Leo Hairly Camel – the man who claims to be a Ryanair captain, but who has never uttered a single word of criticism of ANY of the acts by Ryanair discussed on
PPRuNe – is now presenting himself as a safety expert. But his post gives it all away. I think he understands little about air safety and may well not be a line captain at all. No surprise that he works for an airline which frequently cites its compliance with JAR minimums as being in itself a statement about compliance with “the highest European safety standards”.
This, as far as I can see this is
Leo’s first serious effort to address safety issues. As he started by criticising my judgement and comments, I would like to take the time to address his arguments. I also note the absence of the normal vitriol, so maybe he is not quite in full ideological mode today ….
First and foremost: to claim that there is sufficient evidence to merit an investigation of something is not really radical if you are in the safety business. Airlines do it all the time. What is different about Ryanair is the nature of the corporate culture and the evident inability of the organisation to consider objectively undertaking such an exercise. The unwillingness to do so in the face of
evidence is perverse and unwarranted. The effort to dismiss the events he discusses as some kind of aberration on the part of
Flight is also evidence of “much missing of the point”.
My statement, as quoted, merely says
there are grounds for being very suspicious that all is not well with safety management in Ryanair. An appropriate investigation of the many, many signs and clues of dysfunction in Ryanair is long overdue.
It should have been noted by
Leo that I did not pre-judge the outcome. I merely said that there is evidence. And there is. There is evidence of late reporting of SERIOUS incidents. There is a consistent history now in Ryanair of “late” reporting of events - after they are "discovered". (Cynics might even refer to the possibility of “cover up”). The question must be, for a safety professional,
why so?
There is evidence of other repeated characteristics in some of these events – including in Ryanair’s own admission that high energy approaches consistently followed the introduction of the B737-800 from Ryanair base to base, with a delay of a few months. A reflective airline with an open safety culture would have addressed that matter. Some people in Ryanair did identify the problem. But the airline did NOT address the issue until, in the very last base, Dublin, where it enjoys a tense relationship with its pilots, the notion of demotion became popular. (More questions of the form
Why? arise here too). This was followed by the famous Board memorandum which introduced, as I read elsewhere, the notion of “
safety management by threat” (which pretty well sums it up).
Leo the fact that you are a
partisan commentator is demonstrated by your lack of reflection and desire to defend and protect (using that characteristic Ryanair technique called
attack). David Learmount is now presented as an ungrateful traitor, rather than the understated professional that he clearly is. He only suggested rather basic investigatory steps.
Mature airlines, the kind you seem to utterly despise, are much more cautious on safety matters than Ryanair. There is nothing to fear from an open and independent investigation, especially if your airline is run properly. There is even the prospect of learning something to your advantage.
But even more to the point, your silly and tendentious efforts to link a Supreme Court finding with the publication by
Flight of its articles is a complete giveaway. You clearly just don’t get it. This is real. It is not about managing public perceptions or some mad plot by the enemies of Ryanair to do you down. Some people, a LOT of people, including a very large number of your employees are
genuinely convinced that something is seriously awry. They may be convinced
and wrong - but that is a different matter. Are your claims of
such blatant union ballyhoo
intended as a reason or an excuse for this diversionary tactic? I am aware of lots events in Ryanair that should have seen the light of day and which occurred long before REPA and other Ryanair industrial problems surfaced.
What happened here is that a report by the Irish Accident Investigation Unit triggered the latest sequence of events. Anyone with a bit of objectivity can see that.
Flight is making no accusations – it is, just as I am, marshalling the evidence and saying “maybe somebody should have a look at this rather interesting set of events?” and, even, the repeated evidence from your own pilots that all is not well. There is, quite simply, just TOO much of it to be written off as a plot by bad anti-Ryanair people.
There can be no such investigation in Ryanair because the Chief Executive will never permit it to take place. Why? Because he suspects that unpleasant truths might come out. These would be truths about his impact on all of these matters. He may not actually be the person who encourages an unsafe decision by a captain – who, of course, is personally responsible – but he is the person who creates the safety culture. (But.... that is the nub of what is at issue. Remember Zebrugge? ValueJet?).
I have the advantage of knowing many Ryanair pilots who have personally told me about their experiences. I think I know why Ryanair will fight this as a public relations matter and not as a safety matter. But, in the end, it won’t work
Leo. It won’t work because there is an unpleasant logic to the situation in which Ryanair finds itself and, like the sea and gravity, it will not respond to public relations, orders, memoranda, vindictive acts or threats.
These matters can only be resolved by an independent, objective and comprehensive investigation by professionals. And you, despite your safety claims, will fight that tooth and nail.
In conclusion, and as a curtsy to your Latin predilections.:
Quod erat demonstrandum est?
(Apologies to all about the length, but I think an effort should be made on this one occasion, given the seriousness of the subject. Congratulations to
Stoic who managed to say the same thing in two sentences!).