Foreign Operators whose principal operations are UK based

[Epsilon minus]

UAE GCAA CAAP 8 states
5. POLICY
(a) Foreign aircraft of any category are not permitted to be based in the UAE
without authority. An aircraft shall be deemed to be based in the UAE
when, in the opinion of the GCAA, its principal operations,
administration and/or maintenance facilities are located in the UAE.
Unquote
The CAA should apply this policy to foreign operators in the UK ie Ryan Air forcing them to acceed to UK CAA oversite? If would be extremely difficult for Ryan Air to argue that their principle operations are not UK based.
The oversight of the CAA would prove beneficial.
EM

[Gulfstreamaviator]

Several operators are based in UAE with N reg aircraft and conducting Charters. When the GCAA are advised, the reply is "so what, we are powerless to act".

The GCAA turns a blind eye to almost all breaches of the ANO, (CAR), and should a Pilot complain with an ASR, he is repremended.

So it is no different in UAE, trust me.

glf

[ShotOne]

The industry would certainly benefit from Ryanair being required to operate to the same rules as other UK based airlines

[Epsilon minus]

Shot one
That is the thrust of my arguement. It has nothing to do with what goes on in the UAE. I believe that the principle of the ruling should be applied in the UK

[The Real Slim Shady]

The industry would certainly benefit from Ryanair being required to operate to the same rules as other UK based airlines

What would those rules be then?

FTLs?

Ryanair is EU-Ops compliant. If the UK CAA wish to further restrict FTLs within the existing framewrk they are entitled to do so, however, the Belgian,,Dutch, Irish etc Authorities don't have to follow suit.

Maintenance? All covered by EU Ops.

Operating Procedures? One man's Part A Section 8 is pretty much the same as another man's.

[Carmoisine]

Epsilon minus For goodness sake, its RYANAIR, all one word! They write it in 2 metre high letters on the side of the 'plane.

In response to your point: What Slim said.

[A319-100]

I think the current validating of non JAA licences would grind to a halt under the CAA., thereby taking away one of the cost advantages Ryanair has over opposition with regards to crew....

[Epsilon minus]

The question concerns oversight of foreign operators, who choose to trade primarily within the UK, by the CAA.
OM Part A section 8 or FTL schemes (CAP 371?) as applicable to that operator are but a small part of the whole oversight.
Ryan Air is an operator that falls within the question posed but not the only one, I'm sure. Any foreign operator that is compliant with EU-OPS and will be compliant with soon to come IR-OPS would not object to any scrutiny by aviation authority of the country of which they make the most money, ie the UK.
UK AOC holders are subject to the strictest rules and oversight in Europe. The rules regarding air safety should be governed by the highest and not the lowest common denominator. So why should foreign operators not play on a level playing field when it comes to the costs that UK AOC holders have to bear that compliance with CAA regulations bring not to mention the enhanced air safety regimes.

[Carmoisine]

Ryan Air is an operator

RYANAIR, RYANAIR! :ugh::ugh:

[Epsilon minus]

what ever!

[pwalhx]

As Ryanair is an EU airline in efefct in the single market surely it is not a foreign operator

[ATNotts]

Precisely - Ryanair can operate from the UK, in the same way that Easyjet can operate domestically in France, and between German cities and countries other than the UK.

Can't see the problem myself, unless we are trying to suggest that Irish regulations don't come up to EU standards.

[Capot]

If Ryanair's maintenance standards were reduced to what the CAA seem to find acceptable ("Not our job to tell people how to do it, do you see, that's the operator's responsibility. Another cup?") they could save a lot of money. They wouldn't, of course, because that saving turns into greater costs of delays and diversions.

It's time for we Brits to wake up to the fact that some of the worst standards in the world are to be found in hangars in Britain, as are some of the best. The point is that it depends on the company; the CAA is irrelevant. It's a piece of stunning arrogance, to say nothing of ignorance, to suggest that

The oversight of the CAA would prove beneficial.

There are NAAs about whom you could say that. But the CAA is not one of them.

[clipstone1]

shame Ryanair don't employ cabin crew that can communicate effectively in English tho!

[Astrocaryum vulgare]

shame Ryanair don't employ pilots that can communicate effectively in English tho!

[The Real Slim Shady]

Oh Pulleeze,

let me be the one who does your assessment when you apply for a job when your company goes out of business.

And puleeze let me do your Line Training.

Nothing I like better than putting a complete arsewipe in his place.:D:D:D:D:D:D

At FR we benefit from the experiences and cultural differences of several nationalities and we are all better for it.

[dc9-32]

Epsilon minus you have a PM, thanks :ok:

[Astrocaryum vulgare]

It's my observation the RT standards exhibited in UK airspace by Ryanair crews frequently fall below those of other locally-based operators, many of which, including my own, employ pilots from all 4 points of the globe, but unlike FR aren't permitted to accept validations of ICAO licences issued in exotic climbs.

And Slim we are most unlikely to meet on the line now or at any time in the future ;)

Regards etc.

[en2r]

The CAA should apply this policy to foreign operators in the UK ie Ryan Air forcing them to acceed to UK CAA oversite? If would be extremely difficult for Ryan Air to argue that their principle operations are not UK based.
The oversight of the CAA would prove beneficial.Thats a completely ridiculous statement and could never happen while Ireland and the UK are both still members of the EU. The EU has an open skies policy meaning any airline from any EU state can fly between any two EU airports. Regardless of this the Irish Aviation authorities are as safe as the UK CAA or any other EU aviation authority, evidenced by the fact that Ryanair have never had an accident and Aer Lingus haven't had an accident in over 40 years. All EU aviation authorities have to follow EU standards you know. Ryanair is an Irish company and its aircraft will remain Irish registered whether you like it or not.

[42psi]

Aer Lingus haven't had an accident in over 40 years.



I'm afraid that statement is untrue .... Shorts 360 EI-BEM

I was working for EI at LHR at the time.

ASN Aircraft accident Shorts 360-100 EI-BEM East Midlands Airport (EMA) (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19860131-1)

[en2r]

I'm afraid that statement is untrue .... Shorts 360 EI-BEM

I was working for EI at LHR at the time.

ASN Aircraft accident Shorts 360-100 EI-BEM East Midlands Airport (EMA) (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19860131-1)
I wasn't aware of that incident. I'd checked it out before I posted but perhaps since the incident wasn't fatal it wasn't listed. The last fatal accident was the Tuskar rock crash in 1968.
That doesn't change the fact that Irish Airlines are perfectly entitled to base aircraft with Irish registrations at UK airports under EU openskies policy. Unless either Ireland or the UK leave the EU, or the EU changes its Open Skies policy, then the UK CAA have no power to stop Irish registered aircraft being based in the UK

[42psi]

Agreed :ok:


That doesn't change the fact that Irish Airlines are perfectly entitled to base aircraft with Irish registrations at UK airports under EU openskies policy. Unless either Ireland or the UK leave the EU, or the EU changes its Open Skies policy, then the UK CAA have no power to stop Irish registered aircraft being based in the UK




In fact long before they got that far they'd have to do something about the N reg a/c based in the UK ... while that appears more likely from time to time it's not happened yet.

[Epsilon minus]

Which US registered airline operates a business from within the UK the size of Ryan airs operation?

[Mister Geezer]

As for using the UAE as an example, I could not think of a worse one to use to illustrate your point.

The mind boggles when you see the number of Ilyushin and Antonov aircraft that are registered in Central Asia and yet are based in the UAE.

What you are seeing now has been going on for decades and it is part and parcel of aviation. Perhaps some of you might remember the days when Pan Am had some short haul aircraft based in Berlin back in the 80s and they operated European routes to feed its US routes? All their aircraft wore 'N' registrations but were based in Europe!!!

[LGS6753]

/nerd mode on/

The Pan Am aircraft operating German domestic services were doing so under the rights that the US had under the post-war Four Powers Agreement that divided the governance of Berlin between the US, UK, France and Russia. I don't think West German aircraft were allowed to fly to Berlin, so the UK, US and France maintained air links between West Berlin and West Germany. BEA had a fleet of BAC One-Eleven 500s built for their German routes (G-AVMH-Z).

/nerd mode off/

[Groundloop]

BEA had a fleet of BAC One-Eleven 500s built for their German routes (G-AVMH-Z).

Doubt if they were built purely for the IGS routes. They were used on other routes as well, eg Glasgow-Manchester-Paris (or was it Glasgow-Birmingham-Paris? - memory not quite perfect!).

What they did have, though, was a greatly toned down version of the BEA colour scheme at the time as they were operated on the IGS routes in conjuction with Air France so the BEA titling was VERY small and no speedjack on the tail.

[SWBKCB]

Ryanair have never had an accident

If we are only counting incidents where lives are lost as accidents, fair enough.

However, I think most people would define the incident at Ciampino on 11/11/08 as an accident.

Not anti-RYR, but I do like to let facts get in the way of a good arguement...

[Epsilon minus]

There seems to be a focus on Ryan air, I am raising the arguement in principle. ryan air are not a target or focal point though they do fall into the criteria.
With regards to serious incidents ryan air have had more than their fair share for example.
1) approach to a closed runway - Ireland
2) CIA
3) Sweden
There may be more, and on top of this have attracted the close attention of the press namely the sunday times with regards to a leaked memo warning pilots not to carry more that 4 tonnes reserves.
Could it be that ryan air pilots are feeling the management squeeze and could this pressure lead directly or indirectly to air safety compromises or risks? If yes then the oversight of the CAA could only be a good thing?
Merry Christmas
EM

[RecallCentre]

RYANAIR!!!!!!!!!

Its all one word! When you post on a forum like this with people who pay attention to detail, just spell the damn airlines name right! :ugh::ugh:

[747boy]

Epsilon minus if you are referring to the landing on a closed runway in Derry that flight was actually operated by the now defunct Eirjet.

[Epsilon minus]

747Boy. This is the incident to which is was refering
Irish minister demands report on dangerous landings by Ryanair The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2007/feb/20/theairlineindustry.travel)
In the Knock incident the IAA were not informed for several weeks after the incident. This supports my arguement for oversight by the CAA of foreign operators whose main business activities are centralised in the UK
Ryanair - too cheap to be safe? (http://www.tetracom.ca/transtalk/?p=1497)

[iwhak]

I for one am no Ryanair supporter, but this thread is absolute b...ox. The one thing I admire about Ryanair is their standards, flightdeck and maintenance. Regarding the IAA, they are absolute sticklers (and rightly so) in relation to operational standards. They are no flag of convenience! If you adopt the philosophy that one states oversight is better than another, you may as well throw EASA ops out the window now. This thread needs closing!

[Epsilon minus]

When Air Atlanta started an aviation operation of major significance from the UK. They were "encouraged" to apply for a UK AOC. The single reason for this was air safety, yet according to you any dodgy operator can set up camp in the UK any enjoy the business benefits of a very large market and lower operating costs than UK AOC holders have to bear because they are exempt of the more stringent safety requirements of the UK CAA.
We can enjoy and share our opinions here and enter into debate about arguements that may or may not agree with us. So why would you want this thread stiffled? As I have said before there is no need to become focused on Ryanair, they just happen to fit as an example at the moment, look at the principle of the arguement.
Happy new year.
EM

[No RYR for me]

Dear Epsilon

and lower operating costs than UK AOC holders have to bear because they are exempt of the more stringent safety requirements of the UK CAA

Let me say it more SLOWLY because you seem not grasp the real world: we ALL operate to the same JAA standard it is just that the CAA charges more...

I have flown on a number of different AOC's in different countries including an AOC covered by the good old CAA (where I also did my initial training): there is no good or bad country just some authorithies that are better in SOME areas than others and to claim that the CAA is so much better is pathetic.... :rolleyes:

So get of your patriotic high horse and wonder why UK AOC's have been stuck with long haul FTL's for years while this made regional airlines bleed financially or why the governement wanted the CAA act like a commercial organisation and make money versus cover cost as is the case in most countries.... :yuk: That is why an AOC might have been more expensive in the UK.

The principle of your argument is floored and should be in the spotters corner... :cool:

[Epsilon minus]

EU-OPS
Alleviations to EU-OPS in respect of FTLs is granted in EC treaty EC1899/2006 see para 6. EU-OPS is binding on all member states as per EC859/2008.
May I remind you that the regulations or EU-OPS are not the issue here it is the oversight regarding and enforcing compliance. Maybe you missed that important bit.
as for The principle of your argument is floored and should be in the spotters corner
It's flawed not floored. I'll let you choose which corner you would like to stand in.
Regards
EM

[Capot]

Epsilon Minus

The point you seem to be missing is that those of us who know the CAA SRG (Flight Ops, AS, Airworthiness and PLD) only too well also know that CAA oversight is certainly no better than any other EU State's NAA, and in many instances is so "light touch" as to be invisible.

This is against the background of commercialising their regulatory functions, and the inevitable consequences of this stupid, unnecessary and damaging approach to government. (Has Mrs Thatcher died yet? I hope so, but if so her terrible misguided legacy lives on to destroy the United Kingdom.)

It is not the fault of most of the many excellent and dedicated front-line Inspectors, Surveyors and the like, who have to work within the parameters set for them by a largely incompetent management with very limited skills.

Sorry...carried away for a moment......the fact is that under CAA oversight Ryanair's very high maintenance standards at least would only be preserved if Ryanair made sure of that, as it would. The CAA would be irrelevant.

I get the impression that there's a lot you don't know about both Ryanair and the CAA.

[No RYR for me]

EM Thanks for pointing out my error of floored vs flawed. For once you where right..... :rolleyes:

The point on the FTL's is that they only changed because of Europe and not because of your favored authority from heaven...... until then UK AOC's where losing lots of money... :bored:

Enjoy spotters corner, I understand that there is a lot of spotters on top of the carpark at terminal 3 who will agree with your observations :8

[Epsilon minus]

Capot
Thank you for your comments. I do not agree with your opinions regarding the CAA and, as you put it, their light touch. I do know a lot about the CAA in particular the SRG though I know little of Ryan air other than the fact that they attract a lot of negative attention (Channel 4, Sunday Times) and have a record of air safety incidents that most would not be envious of.
The IAA is a small authority which employs approximately 600 odd staff 77 of which man the safety regulation office. It took ryanair several weeks to report a serious air safety incident to the IAA is this a measure of regard that the operator holds for its aviation authority?
Anyway this isn't a debate about ryanair but about foreign operators with high frequency operations within the UK. I think the CAA should be entitled to inspect and audit any foreign carrier that meets the above, don't you? This does not include SAFA inspections either.
EM

[Capot]

Epsilon

Ireland has a population of about 4m, last time I looked, that is 1/15th of the UK. It has 2 major airports, and a very small number of airlines. 600 sounds just about right to me; in fact I cannot imagine how they all keep occupied. The 77 in the safety regulation office sounds about right too.

I don't know how many the CAA employs; is it more than 9,000?

To me, the number is irrelevant. It's whether or not they fulfil their role effectively that counts, and the Irish do that, whether or not your apparent chauvinism allows you to admit that.

Sensationalist reports developed by journalists from unverified information sent to them by unqualified people are not to be taken seriously, and I am surprised that you do take them seriously.

What exactly is this "record of air safety incidents" that you make so much of? Few if any of the reports that anti-Ryanair people love so much have any substance, and several show the airline in a very good light, from an aviation safety angle. Or are you going to blame Ryanair for an airport's failure to provide proper warnings about bird flocks to a landing aircraft? You won't be the first, if you do.

You may also be falling into the trap of missing the fact that if you operate as many sectors as Ryanair do every day, they could (and do) have the lowest number in Europe of incidents of all kinds per sector, and still have more than any other airline.

I think the CAA should be entitled to inspect and audit any foreign carrier that meets the above, don't you?

Of course I don't think that. The CAA is not the agency responsible for safety in UK, EASA is, whether you like it or not. It would be absurd if a member state started auditing other member states' airlines. Easyjet has a large operation in Europe; do you believe that they should be audited by the French and Germans? Or indeed, why shouldn't those countries start auditing BA, which has a high frequency of operations there? It's no less logical than your idea that the CAA should audit Ryanair, as though they are somehow superior to the Irish NAA.

[racedo]

I know little of Ryan air other than the fact that they attract a lot of negative attention (Channel 4, Sunday Times) and have a record of air safety incidents that most would not be envious of.


Detail the ones that you believe are a problem.