persons as Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PIAC) chairman and Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) director-general, endorsing the finding of an inquiry report which concluded that the incumbents were not competent enough to hold these positions.
“Being highly technical and complex, their (Pakistan International Airlines Corporation and Civil Aviation Authority) top managements should have adequate experience, knowledge and expertise to lead these organisations,†a summary moved to the prime minister said.
Sent by the defence secretary with the approval of the senior minister for defence, the summary also contained the report of inquiry board that probed the Fokker crash in Multan which occurred last year.
Defence Secretary Lieutenant-General (r) Tariq Waseem Ghazi has recommended sweeping changes and overhauling of the PIAC and CAA. In line with the indings of inquiry report, Ghazi has blamed the top PIAC management for the Multan’s tragic incident.
“Lack of supervision, control, guidance and professionalism exhibited by the top management of PIAC; juxtapose, less than desired motivation level of the employees was just a perfect recipe for this accident to happen,†Ghazi said in his summarised note.
He has also asked for strict disciplinary action against those who failed to perform during the overhaul of the engine and carrying out quality inspection and issued certificate of airworthiness to the Fokker plane that crashed in Multan.
The report of inquiry board, forwarded by the Ministry of Defence, is categoric in asserting that the PIA chairman and CAA DG were not qualified enough to serve against the jobs assigned to them.
“The PIAC chairman might have had vast experience in running the business organisation(s) but he did not possess any experience to run a technical & complex organisation like PIAC,†the report said and added in case of CAA DG, “Under CAA rules the DG of CAA is to have 16 years of flying experience and he should have served in an aviation organisation of national repute. On the contrary, incumbent CAA DG did not fulfil the above criteria and had the experience of only corporate sector.â€ÂÂ
PIAC Chairman Tariq Kirmani was MD Pakistan State Oil (PSO) before his present appointment. CAA DG Farooq Rehmatullah was chairman of the Pakistan Refinery Limited before assuming the current position.
“The PIAC and CAA should be organised and operated on the lines dictated by PIAC Act, 1956 & Rules, 1958 and CAA Ordinance, 1982 and Rules, 1994,†Ghazi said in his recommendations to the prime minister.
Ghazi moved the summary (Min of Def u.o. No. AT-8(4)/2006), the copy of which was made available to ‘The News’ by a source in the Prime Minister’s Secretariat. It substantiated its recommendations in the light of findings and suggestions of the inquiry board that probed into the crash of Fokker plane in Multan last year.
“The senior minister for defence has authorised the submission of the summary. Submitted for kind perusal and appropriate action as deemed necessary,†he said in his summarised note. The prime minister has, however, yet to approve the summary that raised serious questions over the appointment of the PIAC chairman and CAA DG against the criteria dictated by rules.
Notwithstanding demands made time and again by the parliament to make public the inquiry report, it has been lying pending in the Prime Minister’s Secretariat for last two months, it has been learnt.
Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Major (r) Tanvir Ahmad admitted before the National Assembly last week that his ministry wanted to make the report public but could not do so due to some ‘hurdles’.
‘The News’ sent the MoD’s observations to the PIAC chairman with its copy forwarded to the GM Public Relations, asking for comments on objections raised in the summary. The PIAC’s spokesman opted not to respond on the issue, saying that since the summary was a classified document still awaiting approval of the prime minister, hence he could not offer any comment.
Ghazi said the tragic incident was avoidable but could not due to lack of professionalism on part of the top management. He made the point in line with the suggestion of inquiry board that probed the Multan crash.
According to the summary of inquiry report, the age of Fokker aircraft had no bearing on this accident and all technical defects found in the crashed aircraft would have remained a cause of such tragic incidents in future.
A four-member inquiry board probed into the crash. The defence secretary has duly approved its findings and recommendations. President of Safety Investigation Board (SIB) Air Commodore Junaid Ameen (CAA) headed the inquiry board. Other members were Group Captain Mujahid Khan (PAF), Wing Commander (r) Naseem Ahmad (CAA) and Captain Shah Nawaz Dara (PIA).
Ghazi, in his summary note, said the tragic crash could have been avoided but the unprofessional handling of the emergency situation by the pilots resulted in loss of 45 precious lives and destruction of aircraft.
The engine failure was attributed primarily to the maintenance malpractices at engine overhaul shop of PIA during assembly process and was not detected by the PIAC Quality Engineering and Airworthiness CAA, secretary noted in the summarised findings.
The unprofessional handling of the emergency by the aircrew had its roots in the PIAC’s training/assessment, scheduling system and inadequacies in the Safety Division. It was further compounded by the poor execution of the Crew Resources Management and Human Factor Programs, the secretary said.
In his recommendations, the defence secretary said the working efficiency of quality control at PIAC Maintenance and Engineering should be improved to minimise poor maintenance and maintenance malpractices. The airworthiness directorate at CAA should enhance surveillance of Engine Overhaul Shop at PIAC Engineering. The Spectrometric Oil Analysis Program (SOAP) should be utilised for all engines, he further recommends.
A study should be carried out with a view to determine the inadequacies in flying training/assessment system, the summary recommends. Crew Resource Management (CRM) training be made meaningful with participation from cockpit crew and qualified facilitators be deployed, the recommendations said.
While scheduling, the pairing be done in a manner that at least one of the two aircrew should possess substantial experience on the type in their capacity as captain or co-pilot. PIA should institutionalise their system to study the human behaviour of aircrew with a view to pre-empt their behaviour under emergencies.
Figure of 72 kgs of weight per person used for the calculation of all up weight in the trim sheet should be reviewed. Safety Investigation Board (SIB), CAA, should be tasked to carry out a study to remove inadequacies in the issuance and renewal of ‘Certificate of Airworthiness’. Safety Division of the PIAC should be made more potent and effective by appointing flight safety specialists with substantial experience in safety programme management.
ISLAMABAD: The PIA has clarified a news item headlined “MoD mantra: fly high - but on meritâ€ÂÂ, which was published in The News on February 23 about a report on the airlines submitted to the prime minister by the Defence Ministry.
In a fax message, the PIA says that before it briefly touches the many issues raised in the news report, it would first like to answer the very important issue of the flying training/assessment system, for it “directly correlates†to safety.
The PIA gives great importance to the safety standards being maintained by its cockpit and cabin crew. It has its own training centre mainly focused on training the operational personnel. They are all certified under the International Civil Aviation Organisation, ICAO, whose standards are maintained by the Civil Aviation Authority of Pakistan, and undergo periodic checks by ICAO inspectors.
Thus, licensing of operational crew is regulated by international standards. Therefore, it will be incorrect to state that there are any “inadequacies†in the flying training/assessment system of the PIA.
Similarly, the Crew Resource Management is being taught by qualified instructors, who have been trained in Houston, in an extensive course conducted by Continental Airlines and following a material developed by Nasa for the shuttle cockpit crew in order to determine the most efficient way of managing the available cockpit resources. The PIA last year scheduled and held in-house 150 such courses training 2,500 cockpit and cabin crew, including some passenger handling and maintenance personnel. A similar number is planned for this year. Every operational crew has to undergo this training.
It must be kept in mind that Crew Resource Management is now a basic requirement of ICAO, CAA and IOSA, and subject to audit by them as this issue too relates to airline safety. These courses include communication skills, team building, situational awareness, and leadership, etc. How much more “meaningful†can it be?
As for the unfortunate Fokker crash at Multan, the PIA would like to state that a PIA pilot before becoming a Fokker captain begins as Fokker co-pilot and flies all the way up to the highest equipment as a co-pilot. He has enough experience. So it is not right to say that experience is lacking.
By definition, “accidents†can suddenly happen anywhere, anytime, to anybody. This is despite the fact that the worldwide statistics for aircraft accidents determine one thing clearly: 85 per cent of them are caused because of human error. Airworthiness of aircraft is certified by the CAA licence, technically qualified engineers and ICAO clears the CAA. Automated inventory and maintenance work on modern lines is there. Therefore, to blame the entire organisation’s operational human resources as having “inadequacies†is neither just nor warranted.
Finally, to question the competency of the PIA management just because their background is different is to be oblivious. People who do not necessarily come from the same background run multinationals and corporations worldwide. Airline business is no exception. The issue is one of the management, who is a good business manager. Examples abound. The PIA is proud of its top management. A good team and a team leader are running the airline with a vision to achieve and a mission to accomplish.
Umar Cheema adds: The PIA’s clarification is all about the findings of the inquiry board that probed the Fokker plane crash last year. The Defence Ministry has endorsed the findings of the inquiry board and sent them to the prime minister for approval. It has nowhere denied that whatever written in our story was out of context or was not mentioned in the summary report quoted in The News.
Source: The News
-
- Registered Member
- Posts: 52
- Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 2:19 pm
- Location: durban
-
- Registered Member
- Posts: 500
- Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 9:56 pm
http://nation.com.pk/daily/feb-2007/28/index3.php
The Nation 28-2-07
PIA may get partial ban on flights to Europe
Hammad in Cologne & Amraiz Khan in Lahore
LAHORE - Swallowing the insult to their professional competence by a partial EU ban, PIA and the CAAP may fail to overcome their latest crisis because their managements stick to denial, as if nothing has happened.
PIA is in danger of being lumped together with 50 airlines from the Congo, and others from Kazakhstan, Equatorial Guinea, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Swaziland, North Korea and Afghanistan, unless it defends itself in its latest brush with the EU, following warnings in October.
The European Aviation Safety Agency became operational in 2003, on the basis of a European Parliament and Council resolution (1592/2002), as an independent EU body under European Law, accountable to member states and EU institutions. It is based in Cologne Germany and has developed strong working relationships with counterparts across the world, including ICAO, FAA and the aviation authorities of Canada, Brazil, China, Russia and Israel. The agency has recruited highly qualified specialists to consolidate its authority as centre of excellence in aviation safety. On 16 May 2006, a regulation implementing Directive 2004/36/EC of European Parliament and Council authorised it for assessment of foreign aircrafts using community airports. Any decision of EASA is pursuant to Article 35 of Regulation 1952/2002, whereby an appeal can be brought against decisions of the agency, taken for Airworthiness and Environmental Certification.
In October 2006, EASA gave a mild warning cautioning PIA to improve their documentation, maintenance, compliance with mandatory safety procedures and environmental issues relating to fuel spillages while refuelling at European airports, following inspections of their aircrafts at London, Manchester, Frankfurt, Milan, Oslo etc. Inspections had revealed bad maintenance practices and non-compliance with procedures laid down for proper rectification. They pointed out serious lapses in the ability of CAA Pakistan to carry out professional assessment of aircraft under its jurisdiction, because it did not have qualified personnel on types of commercial aircrafts in use, nor conversant with regulatory rules and observance of ICAO, JAA and FAA regulations. It also pointed out lapses in professional ethics, whereby inspectors of CAA are not expected to get remuneration or perks from airlines that they inspect.
These inspections related to review of an aircraft maintenance record, and did not involve detailed inspection of an aircraft. There are airlines that continue to fly into Europe without any censure, using the same type of aircrafts in use by PIA, like A-310s, Boeing 747 Classics and even A300s. EASA only monitors compliance with laid down minimum specifications of safety and maintenance procedures. The problem of both PIA and CAA is their failure to comprehend the basic issues. Perhaps the fact that most of senior executives do not have sufficient experience in commercial aviation, which is a highly regulated service oriented industry, has put the national airline into a problem, which if tackled properly, could have taken it out of troubled waters. The airlines in-house safety audit functions normally carried out by their safety department, if performed professionally could have saved PIA from being reprimanded by routine inspections carried out at all airports by respective regulatory bodies. PIA today has an engineering SVP, who has no experience of working in a regulated commercial aviation industry.
In February 2007, a three-man team from EASA came to inspect CAA Pakistan with mutual consent. They also inspected PIA, which is the only airline regulated by CAA Pakistan, and flies to Europe. According to report submitted by SAFA, the inspections reveal that satisfactory remedial measures were not undertaken to improve lapses pointed out in October 2006. The European Aviation Blacklist is based on results of checks at European airports, which “monitor use of poorly maintained aircrafts; the inability of the airlines involved to rectify the identified shortcomings during inspections; and the inability of the authority responsible for overseeing the airline to perform its task,†in this case Pakistan CAA. The EC only imposes a complete or partial ban on an airline after a case-by-case analysis following ASC consultations. If a banned airline believes it has since achieved safety standard compliance, it can contact the EC or a member state, either directly or through its civil aviation authority. The EC will take a decision based on an ASC assessment. Every ban must comply with right of defence and can be done quickly in urgent cases. An airline under review can “express its case, submit comments in writing, and add new items to their file, and ask to be heard by the EC or to attend a hearing before the ASC. They may be assisted by their own supervisory CAAâ€ÂÂ.
Banned airlines can still sell tickets under their name and using their own code. But the flights must be operated by aircraft and staff belonging to airlines that are deemed to be safe. Under existing regulations, it is compulsory to inform passengers which airline will operate the flightâ€ÂÂ. Safety Assessment of foreign airlines was started under pressure to create a binding EU BLACKLIST, after the Flash Airlines Boeing 737-300 crash at Sharm-el-Sheikh, Egypt in Jan 2004, which killed 134 French holidaymakers. Calls for action increased when Turkish carrier ONUSA AIR banned from Dutch airspace, was flying Dutch tourists to and from Belgium, simply by bussing them across the border.
The EU Transport Commissioner Jacques Barrot has barred 91 airlines, which include 50 carriers from Congo and others from Kazakhistan, Equatorial Guniea, Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Swaziland. This ban also includes Air Koryo of Democratic republic of Korea and Ariana Afghan Airlines of Afghanistan.
It is indeed very embarrassing and insulting for an airline like PIA, to be even reprimanded or cautioned by EASA. Both PIA and CAA officials are in a state of denial, which will only further complicate matters.
The crisis has already been mishandled by both organisations. In the case of PIA the onus falls on Engineering, Flight Safety and to some extent on Flight Operations. Another aspect that invites hostility of European governments, is the failure of immigration to check illegal immigration on bogus documents from Islamabad and Karachi airports, by influential travel agents with links in Gujrat and Karachi.
The federal government as a major shareholder has to act in the national interest, without any further delay or submitting to political pressures. It is time to consider moving executive offices of PIA and CAA to Islamabad, for closer scrutiny, free from the politicised headquarters of both these organisations, where key appointments and commercial interests are being compromised.
However, that is in the long run. Immediately, PIA needs to focus all its resources for maintenance of aircrafts by eliminating revenue pilferage, extra fuel consumption on positioning flights, with fuel burdening airlines operating expenditures. An airline of repute with an international flight schedule cannot afford to cut cost of maintenance and delays in technical part procurement, which compromise minimum safety standards. PIA has the potential market base of loyal ethnic Pakistanis, to earn enough revenues, so as to break-even or make nominal profits, provided it cuts irrelevant expenditures.
PIA may get partial ban on flights to Europe
Hammad in Cologne & Amraiz Khan in Lahore
LAHORE - Swallowing the insult to their professional competence by a partial EU ban, PIA and the CAAP may fail to overcome their latest crisis because their managements stick to denial, as if nothing has happened.
PIA is in danger of being lumped together with 50 airlines from the Congo, and others from Kazakhstan, Equatorial Guinea, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Swaziland, North Korea and Afghanistan, unless it defends itself in its latest brush with the EU, following warnings in October.
The European Aviation Safety Agency became operational in 2003, on the basis of a European Parliament and Council resolution (1592/2002), as an independent EU body under European Law, accountable to member states and EU institutions. It is based in Cologne Germany and has developed strong working relationships with counterparts across the world, including ICAO, FAA and the aviation authorities of Canada, Brazil, China, Russia and Israel. The agency has recruited highly qualified specialists to consolidate its authority as centre of excellence in aviation safety. On 16 May 2006, a regulation implementing Directive 2004/36/EC of European Parliament and Council authorised it for assessment of foreign aircrafts using community airports. Any decision of EASA is pursuant to Article 35 of Regulation 1952/2002, whereby an appeal can be brought against decisions of the agency, taken for Airworthiness and Environmental Certification.
In October 2006, EASA gave a mild warning cautioning PIA to improve their documentation, maintenance, compliance with mandatory safety procedures and environmental issues relating to fuel spillages while refuelling at European airports, following inspections of their aircrafts at London, Manchester, Frankfurt, Milan, Oslo etc. Inspections had revealed bad maintenance practices and non-compliance with procedures laid down for proper rectification. They pointed out serious lapses in the ability of CAA Pakistan to carry out professional assessment of aircraft under its jurisdiction, because it did not have qualified personnel on types of commercial aircrafts in use, nor conversant with regulatory rules and observance of ICAO, JAA and FAA regulations. It also pointed out lapses in professional ethics, whereby inspectors of CAA are not expected to get remuneration or perks from airlines that they inspect.
These inspections related to review of an aircraft maintenance record, and did not involve detailed inspection of an aircraft. There are airlines that continue to fly into Europe without any censure, using the same type of aircrafts in use by PIA, like A-310s, Boeing 747 Classics and even A300s. EASA only monitors compliance with laid down minimum specifications of safety and maintenance procedures. The problem of both PIA and CAA is their failure to comprehend the basic issues. Perhaps the fact that most of senior executives do not have sufficient experience in commercial aviation, which is a highly regulated service oriented industry, has put the national airline into a problem, which if tackled properly, could have taken it out of troubled waters. The airlines in-house safety audit functions normally carried out by their safety department, if performed professionally could have saved PIA from being reprimanded by routine inspections carried out at all airports by respective regulatory bodies. PIA today has an engineering SVP, who has no experience of working in a regulated commercial aviation industry.
In February 2007, a three-man team from EASA came to inspect CAA Pakistan with mutual consent. They also inspected PIA, which is the only airline regulated by CAA Pakistan, and flies to Europe. According to report submitted by SAFA, the inspections reveal that satisfactory remedial measures were not undertaken to improve lapses pointed out in October 2006. The European Aviation Blacklist is based on results of checks at European airports, which “monitor use of poorly maintained aircrafts; the inability of the airlines involved to rectify the identified shortcomings during inspections; and the inability of the authority responsible for overseeing the airline to perform its task,†in this case Pakistan CAA. The EC only imposes a complete or partial ban on an airline after a case-by-case analysis following ASC consultations. If a banned airline believes it has since achieved safety standard compliance, it can contact the EC or a member state, either directly or through its civil aviation authority. The EC will take a decision based on an ASC assessment. Every ban must comply with right of defence and can be done quickly in urgent cases. An airline under review can “express its case, submit comments in writing, and add new items to their file, and ask to be heard by the EC or to attend a hearing before the ASC. They may be assisted by their own supervisory CAAâ€ÂÂ.
Banned airlines can still sell tickets under their name and using their own code. But the flights must be operated by aircraft and staff belonging to airlines that are deemed to be safe. Under existing regulations, it is compulsory to inform passengers which airline will operate the flightâ€ÂÂ. Safety Assessment of foreign airlines was started under pressure to create a binding EU BLACKLIST, after the Flash Airlines Boeing 737-300 crash at Sharm-el-Sheikh, Egypt in Jan 2004, which killed 134 French holidaymakers. Calls for action increased when Turkish carrier ONUSA AIR banned from Dutch airspace, was flying Dutch tourists to and from Belgium, simply by bussing them across the border.
The EU Transport Commissioner Jacques Barrot has barred 91 airlines, which include 50 carriers from Congo and others from Kazakhistan, Equatorial Guniea, Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Swaziland. This ban also includes Air Koryo of Democratic republic of Korea and Ariana Afghan Airlines of Afghanistan.
It is indeed very embarrassing and insulting for an airline like PIA, to be even reprimanded or cautioned by EASA. Both PIA and CAA officials are in a state of denial, which will only further complicate matters.
The crisis has already been mishandled by both organisations. In the case of PIA the onus falls on Engineering, Flight Safety and to some extent on Flight Operations. Another aspect that invites hostility of European governments, is the failure of immigration to check illegal immigration on bogus documents from Islamabad and Karachi airports, by influential travel agents with links in Gujrat and Karachi.
The federal government as a major shareholder has to act in the national interest, without any further delay or submitting to political pressures. It is time to consider moving executive offices of PIA and CAA to Islamabad, for closer scrutiny, free from the politicised headquarters of both these organisations, where key appointments and commercial interests are being compromised.
However, that is in the long run. Immediately, PIA needs to focus all its resources for maintenance of aircrafts by eliminating revenue pilferage, extra fuel consumption on positioning flights, with fuel burdening airlines operating expenditures. An airline of repute with an international flight schedule cannot afford to cut cost of maintenance and delays in technical part procurement, which compromise minimum safety standards. PIA has the potential market base of loyal ethnic Pakistanis, to earn enough revenues, so as to break-even or make nominal profits, provided it cuts irrelevant expenditures.
-
- Registered Member
- Posts: 31
- Joined: Mon Dec 25, 2006 2:24 am
- Location: bradford
-
- Registered Member
- Posts: 500
- Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 9:56 pm
-
- Registered Member
- Posts: 777
- Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2005 9:57 pm
Bhayya javed sardar un ex-paf air commodores say to behtar hay, jo pia ko aanay walay saalon may *jonk* ki tarah chipkain gay.Viscount wrote:The Chief architect of the PIA planes' non compliance to EU standards JAVED SARDAR ( DCE-QC) has been promoted as Chief Engineer QC .
''Kaanton ka bhi haq hai piyarey
kon chhuraiy apna daaman.''
-
- Registered Member
- Posts: 127
- Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 6:38 pm
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 54078
- Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 11:52 pm
- Location: Pakistan
-
- Registered Member
- Posts: 127
- Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 6:38 pm
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 54078
- Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 11:52 pm
- Location: Pakistan
-
- Registered Member
- Posts: 500
- Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 9:56 pm
Britain bans PIA flights
By Baqir Sajjad Syed
ISLAMABAD, March 2: Britain on Friday became the second European country to restrict Pakistan International Airlines (PIA) operations to destinations in the UK.
A PIA spokesman confirming the restrictions said that they had been told by the UK authorities only to fly Boeing 777 jets to UK destinations.
The UK ban will be the biggest setback for the national flag carrier which operated 33 flights to five British destinations every week -- the largest PIA operation in any European country.
“Some of the flights to Britain have been cancelled because of the sudden move,†travel agents said, adding that they had received no alternative plan from the airline.
On Tuesday, Germany asked PIA not to fly most of its aircraft to German airports because of safety concerns.
Details of German restrictions revealed on Friday showed that the situation was much graver than what PIA was making people to believe. Germany has allowed only one Boeing 777 bearing tail number AP-BGL to operate to Germany, which implies that the remaining six have failed to meet the safety standards.
Previously, PIA announced that the recently acquired seven Boeing 777 jets would not be affected by the restrictions.
There are also reports that Italy may follow the suit.
The European Union is likely to impose restrictions from March 8 following PIA’s failure to rectify systemic safety deficiencies identified by the European Commission.
By Baqir Sajjad Syed
ISLAMABAD, March 2: Britain on Friday became the second European country to restrict Pakistan International Airlines (PIA) operations to destinations in the UK.
A PIA spokesman confirming the restrictions said that they had been told by the UK authorities only to fly Boeing 777 jets to UK destinations.
The UK ban will be the biggest setback for the national flag carrier which operated 33 flights to five British destinations every week -- the largest PIA operation in any European country.
“Some of the flights to Britain have been cancelled because of the sudden move,†travel agents said, adding that they had received no alternative plan from the airline.
On Tuesday, Germany asked PIA not to fly most of its aircraft to German airports because of safety concerns.
Details of German restrictions revealed on Friday showed that the situation was much graver than what PIA was making people to believe. Germany has allowed only one Boeing 777 bearing tail number AP-BGL to operate to Germany, which implies that the remaining six have failed to meet the safety standards.
Previously, PIA announced that the recently acquired seven Boeing 777 jets would not be affected by the restrictions.
There are also reports that Italy may follow the suit.
The European Union is likely to impose restrictions from March 8 following PIA’s failure to rectify systemic safety deficiencies identified by the European Commission.