What were the safety gaps grounding SAA, Mango and Comair?

The nation has been kept in the dark about the safety gaps that triggered the grounding of the South African Airways (SAA), Mango and Comair fleets, with the aviation watchdog accused of being “heavy-handed” if the loopholes were mere administrative issues.

The South African Civil Aviation Authority (SACAA) would not share details of the supposed “noncompliance” and “irregularities” in adhering to safety and security protocols by South African Airways Technical (SAAT), which maintains the grounded aircraft.

Transport Minister Fikile Mbalula was also not prepared to reveal the details on the flagged safety gaps, which comes in the backdrop of recent allegations that SAAT was infiltrated by rogue elements supplying fake parts.

The aviation authority said the inspection that uncovered the safety concerns was conducted at SAAT, an approved aircraft maintenance organisation.

Apparently, SACAA sampled a few aircraft, which were subsequently issued with a prohibition order, meaning they could not operate until such time they had addressed the noncompliances.

This comes barely weeks after the SAA board had to rebut allegations that the technical problems that forced a Mango operated aircraft pilot to abort a flight last month was linked to alleged irregularities at SAAT.

The Sunday Times had reported that the Boeing 737-400, flying from Johannesburg to Cape Town, had to abort the flight after the plane was allegedly hit by a multi-systems failure caused by a suspected electrical power disruption.

“There is no link between the aircraft incident involving the Mango flight reported on and matters that are currently under investigation at SAAT,” the SAA board said.

Briefing journalists in Cape Town yesterday, the minister said although it was not his space to reveal the technical details that led to the grounding, the fact that the aviation authority had to act showed that there was a problem.

He said the delays and cancellations of flights as a result of the grounding yesterday were precautionary measures taken by the affected airlines to ensure that no aircraft took to the skies without certainty on its airworthiness.

The minister said the aircraft were grounded after a sample picked up the safety gaps.

Mbalula called on the public not to panic as this was not a total grounding, saying he was pleased that SAA Technical had since submitted a Corrective Action Plan aimed at addressing the irregularities and that this had been accepted by SACAA.

Still, there was no indication of what was meant to be corrected.

Guy Leich, editor of SA Flyer Magazine, said SACAA had “been remarkably reticent about what the nature of the findings were”.

It was also interesting why only a few aircraft from Comair were grounded.

“For Mango, perhaps it is a bigger problem because all their aircraft are maintained by SAA Technical but for Comair, a significant number … are increasingly being maintained by Lufthansa Technical, so the problem should not affect them for long,” he told Radio 702 yesterday.

He said the fact that Comair had announced yesterday that its aircraft would be back in the air as soon as today suggested that the issues raised related to “paperwork”, but this brings further questions why the aviation watchdog acted so harshly.

“Surely they could have sat down and [ground] these issues out for the past two or three weeks that they should have looked at, rather than be heavy-handed and ground the whole fleet and inconvenience passengers,” Leich said.

He said the grounding would have serious cost implications for the airlines.

British Airways had a franchise with Comair and the safety issues could impact its ability to compete in the international market.

“I am still of the opinion at this stage that the SACAA has been heavy-handed,” said Leich.

– siphom@citizen.co.za

For more news your way, download The Citizen’s app for iOS and Android.