After reading and seeing these events unfold, I'll pass.http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=4362383http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/transport...sp?story=627355

"The airline twice aborted flights from the United Arab Emirates for Britain on Sunday when passengers angrily complained after spotting fuel gushing from a wing."Doesn't sound too promising.But on the other hand:"There is no suggestion that Phuket Air, which has an unblemished safety record, operated the flights without adhering to all safety standards."But I have a feeling (and it's only that, I don't have any facts to support this) that low-budget airlines are cutting back on safety to make money.Are there any real pilots here who can tell me if it's normal that excess fuel is being spilled on the taxiway? It sounds rather unsafe to me.

EDIT: I'm trying to finish this but Comcast cable is not being good on a Friday night. :-(The whole airline industry in the US are cutting cost everywhere they can.The collision system is called TCAS.The gearbox seal caused the engine to loose oil.Most like what happened is that they filled the wing tanks to capacity and the vto (volumetric top off) did not close the tank fueling valve's properly. So the fuel had to go somewhere, so it goes to the surge tank. There is one in each wing just for this. The surge tank must have been completely full or very close, so when the a/c made these turns, either in the air or on the grd., it will come out of the vent tube/box.

Thanks for the explanation!But isn't that considered unsafe? I mean, fuel on the taxiway...

>Thanks for the explanation!>>But isn't that considered unsafe? I mean, fuel on the>taxiway...Not really as that's the way they're supposed to work and I've seen it personally several times. It would be much worse if the surge tank didn't vent the extra fuel and cause a pressure lock in the vent system. As for spilling on the taxiway, the wing tip is out over the edge of most taxiways unless you're on an apron.BTW, the press likes to sensationalize most things way beyond what they really are and my recommendation would be to take most of these reports with the scepticism they deserve.Cheers,JohnBoeing 727/737 & Lockheed C-130/L-100 Mechanichttp://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/ng_driver.jpg

It's reported the the UK authorities banned Phuket Air from carrying passengers on one aircraft because of a fault in the escape route lighting. Phuket Air flew it empty back to Thailand for repair instead of paying to have it fixed in the UK.The UK authorities have also written to their opposite numbers in Thailand to demand that "all future flights must be operated in accordance with international safety standards".Phuket Air's British spokeswoman said "I have no idea what is going on because they (Phuket Air) are not answering my calls".They've only been operating since 2001 they should have an "unblemished safety record".I wouldn't fly with them.I too suspect budget airlines are getting close the the margins. In the UK a budget airline didn't properly train its cabin crew in the use of emergency doors - they used mockups which didn't replicate the actual forces when triggering inflation of emergency chutes, as a result cabin crew weren't capable of opening the doors: it has also been warned about taxying faster than the speed limit - aircrew are on a bonus scheme based on reliability.

Also, both of the fuel issues happened where it was hot. Pumping cool fuel into a warm or heat soaked wing would cause the fuel to expand.

Again, thanks for the info!I do take everything I read in papers with the scepticism it deserves, but I still hold my doubts about the safety on low-budget airlines.

not to mention one lowcost that used the aircraft toilets as 2 extra passenger seats...

Why didn't they just continue to their destination like that BA 747 3 engine affair posted elswhere in these forums? Why is it scarier than that BA flight?

>Why didn't they just continue to their destination like that>BA 747 3 engine affair posted elswhere in these forums? Why is>it scarier than that BA flight?Its not, it's the uneducated freaking out over something they have no clue about.Reminds me of a jacka$$ at PHNL a while back. NWA had a DC-10 at the gate, they started pushback and this yahoo sees the cargo vent door open(the one that automaticly opens/shuts on the port side just foward of the wings) Any way this idiot is yelling and screaming that NWA left a door open and the plane is going to crash, causing uneasy feelings toquite a few people around. The thing was when he was told what it was and what it did he wouldn't believe yelling his getting a lawyer to sue the h3ll out of NWA because they operate unsafe aircraft. He ended up being taken into custody. What a jacka$$ and the totally unnessisary rif he caused simply because he had no clue about aircraft, other than they fly. :-outtahttp://publish.hometown.aol.com/p3superb/i...s/sign_name.jpgThere is a fine line between "hobby" and "mental illness".- unknown"My daddy gives me up, to fight for you"- a US Military Members Child

Jeff, I think your talking about the outflow valve, seen in the pic below the letter "e".http://www.airliners.net/open.file/744813/L/ Your right though, the cargo doors do have 2 relief doors, on the cargo door itself, that open when you unlock the door.

>>>Jeff, I think your talking about the outflow valve, seen in>the pic below the letter "e".>>http://www.airliners.net/open.file/744813/L/ >>Your right though, the cargo doors do have 2 relief doors, on>the cargo door itself, that open when you unlock the door.You are correct. :) That would be the door I refer too, in you pic you posted...:-outtahttp://publish.hometown.aol.com/p3superb/i...s/sign_name.jpgThere is a fine line between "hobby" and "mental illness".- unknown"My daddy gives me up, to fight for you"- a US Military Members Child