PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - Away for a day and it's gone
View Single Post
Old 6th May 2006, 11:37
  #5 (permalink)  
Danny

aka Capt PPRuNe
 
Join Date: May 1995
Location: UK
Posts: 4,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
For the time being the thread in question has been removed at the request of Ryanair's lawyers due, according to Ryanair, false and inaccurate allegations which include "That on 24th April 2006 Ryanair crews were accepting approaches and landing at stn in RVRs of 200 metres at night with no centerline and no touchdown zone lights working." and "That Ryanair aircraft crews made CATIII and/or CATII approaches and landings at Stansted in RVR's below the minimum RVR".

Whilst the IAA are undertaking an investigation into these allegations and the fact that there were suggestions in the thread to the effect that Ryanair management places undue pressure on its pilots and that passenger safety is compromised because of this, they are confident that such statements are false and highly damaging to Ryanair. I have removed the thread until such time, as and when, any evidence to back up the allegations is received.

Some posters, the grim repa in particular, according to the lawyers, use this website as a vehicle to make malicious, damaging and defamatory statements about Ryanair. Whilst I and the other mods do our best to keep an eye on what is posted, individual posters must take responsibility to make sure that what they post is factual and not deliberately manufactured for the purpose of defaming or damaging anyone or any company. If anything is posted that is deliberately or obviously false then we take measures to remove it immediately. At other times, the content may not be obviously, deliberately false and until it is brought to our attention that it is so, it may remain and be discussed. There can be no one that hasn't noticed the 10 year old statement that appears at the bottom of every page on PPRuNe that states: As these are anonymous forums the origins of the contributions may be opposite to what may be apparent. In fact the press may use it, or the unscrupulous, to elicit certain reactions.. With that in mind, we have always respected objections where there was any doubt about the validity of allegations made on here.

Ryanair has a record of going to court over anything that they feel is claimed to be unfair criticism and one thing that they rightly are very sensitive to is allegations that Ryanair is an airline that does not operate to the highest safety standards. As they have very deep pockets, not many people can afford to dispute them when any allegations do arise, including myself here at PPRuNe, but it would appear that many people think PPRuNe is the only platform where they can at least raise their allegations. Well, that is not the case and if they are so sure of their convictiuons they should use the regulated channels that are available to them. One thing we try to make sure of here on PPRuNe is that any allegations are not just malicious muck raking by interested competitors or disgruntled employees of Ryanair.

In relation to the original thread, no one has disagreed with the point that the night time fall back to 550 meters visibility due to no centerline lighting being available was in place. There has been no hint that the options to change the work in progress limitations had been used that night.

Additional recorders should have been switched on at any point RVR's were being issued and extra logging requirements for the SRG should have been initiated. However, there are wrinkles in the law where, due to timing of calls from ATC, a 'look-see' can be taken as long as the reported RVR is above the company and JAR minimum before reaching the outer marker or equivalent approach ban point. As long as the reported RVR was above the minimum for the type of approach being made and the landing runway and airport facilities available when the aircraft reached the outer marker or equivalent point, a landing could be made at the commanders discretion if, in his or her opinion the perceived actual visibility was better than the reported visibility during periods of declared low vis operations. The extra recording and logging comes into play in any subsequent enquiry for the LVP periods.

On the night in question, the overwhelming proportion of flights diverting suggests that LVP's were not only in operation but that arriving pilots were fully aware that the centre line lighting issue simply made it not worthwhile hanging around hopefully waiting for the vis to improve significantly. In light of that, the allegations made on here about breaches of the regulations were valid and the IAA must agree as it has decided that it is worth investigating. Should there be no evidence to support the claims that safety regulations as they relate to operation of aircraft in low visibility operations were breached then we are prepared publish the fact and give equal time to restate that Ryanair only operate their aircraft to the highest safety standards and regulations.
Danny is offline