In an apparent unprecedented move which enabled a SAA flight to collect a consignment of Johnson & Johnson Covid-19 vaccines from Belgium for SA’s vaccine programme, the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) granted 10 safety and proficiency exemptions for the crew to fly.
Sunday Times Daily has learnt SAA applied for at least 13 exemptions from the CAA, 10 of which related to safety and proficiency.
Regulator documents show the exemptions were granted on February 15 by CAA acting legal and aviation compliance executive Babalwa Nandani. This enabled the flight to depart on February 24 to Brussels.
But aviation experts have said that though obtaining one exemption may not be unusual though still difficult, 13 exemptions were excessive. The exemptions come on the back of the Airbus A340-600 nearly stalling minutes after take-off, allegedly due to its weight being miscalculated.
Analyst Guy Leitch said it was what was exempted that was alarming.
Never in SAA’s history has this ever been done. It was blatantly irresponsible. The CAA must explain why these exemptions were granted.
— A SAA training captain
“Obtaining one exemption is difficult; never mind 13 for four pilots. It’s unprecedented, especially when an aircraft is flying into a country in the grips of winter. To request and grant that many, especially for low visibility procedures and all weather operations, requires exceptional circumstances.”
The 10 safety and proficiency exemptions include that the aircrew, though qualified commercial airline pilots, be exempt from undergoing training and testing for:
• low visibility operations;
• all weather operations;
• operations in ground icing conditions;
• required navigation performance;
• aircraft upset prevention recovery training;
• crew resource management;
• preventing controlled flight into terrain;
• safety and emergency procedures training;
• in-line checks; and
• recency.
A week before the exemptions were granted, Brussels Times reported that appalling weather conditions, including snowfall, had affected the capital’s airport.
Nandani also granted SAA permission for the aircrew to use an external training facility and examiner so the pilots could renew their licences.
This occurred two weeks before the flight at Africa Aviation Academy at Rand Airport, Germiston. The Academy said the aircrew’s course ran for a week, during the second week of February.
“The course included written exams, ground school training and simulator training.”
The academy said it did not assist the pilots in their airline’s qualifications.
“In terms of proficiency to operate the flight to Brussels, SAA would have to ensure the crew was proficient.”
It was reported last week that a minute after take-off, and while climbing over Boksburg, an Airbus A340-600’s on-board computers took control of the aircraft after it experienced a “Alpha Floor Event”.
The event occurs when an aircraft, on take-off, landing or in midair, does not have the required lift, which is related to airspeed, to keep flying and is about to stall. The aircraft’s on-board computers are designed to automatically take control, by either lowering the plane’s nose or by commanding the auto-thrust to give maximum power, giving the crew time to intervene and stop the situation from worsening. A Sunday Times Daily source said though everything was automatic, the crew would have been aware of the situation through alerts on the aircraft’s primary flight displays “which are right in front of them”.
Another Sunday Times Daily source said the incident allegedly occurred because the crew miscalculated the aircraft’s fuel load weight by 90tons. “This should be checked, rechecked and then checked again by the crew before take-off.”
The miscalculation is thought to have resulted in the crew incorrectly programming the aircraft’s on-board computers, which would have miscalculated the required take-off power, speed and speed at which the flaps are retracted.
The CAA is investigating the incident and why SAA only reported it to the regulator three weeks after it occurred.
Regulator spokesperson Kabelo Ledwaba said the incident was only reported on March 17. “Such incidents must be reported within 48 to 72 hours.”
With SAA grounded since April because of the Covid-19 national lockdown, its pilots have been unable to fly to maintain their proficiency.
A dispute between the airline’s pilots and SAA’s Business Rescue Practitioners (BRPs) over retrenchment conditions has, since December, seen all SAA Pilot Association members locked out from the company’s training facilities.
To legally and safely fly, aircrew must undergo regular testing, often every six months, and complete crucial CAA approved training programmes, said Leitch.
“Testing and retesting is the life blood of aviation safety.”
Louise Brugman, SAA’s BRP spokesperson, declined to comment.
Ledwaba also declined to comment on SAA’s exemption application. In a statement on Thursday defending the exemptions, Ledwaba said: “The approvals are being twisted to paint a picture that the SAA is receiving preferential treatment. Approvals are a common phenomenon and certainly not unique to SAA.
“An exemption process is legislated ... in line with civil aviation regulations ... These applications undergo rigorous processes within the CAA to ensure that the granting of such an exemption will not jeopardise aviation safety. This is by no means an overnight process.”
An SAA pilot, with intimate knowledge of the incident, speaking on condition of anonymity, said what happened could have occurred to any SAA pilot, “especially as none of us have flown for months”.
He said the problem came down to SAA stopping training and that it was unfair to have expected these pilots to have put their lives on the line.
“The CAA is the gatekeeper. This many exemptions should never have been requested or granted. It’s unheard of.
“If SAA wanted the flight, they should have ensured the crew were up to speed on all their skills, especially as they were flying into Europe’s winter. Low visibility training is vital and must be done every six months.”
A SAA training captain said: “Had the crew been up to scratch on their training, especially in procedures building up to the flight, they may have spotted possible mistakes.
“The recency exemption means they were exempt from training, which is absurd.
“Never in SAA’s history has this ever been done. It was blatantly irresponsible. The CAA must explain why these exemptions were granted.”
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.