Ryanair B738 loss of situational awareness and terrain clearance 07/09/05 [Archive]

Aloue

12th Jan 2006, 19:23

Before the predictable tirade of Ryanair abuse begins I regret having to confirm line pilot leo's worst fears, but based on what I heard last year I don't happen to agree with his "facts". I note that the recently absent leo was around to be the second poster today. By coincidence, I am told that the Ryanair CX - a certain Mr. Michael O'Leary - was readily available throughtout the day to appear on radio programmes where, by all accounts, he performed very well indeed. The management of the news seems to be going very well and Ryanair has been cast as a learning and caring employer. I note some in a supporting cast of contributions above who, by definition, can only be people who are commenting on the Ryanair version of events. (Several names are as well known to me as those named by leo).

I beg to strongly disagree with leo the sometimes remarkably well informed line pilot's point of view. In deference to the crew members concerned I will only say that they went through a really difficult experience and, even if I had all the information, I would nothing to say about this particular incident.

But I will say this. This incident is one of several about which we have probably not heard the last. It is particularly interesting that our friend leo makes the following observation: Once again, individual responsibility, or something that Ryanair is somehow responsible for? There have been several threads here about Ryanair in which the catch 22 of Ryanair has been highlighted - namely the fact that pilots have responsibilities that they often perceive to be difficult to discharge. These often relate to "fitness for duty" issues. Many threads have discussed such issues in recent years. The latest thread to make reference to this was one on fatigue. As I recall it the Ryanair captain involved declined to operate extra flights on grounds of fatigue. Shortly afterwards the captain found himself a co-pilot. He exercise his "individual responsibility" and there are few Ryanair pilots who did not get the message - and that was not a message about individual responsibility.

Sorry to confirm your worst expectations leo but your take does not wash with me and the sooner all of these matters get properly aired and investigated the better. An "properly aired" does not mean here on prunne.

RMC

12th Jan 2006, 19:25

LHC and the evidently state educated Dim Repa
Its rather gratifying (like when Princess Michael of Kent comes out with one of her idiotic "go back to where you came from" jibes) when unconscious / incompetent bigots make this kind of shallow disriminatory statement.
You either over estimate your private education or under estimate the quality of state schools.
I am state educated but have an MSc in Business Mangagement (University of Warwick)..... only ever mentioned when dealing with clowns like you.
Would be more than happy to discuss this with you in person...perhaps you could PM me. (This thread will be history by the time I next log onto PPRUNE).

the_hawk

12th Jan 2006, 19:36

@Aloue - but you are not trying to say Leo Hairy Camel = Michael O'Leary (apart from the anagram equation being true)?

the grim repa

12th Jan 2006, 19:48

We all know the culture that exists within ryanair.The fly or get fired rule.Delay or stop a flight at your own personal peril.This is why this guy was flying and make no mistake about it.This is a company where the crew controller has the power to make your life hell,should they see fit.

According to mol,the aircraft was operating within sop's,that is flying in moderate turbulence,with no radar on,no visible display on the nav display due to the fmc not being reprogrammed,no briefings,changes of runways,rushed approaches and still no briefings,no nav aids selected,total loss of situational awareness,fixation,breakdown in crew communications,near fatal loss of the aircraft.
The only thing sop about this mess was a new join captain flying with an inexperienced co-pilot.
Now tell me you would not mind if your wife,kids or family had been on that flight.
These pilots were lucky and but for a second of sanity saving the day we could now be looking at a very different picture in the low cost european market.
Come mol or leo,release the flight data and lets see the guts of it.

jondc9

12th Jan 2006, 19:56

I do tend to agree that a corporate culture may exist at any airline that causes a pilot to be worried about losing his job for calling in ''sick''. Whether that sickness is grief, sadness etc.

In the USA Aeronautical information manual (govt. publication) It lists a checklist of things to make you check yourself " fit for flight".

Illness
Medication
Stress
Alcohol
Fatigue
Emotional distress

Even the most experienced pilots must check these things. SADLY, I do believe that many airlines do pressure pilots to fly to make schedule regardless of problems.

BACK in the good old days, a union pilot could walk off a trip and say I can't fly today and that would be that. When able he could resume his job.

You give up something in a low cost carrier, You really do!

jon

medically grounded former 737 captain (pinched nerve sort of things ) I'm in the USA and have never even seen a ryanair plane in person.

fly safely out there and good for the copilot...trouble is he should have spoken up way before being established on the approach. This ''late'' go around diversion does not speak well for ryanair in my book

sweeper

12th Jan 2006, 20:48

retain the right to dislike ryanair,BUT....

if all emergencies in all airlines were handled this well,would,nt it be wonderful!
well done the copilot, and a good return on the training....

bafanguy

12th Jan 2006, 21:04

Apparently, "office politics" cannot be left out of an operational discussion.

sixmilehighclub

12th Jan 2006, 22:02

I knew a skipper once who was flying a B737 into a regional UK airport that he wasn't familiar with. On finals, he froze up, aborted landing. On third attempt, FO took control. Plenty of runway, just a mild wind, nothing unusual.

Turns out it was the anniversary of his fathers death and something had triggered his grief. He lost his nerve and concentration temporarily and couldn't land it.

He was and still is I believe one of the most swithced on skippers I had ever flown with. Something just got to him that day.

There are reasons you rarely see a commercial flight flown solo.

beernice

12th Jan 2006, 22:03

Sorry grim repa, when I needed compassionate leave I got in no problem. They might be bad but not that bad.
Like all incidents this was a combination of factors. The weather was very bad, cb's everywhere. Planes were all about trying to take avoiding action. The radio was manic. They had a late r/w change offered a circling to 33 CIA. They took a look at it and didnt like what they saw. Went to divert to Pescara when ATC offered them left base FLU. Then things started to go very wrong. They were not set up for FLU. Had severe turbulance. Captain decided the autopilot could not handle the turbulance and disconnected. Trying to handle the aircraft in these conditions he became overloaded.
It was a bad incident but not Ryanairs fault.

Sunfish

12th Jan 2006, 22:10

The theoretical name for this situation is called the "double bind" and it has been implicated in the onset of schizophrenia.

The double bind requires that you follow two mutually exclusive injunctions, or believe two mutually exclusive things at the same time.
as in:

1: I must fly the maximum hours and not report sick or I will be punished.
2: I must not pilot an aircraft while unfit (the IMSAFE Mantra) or I will be punished.

If you are caught in a double bind, as it appears the pilot was, and you have an accident, your employer will piously say exactly what Mr. Camel has said, and I quote:

"This man shouldn't have been flying at all, having suffered the death of a child in very recent days preceding this incident. The question is, why was he flying? His decision to report for duty is the relevant issue here. Once again, individual responsibility, or something that Ryanair is somehow responsible for?"

This is the third thread I am aware of that has discussed similar matters at Ryanair:
1: The pilot who made an unstabilised approach and later cited "stress" as the cause.
2. The pilot who was disciplined for refusing to fly after citing 'fatigue".
and now this.

I am aware of another thread containing a Ryanair memo that expresses a rather forceful opinion about the undesirability of absence from work.

To put it as tactfully as I can to avoid the wrath of moderators and of course Ryanair's army of lawyers, could the man in question have been flying because he had formed the obviously incorrect opinion that Ryanair would have regarded his absence as a punishable offence?

BANANASBANANAS

12th Jan 2006, 23:57

I can't comment on the mental state or thought processes of the Captain prior to reporting for duty but I can say "Very Well Done" to the FO.

I am a little puzzled as to the rationale behind putting said FO in the sim after the event to regain his confidence and composure though. I would have thought that the incident would have served to increase his confidence in both himself and the system which both appear to have worked as advertised.

My previous airline was not always the best at man management but they had an incident not too long ago when the Captain was incapacitated in the cruise (DXB to Far East) and the relatively inexperienced FO got a "field commission" to Captain somewhere south of KHI. Having got an on board Drs assessment of the captains condition he declared a Pan, turned back to DXB, got a cabin attendant to read the checklists and generally did an extremely good job. The airline rewarded him with a signed diploma of appreciation from the board and he got his piccy in the company rag receiving it.

Needless to say, neither his confidence nor his composure needed "reinforcing" with any simulator sessions and he was happily back in the saddle after his normal post flight rest.

airbourne

13th Jan 2006, 03:11

This is the story that appeared in some of the newspapers in Ireland. This from the Irish Examiner, and it was also the lead on yesterdays evening herald.

Pilot's cockpit breakdown prompts new Ryanair safety policy
12/01/2006 - 12:15:59

Ryanair pilots are stood down from flying duties for safety reasons following family bereavements after a captain suffered a breakdown in the cockpit days after burying one of his children, it emerged today.

The procedure was introduced last year after the pilot froze on approach to Rome’s Fiumicino Airport and failed to act to correct a dangerous descent.

A relatively inexperienced co-pilot grabbed the controls, averting disaster.

Michael O’Leary, Ryanair chief executive, revealed that since the incident it is obligatory for pilots to inform the company of a death in the family. They are then stood down on compassionate grounds.

“What we’ve since done is implemented a procedure that makes it mandatory for every pilot to advise the company if they have a bereavement in the family, in which case they will then receive compassionate leave and won’t be put in a situation that this captain was in this case,” he said.

Mr O’Leary insisted the plane was not close to crashing.

“I think the important thing to say is that this aircraft didn’t crash, or come near to a crash,” he said.

Ryanair insisted the policy reaffirmed company procedure to allow staff time off following a death.

An Irish Aviation Authority spokeswoman said Ryanair notified them of the incident within a day of it happening. A full report has since been sent to the IAA.

The incident occurred on an unspecified date in 2005, only days after the pilot had buried one of his children.

In the final approach to the airport, the plane was in a precarious situation. It was being buffeted in a thunderstorm, was badly off-target for the runway and was flying too low and too fast to make a safe landing.

A Ryanair report into the incident revealed the autopilot had been turned off and the pilots were unsure where exactly they were in relation to the runway.

As alarms went off warning of a possible crash, the first officer, a junior pilot, prompted the captain to see if he was in control.

Getting no response as the plane neared the ground, he intervened and increased the power suddenly, pulling the plane out of the approach and up into a climb to a safe altitude. The plane eventually landed at Pescara Airport outside Rome.

Mr O’Leary said the co-pilot had followed safety procedures to the letter, taking control of the plane when the pilot failed to respond to warnings.

He insisted none of the company’s standard operating procedures had changed since the incident.

“They’re there to avoid human error and we all make mistakes. I think the critical thing that came out in this report is that a captain was flying an aircraft a number of days after a bereavement in the family,” Mr O’Leary said.

“We’ve operated a system of compassionate leave in Ryanair for many years to cover these cases, but each person or each individual responds differently to bereavement. Some prefer to go to work and some people don’t.”

Mr O’Leary added that both the pilot and co-pilot had been given compassionate leave and underwent counselling and retraining following the incident.

No passenger on board the aircraft would have been aware of the incident.

spitfire

13th Jan 2006, 04:07

"Ryanair pilots are stood down from flying duties for safety reasons following family bereavements after a captain"

Bereavements are, sadly, not uncommon occurrences. The company has been established for plenty long enough for the HR department to have thought through all the "what if" situations and the follow up procedures prior to this poor pilot putting him/herself through the mill.

Going on the info given, it sounds like the HR department failed in their responsibility of having in place a procedure to cover just such a situation.

I hope all companies learn from this and if not already there, work out how this situation should be handled prior to the poor bereaved person having to deal with it themselves.

PA-28-180

13th Jan 2006, 05:10

First...good work to the FO! I once flew for a 135 outfit that had a small pilot pool (5 including the chief pilot). Equipment was mainly chieftains and seneca's. Had a guy scheduled for a flight on a seneca whose mother was seriously ill. He requested that I fly right seat with him and keep an eye out in case of any problems. He, also, probably shouldn't have been flying at all, but in the "on-demand-hour building" charter business sometimes you had no choice. At least he recognized the problem and sought help.
I would have thought that commercial carriers (like every other corporation I have worked for) already HAD bereavement leave?

Daede1

13th Jan 2006, 08:37

I know that everyone favourite pasttime is Ryanair bashing, but i recently was invited over there for a 'chat' abotu some business. In the course of the conversation, it was admitted that the very, very worse thing for the airline would be for one the aircraft to go down.
The public impression of low cost includes low cost maintenance etc etc, so for a Ryanair plane to go down, the damage would be exponentially worse than for a BA or other major airline.

To that end, they do have several procedures for bereavements and other emotional issues for crew - they dont expect people to fly whatever happens in their personal lives.

That said, its obvious that they extract their pound of flesh from the crews, but then they are one of the most profitable airlines in the world.

Before anyone asks, i dont work for them, but i find it odd that people blame the culture immediately, when it is quite obvious that this captain had a problem, his F/O took over and did his job. The real question is what support Ryanair are giving this poor guy.

RevMan2

13th Jan 2006, 08:40

This thread http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=201127 addressed the same core issues.
Hats off to MOL - in this situation, he's proven himself to be a good leader. Exactly the right response.

Looooong haul

13th Jan 2006, 09:17

If Ryanair send you on this leave do get normal pay? I believe that the flight pay at Ryanair to be a large portion of the pay so you will be financially punished. Is this a correct assumption?

trustno1

13th Jan 2006, 09:40

Just wondering....under the new FR policy, how much compassionate leave does a Pilot now get?

Kind Regards

Clandestino

13th Jan 2006, 10:15

Mr O’Leary added that both the pilot and co-pilot had been given compassionate leave and underwent counselling and retraining following the incident.

Could someone please, please, please explain why did the F/O need retrainning?

RogerIrrelevant69

13th Jan 2006, 10:33

Nope, can't see any room for Ryanair bashing in this topic at all.

Only a hardened cynic would try to exploit this incident for such a purpose.

No matter how good an employer is, they are not mind readers.

Well done to the FO.

Wing Commander Fowler

13th Jan 2006, 14:12

if all emergencies in all airlines were handled this well,would,nt it be wonderful!
well done the copilot, and a good return on the training....

Emergency??? If there WAS an emergency it appears to have been manufactured! As for everyone patting the FO on the back I seem to remember coming away from reading the report feeling that the Captain was very much alone on this flight deck and that the FO was providing little support. I wasn't there of course and perhaps it was just how the report was written but in the 2 crew environment there would normally be room for one of them to update the FMC IMHO. As far as taking control, again I seem to remember that the FO "stood up the thrust levers but did NOT take control"???

Of course I stand to be corrected and berated for not joining the back patters but hey ho! :ugh:

Edited for Clandestino's benefit:-

This is very much a 2 crew environment and when the workload is high as it most definitely was in this situation, it is vital that crews adhere to SOP's and share appropriately the tasks required. It is normal in most companies in a situation like this that both crew are suspended and at the least put in the simulator prior to being released to the line. This is a precaution as it is difficult to determine exactly where the system broke down. The time in the simulator would normally be used to assess how both pilots cope with demanding scenarios and one would hope that if they come out well then they would be returned to the line. In this particular case we know that the Captain returned to work very soon after a bereavement which is likely to have affected his performance. To which extent we may never know but what we DO know is that a "crew" ended up in a very nearly fatal situation. I hope this helps answer your question.

RogerIrrelevant69

13th Jan 2006, 15:09

WCF,

You appear to have or had access to a report most of have not seen. You "seem to remember" a number of things about this report.

Those of us applauding the FO are only going on what we have seen here or in the media. These reports indicate he saved the lives of all on board by his intervention.

Wing Commander Fowler

13th Jan 2006, 15:28

Roger - it's an internal report available to all pilots in FR. I "seem to remember" solely as a result of my laziness. I could dig it back out if I so desired but for now I trust my failing memory. Pat away my friend, but do remember that we have responsibilities to try to prevent situations like this happening in the first place. I'll reserve my judgement for now though.........

jumpseater

13th Jan 2006, 15:35

I can only relate that these bereavements can 'bite you in the bum' at the most innapropriate times. For me it happened in a job interview, at least eight years after my mothers death. Whilst talking about career progression, there was a point where my carrer should have 'stepped up'. this was asked about in the interview, but at the step up point I was looking after a terminally ill mother, so that took precedence. However the question, innocently asked opened a raw mental flood gate which made the rest of the interview, erm 'erratic' it'd be fair to say. Needless to say I didn't get the job. The last thing I was thinking about going into the interview was my mothers illness and subsequent death! For anyone going through that or having recently gone through that, make sure you leave yourself time for greiving adjusting to circumstances etc. I thought I had, but maybe I hadn't.

Judge Whyte

13th Jan 2006, 16:00

The difficulty I have is the conflict between the apparent compassion for a pilot who flys when unfit, and the demotion of a pilot who refuses to fly when unfit?

wombat13

13th Jan 2006, 16:07

Mmmmm. Many unsavoury and speculative comments, albeit balanced by more thought out. Let me kick off by saying I do not fly Ryanair, for reasons that stem from a dislike of the lack of customer care culture as opposed to any concerns for what happens up the pointy bit. Orange through and through I admit.

The British and Irish public love Ryanair for the cheap flights. Plain and simple. There are a few things that would shake that, most obviously safety.

One of the others is that when a man is well and truly down, he gets a kicking from his employer. I do not know MOL, but he has to eat, walk and socialise in the same streets, clubs and restaurants as myself and others.

To speculate that he has lost his moral compass on an issue like this is grossly unfair.

The Wombat

TheOddOne

13th Jan 2006, 16:11

I presume there is a formal AAIB type report pending? Perhaps best to wait for that?

Why? Irish airline, happened in Italy, American-made aircraft. Where's the UK's involvement? Maybe the Air Accident Investigation Unit of the Irish Department for Transport will be looking into the incident...

See www.aaiu.ie for details of this organisation.

The Odd One

omnidirectional737

13th Jan 2006, 16:30

I have to agree with Wing Commander Fowler, a lot of things happened that should not have before the FO took control including GPWS, bank angle warnings, flying below MSA not knowing where they were etc thankfully at least he did take control before it was to late.

beaver eager

13th Jan 2006, 17:03

a lot of things happened that should not have before the FO took control including GPWS, bank angle warnings, flying below MSA not knowing where they were etc
That's probably why he had a visit to the simulator then.

Edit to say... On re-reading, my comment sounds too harsh; I wasn't there and haven't read the report - he had a successful outcome and is to be praised for that. Probably most operators would prefer an earlier intervention though!

the grim repa

13th Jan 2006, 19:17

Why were both pilots given counselling?How does tie up with the skavsta incident.How is it that the crews only find out about the new fatigue and compassionate procedure through the media?

Clandestino

13th Jan 2006, 19:25

WCF and omnidirectional737, thank you for adding some missing pieces of the puzzle.

BenThere

13th Jan 2006, 19:42

Isn't all of this just a testing of the training system, which in this case showed it is working? This is the biggest reason why we have two pilots on board.

No First Officer should be signed off until deemed qualified to recognize crewmember incapacitation, take command if necessary, and bring the flight to a safe conclusion. From what I can tell, that's what happened here. Nice job.

Clandestino

13th Jan 2006, 20:28

And the one million dollar question is: how does the F/O take the command&controls from capt who is obviously incapacitated but is still flying manually, gripping to the yoke?

1) I'm not hinting that this was the case here, I'm just wondering

2) FBW Airbus pilots need not reply

3) "By using the fire axe" is not valid reply

wheels up

13th Jan 2006, 21:36

Anyone remember the details of an incident at a major British Carrier a number of years back where the captain suddenly became terrified of heights. Plane had to divert for an emergency landing - turns out captain was going through messy divorce at the time.

FlyingV

13th Jan 2006, 22:03

ASFKAP, the Irish Independent is a rag.

According to RTE news the IAA is carrying out an investigation (or at least the Irish Aviation Society is!).

http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/0113/ryanair.html

mini

14th Jan 2006, 00:30

"ASFKAP, the Irish Independent is a rag." Understatement of the year...

Well done to the crew regardless, landed safely.

:ok:

Faire d'income

14th Jan 2006, 02:10

Shame, shame, shame on you all.

Pprune posters have shown their gutless ( legal ) side.

Any halfwit can read between the lines but like the IAA hear no evil see no evil.

Those here who would praise the F/O should praise the Wright brothers or the GPWS manufacturers. How about Newton?

'The system works'...hang your lazy heads in shame. You do a gross disservice to aviation.

DrKev

14th Jan 2006, 03:41

a) Who the heck are the Irish Aviation Society, as named in the RTE report (cf Flying V's post)?

b) If the incident took place in September, why, according to this RTE report, is an official investigation only beginning now?

Wing Commander Fowler

14th Jan 2006, 08:21

Because the IAA watch the telly........:confused:

Aloue

14th Jan 2006, 09:05

In my post of January 12 at 20:03 I referred to "the Ryanair CX, a certain Mr. Michael O'Leary" who I said was readily available throughtout the day to appear on radio programmes where, by all accounts, he performed very well indeed. I relied for this report on a source in Dublin who has since pointed out to me that it is relevant to say that MOL had superior operational knowledge that gave him a decisive edge over the reporter (who was good, but not qualified to deal with the nuances). My source has admonised me for not adding his observation that while MOL might have been impressive in news management terms, any pilots listening to his performance might have been somewhat less impressed. He is of the opinion that anyone with a little inside knowledge would have been less than persuaded and would have wanted answers to many supplementary questions. (Just to set the record straight, as I have had no direct access to any of the interviews, etc. myself).

Pilot Pete

14th Jan 2006, 09:57

Is there any chance that someone could post the 'internal' report on here so that we can all read what actually did happen (well at least what was reported to have happened as there seems some doubt about whether an IAA investigation will follow).

I personally feel sorry for the captain whom it would appear should not have been at work and he ended up with lots of 'swiss cheese' holes lining up. To suggest he felt company pressure to report for duty would be speculation on my part, but it would appear that other workers in this particular organisation have felt company pressure before, so I can well believe this to be true.

The F/O prevented the (possibly final) hole in the swiss cheese lining up by taking the action he did and ultimately it would appear, saved the aircraft. If, as has been mentioned by WCF and omnidirectional737 the flight deviated so far from SOPs and got that badly out of shape below MSA, then I would fall short of heaping praise on the F/O. But let's be fair. Again, only going on what has been posted on this thread, the F/O was 'inexperienced' and perhaps that could be a warning for us all in this industry with VERY low houred pilots getting into the right seat of jet aircraft. I am not against this policy per se, BUT, the short time I have been a commander and flown with many pilots with similar low experience, the more I realise just how much the risk is increased.

So to say that the system 'worked' as designed would appear to be stretching it a little, IF the aircraft did get into such a bad position. I would suggest that the training, SOP culture and CRM broke down almost fatally, only for the F/O to eventually have so many 'alarm bells' ringing that he managed (and I use that word deliberately) to snap out of the 'approach' mindset and do the only sensible thing. If this is what happened I can quite understand why both individuals would be required to have a little sim time before going back on line. I hope that they had an understanding trainer, especially the F/O, whom I believe WOULD require his confidence building back up.

Any chance of reading the report?

PP

Faire d'income

14th Jan 2006, 10:53

Nicely put Pilot Pete.

Norman Stanley Fletcher

14th Jan 2006, 13:30

Faire d'income:

"Shame, shame, shame on you all. Pprune posters have shown their gutless
( legal ) side. Any halfwit can read between the lines............The system works'...hang your lazy heads in shame. You do a gross disservice to aviation."

Your comments are, frankly, a somewhat irrational and ludicrous rant. What on earth are you talking about? The people contibuting here are largely aviation professionals who have formed an opinion based on the facts as they know them at this juncture. If it transpires that the story as initially presented is not the case then we will all re-assess in the light of fresh knowlege. Like many 'halfwits', I am slightly reluctant to 'read between the lines' as I am not sure what other conclusion I can come to other than my previously-stated view. If the FO rescued a dangerous situation then the system works. That is not to say that there are no lessons to be learnt, but on the basis of the initial story my view remains that in this case Ryanair have acted reasonably.

vfenext

14th Jan 2006, 14:31

Interesting how the view seems to be that the system worked because there was a safe outcome (thankfully). The real issue is that when all the "swiss cheese" lines up the only alternative is a mitigation technique, which is what it came to. Why then did it get to the very last resort? If the crew were acting with good CRM then it should never have got to the point of the FO logging solo time! Good system...me thinks not! It all started with the tradition of bullying in FR which is bound to have contributed to the Capt's decision to go to work that day.

Nick NOTOC

14th Jan 2006, 15:06

Vfenext:

If bullying in FR has played a role you can never prove (it could be but it may not be the case here)
Fact is that this captain like so many was not employed by FR but he was a contracter. If you piss someone off as a contracter they may not call you anymore and thus effectively let go of you.
If FR had taken a bit more human intrest in the people who are flying for them they might have known about this situation.
Questions I have is how is it possible to have an airline and not have crew employed, but use contractors? How can the IAA accept this? What kind of oversight is there?
In my opinion it is not the bullying, but it is the whole running of FR that contributed here. As I have said before crew is the only true defence in FR and we all know that we as crew can (and will) fail. The captain here did, the FO did not.

I heard that the crew did fly again the same day to position the A/C back, typical FR, yeah will give you training, counceling etc....but first position the A/C back because we need it.....

Faire d'income

14th Jan 2006, 16:39

If the FO rescued a dangerous situation then the system works.

on the basis of the initial story my view remains that in this case Ryanair have acted reasonably.

NSF if you were not aware of the company, it's culture and it's relationship with it's staff you might possibly conclude the above.

If you never flew any aircraft and just read the various threads here you might just smell that something was rotten in the state of Ireland.

If you were an aviation proffessional worth your salt you would horrified at an unbelievably close shave, which from where I sit appears to have a link to a corporate culture that has removed Safety from its rightful position at the top of our priorities. It appears that safety is not only not the top priority but that it doesn't even make the top ten priorities anymore.

For the second event in a year with that company the IAA saw no need to investigate until there was pressure applied. Why? Is this a satisfactory position by the regulator charged with overseeing that company? Why is the IAA apparently slow to investigate any issue at his airline?

If we assume as you have done that most posters here are 'largely aviation proffessionals' then I find it shameful that they see nothing wrong with a commercial aircraft being out of control below MSA and are happy to announce that 'the system works'.

Evidently even Ryanair see a problem with the system because they have changed to make it mandatory to inform them of a bereavement. This would be hilarious if it were not so serious. This action actually would appear to admit the fact that staff cannot approach the company if they feel stressed or unable to fly. Hence the need to make it mandatory.

My earlier post was indeed a rant but my feelings are still the same. :yuk:

Leo Hairy-Camel

14th Jan 2006, 16:41

Questions I have is how is it possible to have an airline and not have crew employed, but use contractors? How can the IAA accept this? What kind of oversight is there?
Nick, contractors are an invaluable addition to the Ryanair operation. With virtually no crewing fat in the production, contractors provide, in general terms, leave relief for permanent employees, who outnumber contractors by a factor of five. Additionally, they provide flexibility and immediate response to the changing demands of the market we operate in. And now I have a question for you.
If FR had taken a bit more human intrest in the people who are flying for them they might have known about this situation.
How do propose such information as the recent death of a child be common knowledge of any employer unless the employee makes the knowledge plain? Telepathy perhaps? Astrology? Picking through the entrails of a ceremonially dispatched IALPA executive? Airline captain is a serious job, and like all high responsibility vocational occupations, the onus is on the individual to assess one's fitness for duty. Consider the nature of the incident in question. Captain (H), First Officer (NL), flying from Duseldorf (D) to Rome (I) on a Ryanair aircraft (IRL). Your premise of universal and omnipotent oversight in such a pan European operation is ludicrous, frankly.
my view remains that in this case Ryanair have acted reasonably.Norman, the trouble with using reason and clear thinking when it comes to the barely literate jackals of Pprune, is that it eclipses the real reason why, on this occasion, Fair Dinkum is so perplexed. He and those of like mind have been slobbering at the end of their leashes for months, ever since news of what they hoped would be a salacious tale of Ryanair fuelled depravity hit the wind. They are, of course, deflated beyond words, and feeling more than usually flaccid since the truth of the matter is nothing more juicy than a classic Human Factors incident, laced with personal tragedy. No Rynair malfeasance, no tales of airborne Dickensian sweatshop, and worst of all, precious little grist for their anti Ryanair mill. Even though Dim Repa has made another courageous attempt at stringing two coherent sentences together, God bless him, even he lacks the customary glee with which all and every Ryanair event is raised skyward and under lights with jungle drum accompaniment. More tellingly though is the conspicuous silence of maxalt and Minuteman, the dynamic duo of anti Ryanair bluster. Perhaps they're preoccupied with spoiling the pending Aer Lingus privatisation. Oh dear. If delegation is the success of your dubious leadership, max, surely you could do better than leaving it in the hands of Didimus and Fair Dinkum.

one dot right

14th Jan 2006, 17:34

Having been in the same position as this captain, I have to say that his decision to go to work that day is extremely disconcerting.

I didn't consider myself safe to be anywhere near an aircraft after the loss of my son.

We have a duty as professionals to monitor ourselves regardless of company pressure, many of us i'm sure wouldn't fly with a heavy cold, let alone after the loss of a child!

I feel desperately sorry for this man, he's going through an experience few people can comprehend, however, the company can hardly be brought to bear
for a situation they knew nothing about.

Terribly sad!

GGV

14th Jan 2006, 17:39

leo this just won't wash. I think aloue has the cut of your jib. This is all about spin. I went back to the "Ryanair's view of fatigue" thread when I read your post above. At a time when nobody could know whether what you said was true or untrue here is what you said about a so called "pilot colleague" who had declined to fly due to fatigue:As for the case at hand, you'd all do well to acquaint yourselves with the facts before queuing up to hurl guano in the direction of Dublin. Could it be that this particular captain was a belligerent individual who has, for quite some time, held the view that he'd work only when it suited him? Any clue how many "duvet days" he's had when it was all a bit much to climb out of bed on a beastly cold morning? Refusing to have a mobile switched on, rendering him effectively uncontactable when on duty? De-facto work to rule campaigns aren't on, are they. Well, not for those of us compelled to work for a living, anyway. All - that is every one of your claims about this captain - are now known to be untrue. At the time at which these claims were made you "spun" a web of frank deceit. The fact is that all sources confirm that the last word that could be used about this captain would be "belligerent". Not a single word of truth is contained in the words quoted above.

Worse. You participate on pprune entirely as a de facto spokesman for Ryanair and you have never criticised or withdrawn any of your false claims, nor have you condemned Ryanair practices even when the original Ryanair memo's were posted here. This is a particular characteristic of the Ryanair corporate style.

You now expect us to believe that your pitch about a near accident about which we have heard disquietening rumours for months - but about which we have had no clear and definitive information. How come you are around to put the Ryanair point of view when necessary, never condemn inappropriate behaviour and at times like these are sufficiently well informed or confident enough to make definitive statements about matters that are not fully in the public domain?

To my mind everthing about your participation here has a whiff of the duplicious, manipulative and utterly self-serving behaviour of the man you most admire in the world.

All information on this thread comes either from an article in the press that few can have read, or from the "Ryanair caring airline" version outlined in your post (in pride of place as second on this thread). I am told that the relevant documentation will be published on the REPA website. I will await that and then make my comments.

BBT

14th Jan 2006, 17:57

Leo Hairy Camel can you confirm whether or not you have seen the internal Ryanair report on this incident and whether or not you know exactly what training and counseling were provided to the pilots? Thanks, BBT.

Leo Hairy-Camel

14th Jan 2006, 18:19

are now known to be untrue
Known by whom? This man couldn't be bothered to work as required on the day and, not for the first time, his attitude was weighed, measured and found wanting and he dropped a stripe in consequence. If you wish to challenge the things I write, GGV, lets have the evidence. Anything else is puerile and amounts to nothing more than a bitch slap session of the "he said-she said" variety. A waste of bandwidth, as Mr. Fine might say.
I am told that the relevant documentation will be published on the REPA website. I will await that and then make my comments.
REPA! Don't make me laugh. I hold that malevolent mouthpiece in utter contempt. Its a place where a few insecure Ryanair pilots used to gather by moonlight in a fiesta a mutual masturbation and engage in what amounts to nothing more than a burlesque of fabricated suffering and hard luck stories. On a good day, they may even gravitate to incitement of criminal activities among the few, thereby souring the goodwill that prevails among the many. Pathetic, ignoble and beneath further comment, save for the fact that its existence is further evidence, were any more required, of the sort of puffed and powdered buffoonery pilot unions so enjoy wallowing in whenever they observe their cock-eyed view of what constitutes a target of opportunity. REPA my arse. You can tell a great deal about a person by the company they keep, GGV.

essexboy

14th Jan 2006, 18:39

On the point of the FOs actions

All FOs that fly with me: If I go 1 dot high or low on the glide take control. If I go 10 kts over bug take control. If I do anything outside limits even for a second take control. Otherwise the armchair lawyers on this site will have your licence. Now back to reality. The captain disconnected the autopilot. A silly thing to do under the circumstances increasing the work load for BOTH pilots but doesn’t warrant taking control. He missed the localizer intercept, doesn’t warrant taking control. He missed it a second time still doesn’t warrant taking control. He lowered the gear ‘to stabilize the aircraft’ don’t understand that one but still doesn’t warrant taking control. I would suggest that he had reverted to type and was trying to fly the aircraft as he had on a previous type perhaps a classic I don’t know. I repeat the work load for both pilots was very high. So much so that neither had programmed the FMC for the arrival. A job of the PF by the way. When the situation was deemed to be out of control the FO took control. When exactly do you suggest he should have taken over. This FO with < 500 hours. Think back guys when you were a low hours FO. Like me, I bet you thought that the captain knows what he is doing even in very testing conditions. When I fly with low time FOs at the end of the day I am exhausted you monitor much more closely. You virtually fly all sectors as PF and PNF in your head at least. This guy did a fine job for his level of experience and I bet there are a lot of puckered backsides out there amongst his mates that have said thank God it wasn’t me.

the grim repa

14th Jan 2006, 19:12

"picking through the entrails of a ceremonially dispatched ialpa executive".that may well be considered as criminal intent and you might do well to remove it from your post,master leo.
the nub of the matter in ryanair is do what you are told or they are going to ruin your career.
must be galling for the likes of leo to not be able to control what his pilots say on an open forum.we know you lie,that you are bullies and bull****ters.you sell your soul to the highest bidder,and when put up against men of mettle and character the likes of J.G*ss,evan cullen,ialpa and the recently demoted captain in dublin who saw fit to decline a duty and prevent a possible skavsta or ciampino(more like below the msa in mid-italy)incident,you are shown in your true light.people of evil greed and deception,right is might baby leo and you will some day be called to account for your actions.what will mick be doing then,stoking the fire probably.
you refer quite a lot lately to education standards and mutual masturbation.i think we might detect a sociopathic homo-erotic behavioural pattern emerging possibly bred of the military barrack or school dorm.
The few insecure pilots now on repa number well in excess of 300 and growing daily.
the caring benevolent employer>You must having a laugh!

GGV

14th Jan 2006, 19:16

leo - Thanks. I think your post speaks volumes.

How can you, an ordinary line pilot, know that somebody "could not be bothered to work on the day" - did the captain tell you?

I only said that information would be published on REPA. I said that when I had independent information I would be willing to comment (you could provide it, I don't mind). Where do you get your information? Can you help us with a copy of the Report - I'll bet not in a thousand years.

And just look at the diatribe my remarks provoked! This is not normal behaviour leo - is the pressure getting to you?

You know, don't you, that this is not the only incident that has not yet fully seen the light of day ... the IAA will be embarassed into action eventually. You just can't manage all of the bad news all of the time. Do you smell the danger of unmanageable events coming at you? Beauvais .... Beauvais ....

Aloue

14th Jan 2006, 20:16

Good bye, Didimus Dim Repa. I wish you well. didimus, forgive me becoming involved in your little spat with Leo the lambasting poster but I'll be honest and say that I really am not sure that he actually does wish you well.

He did not answer any of the questions he was asked, etc. Perhaps that is what his post is actually about - not answering.

Faire d'income

14th Jan 2006, 20:16

Airline captain is a serious job, and like all high responsibility vocational occupations, the onus is on the individual to assess one's fitness for duty.

Really Leo, but do you get demoted at Ryanair if you declare yourself unfit?

Judge Whyte

14th Jan 2006, 20:25

Getting back to my original question.
Is there not a conflict between the apparent compassion for a pilot who operates when unfit and a pilot who is demoted for refusing to operate when unfit?

Judge Whyte

14th Jan 2006, 20:27

What happened in Beauvais?

minuteman

14th Jan 2006, 21:09

Hi leo, nice to see you with the weekend off from ordinary line flying.

Let's go straight to the point. Repeating already tired accusations of pattern baldness ad nauseum just doesn't help you to make your case.
Anyway:
1. JG was used a pawn in whose war of attrition?
2;3. Proves you can insult people but have you another record we can hear?
4. Leo you have provided us with numerous inaccuracies about that case, but yet we will never get a retraction...nor will I even bother asking for one!

The question we should be all asking is why did the captain is question operate on the day? What influences acted upon him such that he felt he should be in work, rather than at home?

Do you honestly believe the company were not aware of the captain's recent bereavement?

Did the captain remove himself from duty immediately following the event?

Doesn't this bear all the hallmarks of the Skavsta incident?

egbt

14th Jan 2006, 21:33

LHC

As only a mildly interested observer with no particular axe to grind I find your contribution to this debate and others singularly inappropriate and counter productive to your fairly obvious aims; unless of course you are a very effective anti.

I think I am perhaps capable of identifying those on this forum with an anti Ryan Air agenda but your self important, condescending and vituperative rants have single handily convinced me that flying Ryan Air is not a good idea.

I’m confident Your Hairyness will not be overly concerned by the views of one punter - but remember word gets around.

radeng

14th Jan 2006, 21:53

Purely as SLF (go on, flame), it seems to me that this is an incident proving that modern CRM works. More worrying is the question of whether other cultures would have responded as well. I have the situation in my work where young (mid 20's) exceedingly competent engineers of Indian and far Eastern origin will not question their elders, even when they feel their elders are wrong, because of their cultural upbringing. And it's not uncommon for these young guys to be right! To some extent, I've made some of them feel uncomfortable by telling them to argue with me if they disagree, and convincing them that they'll be better respected for so doing. But if your whole upbringing has been in a culture where this respect for elders is heavily ingrained, it's easy to see that the potential for disaster is high.
Froma humble SLF viewpoint (go on, flame again), this is another case why flight crew deserve every penny they get.

Sunfish

14th Jan 2006, 21:57

I am trying to find the Ryanair memo on absence which was posted on Pprune some time ago. I cannot find the thread but when you deconstructed it, it sent a very powerful message that absence would not be tolerated and anyone absent would be punished. It would be useful to post it.

I am also trying to find the thread on the previous incident where a Ryanair pilot made an unstabilized approach that he ultimately blamed on "stress".

The thread on the captain being demoted after failing to carry out extra flights, citing fatigue is still extant.

I have also taken pains to point out the existence of a "double bind" situation ie: a "damned if you do and damned if you don't" situation.

The comments made by a certain Mr. Camel appear consistent with the existence of such a situation, including his attempt to place the blame totally on the pilot concerned.

I wish someone could find and repost the memo regarding absence at Ryanair, it is highly instructive.

delwy

14th Jan 2006, 22:11

Leo Hairy Camel, is it or is it not true that Captain Goss was repeatedly called to Investigatory-Disciplinary meetings both before and after rostered duties of 4 - 6 sectors and that no concern about this was expressed by the management people involved, or by the CX or the Chief Pilot (that is, the very Chief Pilot who waited until a Judge ordered Goss back to flying before deciding that it was “unsafe”).

If you run true to form no direct answer to those questions will be forthcoming. For obvious reasons. You only fool the innocent here Leo Hairy Camel. You would not know high operational or personal standards if you tripped over them.

the grim repa

14th Jan 2006, 23:07

LEO my love,NOTHING PERSONAL.

Surely gross misconduct is a sackable offence.Was it the compassionate and caring side of your employer that prevented this pilots' dismissal.

SIDSTAR

15th Jan 2006, 04:34

This issue is far more serious than the simple fact of the actual incident itself, wich seems to have been a very near thing. Like all such incidents it must be taken in context. All the indications are that the context in Ryanair is one of concern among the pilots for their jobs should they step out of line in even a minor way. It would be speculation to state anything stronger than that, but others on this site have stated that a culture of intimidation exists. Whether or not that is true probably depends on your viewpoint and LHC would obviously be of one very particular view in all such matters.

Congratulations to the FO concerned for eventually doing what I presume he was trained to do. The real question is why did it apparently take him so long to act.

Commiserations to the Captain who clearly should not have been flying following such a traumatic event as the death of a child. However, MOL is correct in stating that different people deal with tragedy in different ways and it may well be that the man felt he could better deal with his grief by going back to work as soon as possible.

What is not acceptable is that any company would
a) not be aware of the man's grief
b) allow him to command one of their aircraft so soon after such an event.

It is unacceptable that Ryanair, whether through MOL or LHC, should be allowed to put the 'blame' for this incident on the individual. LHC is so laughable that we should really ignore him but barefaced lies cannot be allowed. For example, who alleged or ideed STATED that J.G*ss had intimidated pilots? Who repeated such allegations ad nauseum, Leo? And where is that allegation now? Like all of them proven to be utterly false.

The real underlying problem in dealing with Ryanair, whether as a customer or employee, is that this company refuses to follow any norm of civilised behaviour in problem-solving. The attitude is one of total belligerence, do what youre told and "sue us if you like". There is only one organisation that has the power to change this and that is the IAA. Unfortunately, they have proven themselves once again to be utterly toothless. What Authority in any civilised state would first state that they would not be investigating an incident and then change it's mind after adverse publicity? Remember the IAA's letter in Flight? It would appear that the JAA/EASA has a role here in ensuring that each member-state's authority actually does the job it's supposed to do. Flying is a risk management business and incidents will happen in every company, but it is the company culture in dealing with them that marks out the professionals from the cowboys.

Equally, dont expect 'official Ireland' to deal with this company. Ryanair has conducted a campaign of public ridicule against successive government ministers and indeed against the Prime Minister himself. All of this without retaliation from government. One wonders when he will have his revenge, or are the party contributions from such corporate sources just big enough to enable one to ignore the realities?

The AAIU, (Department of Transport) has a statutory duty to investigate any matter/incident that it deems fit, irrespective of where the event takes place. It is up to the Minister to ensure that the officials are given a free hand to investigate this and other incidents in the overall context of allegations of intimidation of crews. Unfortunately, one shouldn't hold one's breath on this one. If you are concerfned about this company's attitude to safety matters you can always exercise your choice of not using their services.

Wing Commander Fowler

15th Jan 2006, 06:59

How can the management in a company know about an individuals bereavement if he hasn't told them? Obviously I'm not defending a culture which makes the employee frightened to declare it in the first place but if you read some of these posts literally.......... well!

GGV

15th Jan 2006, 08:34

N.B. There is a real possibility that EditorASC has made an error and confused Ryan Air and Ryanair. He certainly does not spell the name correctly and the direct connection between union membership and safety is so alien to what we have been familiar with that one cannot but suspect he may have imported a U.S. perspective to the wrong debate! But, just in case he has not …… I just love it when militant unionists wax with righteous indignation at some incident, which happens at a non-union (read: COMPETITION) airline, as if it was the proof, to end all proofs, that non-union is far less safe than union.

Nothing new there. Unions constantly twist, distort and often lie outright, about the history of airline safety, in a demagogic effort to make themselves appear dearly devoted to safety, above all else. EditorASC you are new here. The only persons who make reference to unions here are, generally speaking, anti-union posters like yourself. The vituperative, personally offensive and utterly off the subject posts by Leo Hairy Camel of Jan 14 @ 19:19 and 21:07 above are worth reading as an example of all that is wrong with such a “debate” (because there is no debate, just propaganda). The contributors here rarely mention the word union unless directly relevant. Pro-Ryanair posters don’t do so too much either, but are the most likely to try to score points. This has always been a safety argument, not a union argument.

You are also so new here that you cannot have read all of the posts on Ryanair. Many of these contain copies of original Ryanair documents. These documents frequently make statements which most objective readers would consider to be very different from the kind of publications sent out by organisations with a strong safety culture. The themes in those documents and postings are repetitive. Why don’t you get reading and come back and tell us what your safety analysis skills have been able to make of them? Read first, analyse and then post. (The opposite of what you seem to have done, having only just registered on pprune).There can be no valid comparison between safety at non-union airlines, and safety at union airlines, without comparing ALL the safety-compromising incidents of both types, and then constructing a apples-vs-apples stats table, which would then reveal if there are any significant differences, attributable to the presence of unions or the lack of such presence. I am not aware that any debates, posting and arguments here about Ryanair have been conducted in the terms that you state above. I do not believe that there are many informed people anywhere, not to mention here, who claim that there is a clear safety difference between LCCs and legacy carriers. I again note the reference to unions, which are broadly irrelevant to the safety argument. Unions in fact seem to be your hang-up, not ours. (A hang up, interestingly, that you share with Leo Hairy Camel who has a North American style aversion to unions that will undoubtedly gladen your heart).

I do not read your post, especially the introduction, as being the post of an objective and dispassionate observer. The connection you make between union membership and involvement in accidents is spurious – indeed it is only a correlation since it is axiomatic that a unionised carrier will have union members involved in an accident or incident. Indeed, I object to the introduction of YOUR notions about these matters into this thread.That is the only fair, dispassionate, objective, and non-ax-grinding way to approach any attempt to research such an issue.This is indeed true. To my mind you do not write as one committed to what you say. Anyway, what you cannot get in Ryanair’s case is access to such information. It is always selective, interpreted to their purposes and kept well hidden. What we all badly need in the case under discussion is the official internal report conducted by Ryanair. We badly need to know what exactly the Irish Aviation Authority was told and what information they were provided with in this, and other cases. We will never know, short of a public inquiry or leaks – but often enough comes out for us to make a good estimation. The same applies to finding out what was said to the Italian Authorities, Irish Air Accident Investigation Unit, etc. Most of what is going on here is speculation on a Ryanair version of events. While a range of biases are coming out and old themes are being rehearsed, the perennial problems of dealing with Ryanair issues are again manifesting themselves. But, since so many have tried to roast Ryan Air's commitment to safety, without comparing to the same kinds of problems with other airlines, I will note but a few incidents on the other side of the fence, from my own experience of 33 years with UAL: The above statement is untrue. You need it to justify entering into the subsequent bulk of your post, which is clearly copied and pasted from some previous argument. You have engaged in the very behaviour that you condemn. The issue is Ryanair commitment to safety and the evidence is the corporate behaviour of the organisation, its publications and the comportment of a number of management figures.

Before next electronically crossing the Atlantic to post from a biased point of view, or to pursue a personal hobby horse, you would need to examine closely the “mote in your own eye”.

What you will pick up if you read the hundreds of thousands of words, in a string of Ryanair threads over several years are a number of recurrent themes here on pprune. Unionisation as such is not one of those themes, even if it has an occasional walk-on part. The main theme is the repeated suggestion that the Ryanair corporate culture is characterised by a corporate requirement to behave in one way, while legal and operational demands dictate that one behaves in a different way. That case requires evidence and argument about Ryanair, not citations about pilot behaviour in other organisations. I commend to you the unhysterical and reasoned post above by SIDSTAR as the kind of contribution that will help us all better understand and get to grips with the matters at issue here.

If you are the dispassionate and analytic safety type that you claim to be, then you will not have any difficulty in finding things written and published by Ryanair that you will find objectionable.

However, on the basis of the post above, I believe the only sensible working hypothesis for the many readers here is that we have a brand new source of distraction in our midst. By your future posts you will be become known for what you really are.

Clandestino

15th Jan 2006, 09:39

It is unacceptable that Ryanair, whether through MOL or LHC, should be allowed to put the 'blame' for this incident on the individual.

But it is perfectly acceptable! If I'm not mistaken, this survival technique is called scapegoating and while there are some indications that it was invented during the early stone age, it is certain that ancient Egyptians used it. It's still in widespread use today. But remember that it can be applied to almost everyone, so if the Ryanair goes down, MOL will get all the blame and his lieutenants will be free to continue their careers elsewhere. Smart thing, that sacrificing of individual so the collective can be saved, eh?

The real underlying problem in dealing with Ryanair, whether as a customer or employee, is that this company refuses to follow any norm of civilised behaviour in problem-solving

Ryanair is employing what amounts to contemporary civilised behavior, it's the civilisation itself that has changed. Don't compare FR to airlines of the 80's, compare it to modern IT, financial, medical or plumbing institution. Now it doesn't look so bad, does it? I would like to wish you welcome to the new world, I'll stop short of calling it brave. The world where your chief pilot will be the like of LHC, your instructors the likes of 411A and after SSTRing your initial type you'll get stuck on it for the rest of your career or type's withdrawal from use, whichever comes first. Last but not least, Robert J. Boser (http://airlinesafety.com/) will displace Harro Ranter. (http://aviation-safety.net/index.php)

* * * CAUTION ADVISED * * * SPECULATION AHEAD * * *

If we are to believe LHC, capt was Hungarian pilot on contract. With no stretch of imagination I can concieve any east european pilot, from Baltic to Adriatic, able to pay for type rating so the guy was either laid-off by MALEV or took unpayed leave. Anyway, with major part of pay being sectors flown related, he had the motive to work as much as possible while his contract with Ryan lasted, notwithstanding any personal circumstances. And if the conditions on the day were less demanding, he would get away with it, no one within FR would ever know he lost a child. While he jeopardised securing any future contract with FR, at least he didn't get his contract terminated immediately. Personally I believe it has much more to do with the crew shortage than Ryanair being sympathetical, or at very least, polite.

BTW, to further illustrate civilisation decay, figure of speech most frequently used by LHC is Argumentum_ad_hominem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_hominem) which is clasically defined as logicall fallacy. Nowadays it has acquired legitimacy through much-too-often use.:(

the grim repa

15th Jan 2006, 10:03

mol will not get the blame,he is no longer listed in ryanairs operations manual.

Faire d'income

15th Jan 2006, 10:06

Editor ASC.

I just love it when militant unionists wax with righteous indignation at some incident, which happens at a non-union (read: COMPETITION) airline, as if it was the proof, to end all proofs, that non-union is far less safe than union.

I am not a 'unionist' in any sense of the word. Some research on the subject at hand and on the location might have suggested a better choice of words.

If you look at my posts on this thread my main criticisms are of the authority in question. Any operation with profit as it's only goal will push the envelope as far as it is allowed to by the authorities.

Your bizzarre rant about incidents attempts to show the evil of unions and thus Ryanair as a non-union Airline must be beyond criticism. That sort of patronisation doesn't work in an educated consistuency.

It has been suggested that you do some research about your model employer by reading the relevent threads here and come back in a year.

ALPA places a much higher value on its political agenda than it does on the safety of the flying public.

That coming from an American is the sort of comedy this thread needed. Bravo.

beernice

15th Jan 2006, 10:29

Look back to the facts
Ryanair did not know about this captains loss. We don't know the reason this guy reported for work, Might have been fear, could also have been a desire to take his mind off things or maybe he needed the money.
Point 2. The crew should never have been in this position. They should never have accepted a diversion to FLU. It was against all SOP's. Before any approach you brief and set up the aircraft. Of course the crew were sent for retraining, they did not adhere to SOP's.
Been with the company almost four years. Most pilots never act in a way contray to legal and operational demands. If we do we have no defense, we would be hung out to dry. There is a major culture of cover your ass. Flights have been grounded at out stations for minor reasons because captains would not off without an engineering ok. The culture is to slow down, take your time, burn your hours and their fuel. Everything is monitored so its just not worth it. Ryanair will do nothing for you so don't put your neck on the line to help them. It will just get chopped off.

CamelhAir

15th Jan 2006, 12:33

LHC says
Your premise of universal and omnipotent oversight in such a pan European operation is ludicrous, frankly.

This must indeed be one of MOL's great fears - a competent regulator with teeth, prepared to look at FR from a disinterested viewpoint. So why is it ludicrous Leo? Afraid of what they might find?

CamelhAir

15th Jan 2006, 13:46

MOL is just a 'beancounter' on Ryanair's official papers and, if anything ''bad'' (God forbid) happens on a Ryanair's flight, he will show up as such

LHC speaks much about alleged "gutlessness" in IALPA, in other posters here etc. I wonder what his opinion is of MOL's unwillingness to take operational responsibility for the airline. Those in glass houses Leo...

GGV

15th Jan 2006, 14:23

In a post above I responded to a long article ('cause it was much more than a post) by a contributor called EditorASC. I started by saying the following N.B. There is a real possibility that EditorASC has made an error and confused Ryan Air and Ryanair.For whatever reason, his post has been removed, without comment, correction, reply, explanation or apology. Funny enough it is that rather than anything he had to say that really gets up my nose.

A fresh member of pprune our friend EditorASC chose to enter the discussion here with a claim to objectivity and an interest in the safety discussion we were having. In actual fact he came across, to me at least, as a man with a very definite agenda - and that agenda was to knock pilot unions of any description. Fortunately I quoted enough of what he said to preserve his version of objectivity for posterity.

We may hear more from this character, so I intend this as a Class 1 NOTAM to all who have an interest.

Faire d'income

15th Jan 2006, 16:16

A man with such a passionately strong hatred for anything that whiffs of a trade union will be back, most likely under another name.

I would think pilots do not naturally lean towards unions. Well paid managers who operate with a legal mandate to work and think as an individual are not the normal target for union recruitment.

Leo Hairy-Camel

15th Jan 2006, 17:35

My dear Minuteman, welcome back. Good to see you in fine fettle after the season of hostilities is ended. Brace yourself, though, I intend to answer the questions you pose.
The question we should be all asking is why did the captain is question operate on the day? What influences acted upon him such that he felt he should be in work, rather than at home?
A very good question, Minutes. In fact, THE central question to the entire unfortunate episode. Did the man feel he was unable to report as unfit for duty? If so, why? Afraid of losing his job? Did the prevailing notions of stoicism specific to the eastern European identity lend themselves to a spirit of ‘get on with it’? Or perhaps the more mercantile realisation that no work means no money? I’m not in a position to answer this one, Minutes, but I refute the suggestion that Ryanair exists within an intimidatory culture of woe betide you if you call in unfit. I actually do the job, remember, and it just isn’t so. Crew control certainly gets grumpy if its done close to report time, perhaps understandably given their workload. Or perhaps it is as our CEO said, in that people respond to grief in different ways, and on the day this man felt he was ok. Certainly the weather in the area on the day at the time was horrendous, and more than enough to rattle the best of us. As in all of these cases, a conjuction of many factors.
Do you honestly believe the company were not aware of the captain's recent bereavement?
Yes I certainly do. In fact, I know this to be the case.
Did the captain remove himself from duty immediately following the event?
No. And why not? I’m not in a position to know. Afraid of dropping one’s self in it perhaps? Don’t think so. The OFDM would have (and did) flag the existence of an event. Questions of conduct and motive can only be truthfully responded to by the crew, and have been, with the result that we have all learned from the incident and the crew are returned to the line.
Doesn't this bear all the hallmarks of the Skavsta incident?
No, frankly. The Skavsta event, as you well know, was a case of a man on his last day flying with FR before returning to some third world, south Asian backwater…..Australia, I think its called…..indulging in a spot of hack, rack and zoom that went horribly wrong. The only similarity between the events, Minutes, is that in both cases, SOP’s went out the window, and a horrible event resulted, underscoring yet again the crucial role SOP’s play in flight safety. Furthermore, Ryanair has a no blame policy when it comes to go-rounds. The message is delivered all the time. Stabilised approach, or do it again…..with no blame or case to answer.

RADENG, you raise a very interesting point, and one that has topical relevance given the increasingly multicultural nature of large transport cockpits. Ashleigh Merritt wrote her PhD thesis on this very subject under Bob Helmreich at the University of Texas (Austin) (http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/homepage/group/HelmreichLAB/). If you’re interested, details can be found there under the publications link.

Capt. On Heat

15th Jan 2006, 17:50

From Mr NOTOC earlier

I heard that the crew did fly again the same day to position the A/C back, typical FR, yeah will give you training, counceling etc....but first position the A/C back because we need it.....

You've got to be sh*tting me. Is that true? If so Hairy you'd look more ridiculous than you already do.

Boy

15th Jan 2006, 18:15

Leo Hairy-Camel can I ask just but one question? You say I refute the suggestion that Ryanair exists within an intimidatory culture of woe betide you if you call in unfit. I actually do the job, remember, and it just isn’t so. That I presume means that you must know of a Ryanair pilot - and I mean one - who has called in unfit due to fatigue. Can you confirm that you do know such a pilot?

Faire d'income

15th Jan 2006, 18:23

Crew control certainly gets grumpy if its done close to report time, perhaps understandably given their workload.

You are the most remarkable pilot. You show genuine understanding for the workload of those who would sit at a desk and have to make some phone calls, you worship a man who chose to count money for a living and yet you hold nothing but contempt for those who do the same as you pretend to.

GGV

15th Jan 2006, 19:19

Leo glad to see you have calmned down since your little outbursts last night. You really did have a serious outbreak of bad temper.

How come this "ordinary line pilot" Leo is always so well informed and confident in his statements? I am currently searching high and low for hard information on the events in Rome, while Leo seems to have all the information he needs. Yet everybody who asks a question of Leo gets nowhere. He seems keen to (a) deflect attention away from any event that might bring Ryanair into the spotlight, and (b) engage in union polemics at every possible opportunity. Leo currently seems to be keen to perpetuate the following notion: ... the result that we have all learned from the incident ... I just don't see this. I have now had a look at the five recommendations from the Ryanair report as published in the Irish magazine. Not one of the recommendations is phrased as a recommendation (ALL are statements) and the final one simply states that Ryanair procedures do not need to be changed. Every bit of information I find that seems reliable instantly gives rise to yet more questions. The investigation seems to have amounted to no more than the creation of a narrative of the events, but apparently no sign of any attempt to get to grips with the "why" of those events. (And then there is the issue of exactly what the IAA was told, which is tantalising ... ). Is the sole lesson meant to be that "system worked". (I have my doubts about that!).

Among the very many questions I have are just two that I invite Leo to answer. At no point in the report is any information from the data recorders specified. What was the maximum angle of bank reached by this aircraft and at what height was the missed approach initiated?

Sunfish

15th Jan 2006, 19:23

One question: Who actually reported this incident? Was it the FO?

Pardon me for being a cynical sceptic, but If it was, that may answer the question about why he was taken off flying duties and sent to the simulator for "retraining" - that would be a powerful message not to make an "inconvenient" report in future.

Mr Fowler asked the question:

"How can the management in a company know about an individuals bereavement if he hasn't told them? "

Obviously if he thought it wouldn't do any good anyway, why would he bother?

We seem to have two extreme positions here:

The pilot was a greedy money hungry dirty foriegner, and a contractor to boot, eager to do anything and everything to make money (as implied by Beernice). He deliberately hid his bereavement from the company. All he had to do was tell Ryanair that he thought he might be slightly indisposed, and Ryanair, that well known caring and sharing organisation, would have immediately given him leave, organised counselling, sent flowers, and told him to rtake two weeks leave, given him free tickets to the holiday destination of his choice, etc. etc. (as implied by the caring and sharing sympathetic Camel)

Then we have the other extreme: "The pilot was a contractor who could be terminated at will for any reason. He needed money to support his wife and family. He believed that Ryanair was an organisation that outwardly complied with rules but had an internal culture of bullying and intimidation of staff. He did not report his bereavement because he knew it would make no difference to Ryanair and would compromise his employment. He miscalculated the effect of the bereavement on his capability."

Aloue

15th Jan 2006, 20:08

Somebody asked for one of the Ryanair memos previously published on prune. I found this one:RYANAIR
THE LOW FARES AIRLINE
Corporate Head Office Dublin Airport
County Dublin
Ireland
Over the past year over 10,000 days have been lost through absenteeism in RYANAIR; which equates to 7 un-crewed aircraft every day, all year around!!!
Your attendance record shows that you have been absent from work on [ 3..4.. etc.] occasions during the last 12 months. This high frequency of absence cannot be sustained, as other people within your area have to pick up additional work in your absence.
All absences in the future will be closely monitored and I need to see a dramatic and sustained improvement in your attendance in the months ahead.
Please confirm receipt of this letter and measures you will take to eliminate further absence from work. If you have any queries on the above please do not hesitate to contact me.
Yours sincerely,
There are two ways of interpreting this memo and the fact that it is triggered after 3 days of sickness. Ryanair employees - especially cabin crew - tend to interpret it one way. This is the same problem as identified by SNAM. He has read the words in the Ops Manual and is confused- because they are good words. He presumaby would think it cynical to ask when the words were added to the manual and why! Much the same with the fatigue issue - people ask the question about the demoted captain ... others think it's not an issue ... but the captain remains demoted and most Ryanair pilots know exactly what that means - in fact leo even assures us it was deserved. All the time though, we only have the Ryanair and leo version of events ....

Wing Commander Fowler

15th Jan 2006, 21:20

Sunfish - I was answering directly SIDSTAR's posting stating:

What is not acceptable is that any company would
a) not be aware of the man's grief
b) allow him to command one of their aircraft so soon after such an event.

And I stand by what I said, THIS is not a fair criticism. How could they have known???

Sunfish

16th Jan 2006, 00:41

Point taken Cmdr Fowler. The question is, would Ryanair have given leave or not? To be fair to Ryanair, I suspect they may have given leave if they were aware, but we do not know the reason the Captain decided not to tell Ryanair.

SNAM, the problem that we have is that it is very easy to write fine words in operations manuals. But does the company internal culture operate within the letter and spirit of what's in the book???

I have personal first hand expereince of working for the largest oil company in the world. I had reams of manuals on anything from company business ethics to maintaining oil terminal equipment, fire fighting, safety and so on. You name it, the company had a manual on how to do it the company way.

There was only one problem. The internal company culture was not into manuals, it was into money.

As in: "Sir I've discovered we are dumping polluted rubbish illegally and in contravention to the corporate ethics guidelines as well!" "Listen sunfish, do you want to keep your job? Shut the $%34 up!"".

The idea was that you shut up, did what you could and hoped you would be promoted before anything happened on your watch.

Read about the Esso Longford disaster. Esso immediately blamed the (mostly dead) plant operators for the explosion, and they sounded exactly like a certain Mr. Camel when they did so.

Just bear in mind that if (perish the thought) there is an accident, the proximate cause of which is fatigue or pilot error, Mr. Camel will be on this website blaming you for it if that is possible.

BenThere

16th Jan 2006, 00:56

I've worked for a few low-life operators, but even the crustiest chief pilot I've bumped into, if I said, "My son has passed away. I need some time.", would have told me to take what I need. I don't know the operation in question, but I'd be willing to bet the answer would have been the same.

Brian_Dunnigan

16th Jan 2006, 05:41

Good on the co-pilot and, well, let's hope that lessons can be learned here...it's to easy to jump in and say this or that...I hope to God that I never suffer the same state as the poor captain!

atse

16th Jan 2006, 06:21

Well done SNAM, I think you have got right to the core of this. But I think you confuse inertia with the normal and accepted way of doing business. That is, the realities of the workplace - like along the lines outlined by Sunfish who I think completes the circle with his observations.

In the case of the demoted captain case there were no reserves. In fact at some times there never are reserves. Hence the radio conversation that one hears from time to time (regularly even) ….. “well there is nobody else … if you don’t do it, it will be cancelled ….”. It is the silence that follows that is impossible to explain here – the unspoken “is it worth it to refuse to do extra work that I don’t want to do, or should not do …. but for quiet event free life maybe I should I just do it, no matter how I feel?”

This makes for a lot of people saying “YESSSSS” and is great for “productivity” but can anyone really deny that people who should not fly, do fly? Once one accepts that this happens, then the issue is “how often” - and then one needs to go look at the memo reproduced above and think about how business might actually be done in practice and how widespread the problem might be.

Leo will tell you that it never happens. If you believe Leo, then it’s all over, no debate necessary. Funny line pilot our Leo, blind to so many things that are inconvenient to Ryanair ….

Actually, after all the negatives about Ryanair, it is probably worth saying again that it is a company with a lot going for it. But if the intimidation (sometimes direct and blunt, more frequently low level and implicit) were to go and employment contracts were honoured, then the place would be transformed. Worth thinking about. Both Leo and MOL seem to understand that in the event of an unfortunate event which had a hint of such matters about it, the number of ex-employees crawling out of the rafters to tell their stories would present them with a nightmare. This is a high stakes game and MOL feels he is equal to it. That is where the buck stops. As for the IAA …. one day we will know why they know nothing.

Monday

16th Jan 2006, 08:22

"…..indulging in a spot of hack, rack and zoom that went horribly wrong"

Completely false Leo and you know it.

arewenearlythereyet?

16th Jan 2006, 08:48

In fact at some times there never are reserves. Hence the radio conversation that one hears from time to time (regularly even) ….. “well there is nobody else … if you don’t do it, it will be cancelled ….”. It is the silence that follows that is impossible to explain here – the unspoken “is it worth it to refuse to do extra work that I don’t want to do, or should not do …. but for quiet event free life maybe I should I just do it, no matter how I feel?”If the crewing bods are even mentioning the consequence of you turning down a request to work outside of your roster, whether by corporate edict or personal choice, then they are breaking the law. By even mentioning that a flight will be cancelled or that the company is going to suffer in one way or another they are in fact trying to coerce you.

In any decent airline, and I know that there are very few, a call from crewing asking if you'd be willing to work on a day off will simply ask the question. If the answer is negative then they say thank you and hang up. It is not your concern what the ramifications of your right to refuse to work outside of your contracted terms and conditions.

The next time you get a call from crewing or a manager asking you to work on a day off tell them you are recording the conversation. If they so much as hint that any refusal on your part will have a negative effect for the company then you have them over a barrel and I would suggest getting some legal advice as to how to proceed with the evidence that coercion is being used.

Now, do crewing tell you about the consequences for the company of a refusal because they are directed to? If there was proper union representation in the company, these issues would have been worked out a long time ago but we all know how rabidly anti-union Ryanair are. Ever wondered why? It certainly isn't to advantage the employees even though MOL would try and have you believe otherwise. :hmm:

beaver eager

16th Jan 2006, 10:53

Well, even BA use the "but there's no-one else, we'll have to cancel the flight" phrase if you find you'd be unable to use discretion on a particular day. And then, strangely, if you stand your ground, there is usually a crew waiting to take over when you pull onto stand. Call that coercion, if you like but their job is to cover the flights. It's just part of the game, and their game is to use a few crews as possible. My game is to not fly if I feel I cannot comply with the requirements of the ANO.

I have not experienced any similar phrases used in respect of rest day working, but then we get paid enough for RDW at LGW that there is usually someone willing to take the money. Don't know what money they get at LHR, but it doesn't really matter 'coz they can get Draft Assigned (= forced to work) anyway as part of their T&Cs.

Any serious attempts at real coercion outside of our working agreements are jumped on by BALPA quite quickly. Having said that, they recognize that our flexibility is sometimes relied upon by managment and allow us to exercise that flexibility as we see fit. They may not be perfect but, accepting that they can't please all the people all of the time; whatever an individual perceives that BALPA might be doing to damage their T&C's, without them management would do it worse. Truism!

atse

16th Jan 2006, 11:41

Such innocence beaver eager to think that you are comparing like with like. I hope you have a better measure of your new CX.

beaver eager

16th Jan 2006, 11:54

Not really, the guy who got me interested in this game in the first place is a Captain with Ryanair, so I do know what it's like. He's always been a confrontational character, so I don't know how he's managed to keep his job so long!

Just trying to point out that they really do all say that, and to highlight the benefits of having a large union membership behind you.

atse

16th Jan 2006, 11:57

Apologies then, I clearly paid insufficient attention .... will try harder next time.

Nick NOTOC

16th Jan 2006, 12:16

Dear Leo Hairy Camel,

It is with great intrest that I have read your reply (see page 4 of this treat).
The following question was asked by you:

"How do propose such information as the recent death of a child be common knowledge of any employer unless the employee makes the knowledge plain?"

Following this question you have given some possible answers such as telepathy etc.. I can only consider these answers to be a reflection of your sense of humor and indeed I could laugh about it. Regretfully though this issue is not an issue of humor and it should not be laughed about.
I assume that you are indeed interested to know what you or FR should or could have done to prevent this occurrence. I take it that you are indeed serious about preventingsuch occurrences.

After reading your treat carefully I can see that the answer is right there:

Quote: "oversight in such a pan European operation is ludicrous"

There you go! because it apears to be a difficult task and FR is unable to perform this task you call it ludicrous. Well done! I need to say no more, the knowledge is all there. Now all you need to do is your work and start employing people that are able to oversee the FR operation, create a safety culture.

I wish you all the best!

Kind regards, Nick Notoc

Leo Hairy-Camel

16th Jan 2006, 14:14

Hi again, Nick.

You quote me out of context, unfairly and in a rather cack-handed manner. Naughty Nick. I thought I'd made myself plain, but perhaps not so I'll try again. The nature of the operation is far too large and geographically diverse to have intimate first hand knowledge of the individual situations of every crewmember. In a smaller outfit, perhaps this is viable and word of mouth may have alerted someone to the fact that Captain X or First Officer Y is enduring a difficult personal situation, but in the case at hand, the company had no way of knowing unless the man himself informed us, and he didn't until after the fact.

As for regulatory oversight, as distinct from internal quality control, we operate throughout €urope and not only are we subject to the constant intense scrutiny of the IAA, but also to the regular scrutiny of the regulatory authorities of all the countries we fly to. By virtue of Ryanair being such a high profile company, because we've caused such a paradigm shift in European aviation, it could be argued that we're among the most closely observed operations on the continent. Quite simply, it would be impossible for Ryanair to be guilty of the many crimes against humanity and IALPA generated atrocities that we're so regularly and falsely accused of.

Consider, Nick, the political elements of such third party scrutiny. In an ideal world, Air France, Alitalia, Scandinavian, Iberia and the rest we've so comprehensively wounded in the market place wouldn't bother flexing their political muscles, but since they've a vested interest in seeing us fail, or a least falter, the fact that we emerge unscathed so consistently from the repeated dissections of their national regulators highlights what we really are. A first rate operator in terms of flight safety, operating to the highest standards and subject to the most intense oversight of any airline in Europe, if not the world.

Hope this makes the rough places plain for you Nick. All the best, Leo.

CamelhAir

16th Jan 2006, 14:26

The nature of the operation is far too large and geographically diverse to have intimate first hand knowledge of the individual situations of every crewmember

And yet, ordinary line pilot Leo always claims to have accurate first hand knowledge of everything that happens in FR. Clearly Leo your talents are wasted flying the line. Surely seeing as you suggest our esteemed management are unable to keep tabs on everything, they need the likes of your on hand to make up any shortfall in their knowledge.

subject to the constant intense scrutiny of the IAA

Would that be the same intense scrutiny that first decided not the investigate Rome, then backtracked after a media outcry?

Just because you say it is so Leo doesn't make it true. You should have learnt that as a child. Although neither yourself nor your hero did.

Gigginstown ERC

16th Jan 2006, 16:36

Answer the questions Leo

Why did he operate?
Why did they operate post incident?
Why weren't the FDR & CVR pulled?
Why does the report not have Pitch/ Bank/ Speed/ N1/ Config data?
Who was the report written for?

The report has all the hallmarks of one that was written for a third party so that everyone could say that the incident had been investigated, SOPS worked, and the crew have had some re-training and have been re-certified.

The undeniable fact is that the Captain felt compelled to report to work, I do not know the personal circumstances behind the decision, but Leo points out if didn't go to work he wasn't going to get paid.

.............perhaps the more mercantile realisation that no work means no money? I’m not in a position to answer this one,

Maybe he had medical and funeral bills to pay.

I find it astonishing that the regulators still refuse to address the issue of employer intimidation, bullying and confidential reporting.

Leo Hairy-Camel

16th Jan 2006, 17:23

Giggs, old luv, what’s an educated senior citizen like you doing out of bed this late? You sound awfully grumpy. Forgotten your meds?

The answer to all 5 of your questions is, I have no idea. Ask him yourself.
I find it astonishing that the regulators still refuse to address the issue of employer intimidation, bullying and confidential reporting.
I find it astonishing that you continue banging on about bullying and intimidation when, as you very well know, there isn't any. If there were, pilots being independent grown-ups in the main, would be jumping ship faster than BALPA members from Easyjet, but they're not, are they Giggs! As for confidential reporting, we've had such a system for ages and it works very well.
Chookers.

Nick NOTOC

16th Jan 2006, 17:34

Dear Leo,

Clearly our viewpoints differ on the matter. I don't believe that more human interest is givven the size of FR impossible, I believe the exact opposite, FR is because of it's multi-base operation a fairly easy to manage safety culture opereation.
As you could have read in my earlyer reply's on the subject I am convinced that the captain in question should have reported unfit to fly, but that opinion (which we share) is not the final conclusion, it is at best the start of an in depth investigation into the human behaviour leading to the unfortunuate mishap. Accidents happen as a result of a meganism in which human failure only forms a relative small part, it is the envieroment in which these humans operate that influences the way humans operate (James Reason) And for that reason FR should not rest and continue as normal but learn the lessons to be learned.

Your claim that FR cannot affort to be unsafe because of all the turbulence it has created is clearly true. However you should realise that compliance with regulations is by no means a guarentee for safety. Airline accidents only happen to airlines and airlines are companies that operate in compliance with regulations. Fact is that airlines that invest in training, equipment, corporate culture etc.. have a proven reccord of better safety. FR does not seam to be investing anything beyond the minimum legal requirements.

Finally Leo could you give me some advice? A good friend of me did his type convertion training a few months ago and is still waiting for his line training, he is at home, no income and he has a family depending on him. What do you suggest I tell my friend to do?

Kind regards, Nick

ou Trek dronkie

16th Jan 2006, 21:14

Now I hesitate to enter a Ryanair thread, but the incident is very serious, so here’s a couple of things.

Clandestino, I think yours is a very thought-provoking post. As it happens, today I had lunch with a friend who used to be a very senior training (check) captain with a well-known international carrier. I asked him what he thought of the state of affairs of a B73 crew composed of a Hungarian contract (agency ?) pilot and a 400+ hr Dutch co-pilot, flying an Irish aircraft from Dusseldorf to Rome, when the pilot had actually buried one of his children the previous day. Let me say at this point that I do offer him my deepest sympathy. Anyone who has been in a similar situation would never point the finger of blame, you have no idea what is happening and a youngster would not easily discern a problem, even if he knew you.

Anyway, this friend looked at me as if I was slightly deranged. You know that untrusting, baffled look, when someone’s eyes seem to be jutting out of their sockets and the nose seems to project, the neck extrudes, the eyes almost glaze over and then, the head starts shaking steadily sideways and the eyes are downcast and a look of absolute incredulity forms. You’ve seen it I am sure. He used to be a serious specialist on CRM. Well, what do you think he said ……. Once he could speak ? Correct.

Then I gave him some more details, those that got this thread going, about losing the plot, switching off the A/P, etc etc. He just stared at me.

“oTd – are you joking ?” Wish I was.

Seems to me, with all due respect to the fellow who calls himself a camel (but is patently a management stooge, no doubt about it) every single operator ought to have thought of this type of situation long before they got caught out and - nearly - had an accident. Mixed nationalities can be big trouble, don’t they know that at Ryanair ? That is not a racist statement, it is the truth. It would be so easy to point a finger at the co-pilot, but that would prove nothing. To me, you have a very poor CRM system mate. Never mind all the other stuff about Ryanair.

One other point, do “agency” pilots undergo Ryanair CRM training and currency checks etc ? Just wondering.

oTd

Wing Commander Fowler

16th Jan 2006, 21:49

One other point, do “agency” pilots undergo Ryanair CRM training and currency checks etc ? Just wondering.

oTd - if you were a pilot you would know the answer to that! Perhaps your friend would be so kind as to educate you BEFORE you post???

GGV

16th Jan 2006, 21:52

People, what is happening now is what happens when you can't get facts. Speculation, guesswork and rumour mongering become the order of the day.

Numerous appeals for facts have been made to the well informed Leo though it is abundantly clear that he was never, is not now, nor never will be able to provide facts that might be inconvenient to Ryanair.

Not only do we still not know quite a lot about the incident that is the subject of this thread, we don't even know if there will ever be an independent investigation of what took place.

There is no way that any facts on pilot turnover coming from Ryanair will be reliable - as anyone who has seen the Ryanair in-house publications will know - since the airline is absolutely commited to the story that pilots only leave other airlines to come to "the happiest airline in the universe, with the best rosters and best pay in the business".

Ryanair pilots could get out the rosters and with a fair bit of work identify the rather substantial turnover of pilots, but it would be too much work. Thus it is that the silly argument about numbers will keep going, which is typical of all such Ryanair arguments (i.e. a waste of time, since they allow various propagandists to throw accusations and insults at each other and get completely off the subject).

In the meantime the point of this thread will be lost. This demonstrate the Ryanair truism that if you stick at the game the way Ryanair does, you tend to keep enough people fooled to let you get away with whatever it is you want to get away with. People get fed up, confused or uninterested. Game over.

Looking that where this thread has ended up in the period since it started must gladen the heart of Leo. Go back and look at the posts that made him angry. Go back and look at the posts he choses to answer / not answer. Go back and look at his first post. Those are where Leo sees something in his interest. And then think.

bacardi walla

17th Jan 2006, 08:05

As an ex employee of FR, I have often posted replies to various threads but I am beginning to lose the will to live with all the bashing that goes on. Yes, I've bashed away at FR, I had every right to being on the receiving end of them once. Our friend Leo however, he's there at every opportunity. He clearly has nothing better to do that scour Pprune for FR threads and then post his imbalanced opinions.

Whoever this pilot is who lost his child recently, my sincere condolences. Events do happen. It's fact. It's what happens afterwards that scares the sh1te out of me when it comes to FR.

And before the mods start sending me emails threatening me with potential legal action from FR lawyers, please don't waste your time. I know what goes on at FR, it's why I resigned.

ou Trek dronkie

17th Jan 2006, 10:00

I well know the answer, to clarify, the question was for Capt. Leo.

oTd

biminiflyer

17th Jan 2006, 13:18

As far as the company being sympathetic with compassionate leave it is absolute horse**** that they are caring in any way my friend who is a capatain lost his father recently and was given one day to get to the funeral and back he asked for extra days but was told no they wouldnt even let him take it as leave!
they are a shower of s..t and its no wonder they are cancelling a thousand odd flights when the real reason is not due to the boeing strike but purely they dont have enough pilots,most of my mates are out of hours for march having done 900hrs and are looking to jump ship sick of the whole culture of keep beating the staff till mrale improves

the grim repa

17th Jan 2006, 19:21

snam,will we just wait until everybody is being equally shafted and then it becomes ok,because that is where we are eventually headed and let those of you outside of ryanair face that reality.

Sunfish

17th Jan 2006, 20:31

Oh nice one SNAM! It's called the "Cosi Fan Tutti" defence of Ryanair - "everybody does it".

Well that may or may not be the case. I wouldn't know, but it does not excuse bad behaviour.

GGV

17th Jan 2006, 20:36

SNAM behaviour that merits criticism should be criticised - regardless. I can't say that I agree with you that Ryanair is being criticised here "for the sake of it". There have been some telling points made in this thread. And telling points are what count.

Faire d'income

17th Jan 2006, 20:40

Snam you are like Columbus, landing on the coast of a vast new continent and declaring it to be the Indies. I hope unlike him you live to understand.
We are the only ones who can make things change and improve, because the sharks running the Management of (any) airline will never stop taking advantage of us.
Bravo. Welcome to...
P.S. By the way, let's stop attaking RYANAIR
India. AArrgghh....

Nick NOTOC

18th Jan 2006, 07:29

SNAM,

Did you ever think that this treat may be the only thing we can do to prevent FR from further corroding european aviation?
No problem with low cost etc, but much problems with the way FR seems to create a no frills safety culture:
Training .....yeah we must but nothing more then the minimum required.
Human intrest......No, ludicrous, we're to large for that.
Safety culture.... of course as long as it does not interfere with the operation.

Just to name a few typical FR mindsets. I have said it many times before, but FR safety depends only on the crews individual need to survive, and is by no means the result of a safety oriented management. Whenever crew fails (and we do because we are human) there is no safety net anymore. Last but not least because of the FR way of operating many other airlines are forced to cut cost and gues where those cuts are made..........So it is in the intrest of all of us to stand firm against the FR interpretation of safety.

Nick,

Aloue

18th Jan 2006, 09:47

SNAM you ask a key question. There are two possible answers.

1. There are no complaints because their is nothing to complain about.

2. There are no complaints because the consequences of being associated with any form of complaint, or collective action, are to be avoided (whether the decision to keep a low profile is due to calculation, fear or complacency).

May I remind you that where pilots stood up to Ryanair - Dublin - escalation was the order of the day. One pilot (the second most senior in the airline) was falsely accused of intimidation and was subject to a series of court cases. (He is still flying and Ryanair paid the bills). Others pilots were sequentially targeted for different "offers" from Ryanair and from the various events that ensued over 250 complaints of "Victimisation in the Workplace" were lodged with a tribunal in Dublin. And the list goes on ... ending with an event in which a captain was demoted (an event that has been discussed by several contributors above).

In respect of every part of these developments Ryanair has used tactics that are well know and have been discussed here and elsewhere, namely agressive pursuit of "troublemakers", extensive use of the court system to escalate costs and induce nervousness - not to mention their declared objective of "delay everything in the courts till you all go away". (Declared in conversations to pilots, that is. They have stopped doing everyone the favour of putting their "observations" in writing).

A host of other signs and evidence are to be found for the interested - many documented here on pprune - such as the attempts to prevent the REPA website becoming a means by which Ryanair pilots can communicate with each other in privacy and anonymity (another failure).

It is, may I suggest, somewhat obvious that pilots might consider it wise to keep a low profile in such an environment.

JUST HOW MUCH EVIDENCE DO YOU NEED?

the grim repa

24th Jan 2006, 10:03

http://www.flightinternational.com/Articles/2006/01/24/Navigation/177/204301/Ryanair+lapse+sparks+safety+spat.html

Non Normal

24th Jan 2006, 10:34

I don't have a clue about what Ryanair does and does not, and I cannot see how they could possibly be blamed for not knowing that someone has just had a bereavemnt unless they were told of it.

However, to me, if the environment that company created was such that a pilot (generally speaking a safety-conscious bunch of people) felt compelled to report to work in an emotionally compromised state due to an environment that encourages flying while unfit, then it is rather sad and quite unacceptable. If such an environment did exist as claimed by some posters, then it sounds likely that the company did not (or does not) have the right attitude towards safety, considering it is fairly widely understood that severe physical or emotional stress is a potential flight safety risk.

Of course, one could say that the captain should have been aware of his compromised emotional state. However, if he felt that his job would be at risk if he reported sick, then it would have been difficult for him to report sick (even though, morally speaking, he should have done had he been aware of his compromised state and/or its potential safety implication). Or maybe he was not aware of his emotionally compromised state or its possible consequence - in which case, it could be a training issue (not just with the company concerned but with human factors training from the onset of flying training).

Either way, there may have been systematic problems that occurred - should the company behaved in a totally honorable manner, then it may have been the regulations, aviation medical, or training was at fault. This is not to totally exonerate the individual from his responsibility, but rarely would an incident occur without multiple factors involved.

shortfinals

24th Jan 2006, 10:45

Well, the Italians are going to investigate it now, so we'll find out the truth.

Won't we?

Flight International has dragged a few details out from behind the scenes. Here's the link:

http://www.flightinternational.com/Articles/2006/01/24/Navigation/177/204301/Ryanair+lapse+sparks+safety+spat.html

And how Italy and Ireland between them can save the world from the scourge of the LCCs.

http://www.flightinternational.com/Articles/2006/01/24/Navigation/177/204302/Only+human.html

hmmm...

CamelhAir

24th Jan 2006, 11:08

This is good news. LHC/MOL won't like this at all, now that the matter is out of the hands of their compliant lap dogs in Hawkins Street, control has been lost. You've "screwed up" all right Mick and I don't think you're gonna like the findings.

EI-CFC

24th Jan 2006, 12:48

Ryanair chief executive Michael O’Leary admits that the carrier “screwed up” by failing to send them the final draft of its report.

In fairness, I don't see many CEO's who would come out and honestly say this. Most would have teams of PR people coming up with some prime examples of prevarication.

You've "screwed up" all right Mick and I don't think you're gonna like the findings.

When you're finished, can I borrow your crystal ball? I'd like to try get some lottery numbers..

CamelhAir

24th Jan 2006, 13:49

In fairness, I don't see many CEO's who would come out and honestly say this.]

Ok, so let me get this clear in my head. Very serious incident occurs, airline says nothing to authority in whose jurisdiction it occurred, commissions internal report which leaves out crucial FDR data, "forgets" to hand final draft to IAA, gets rumbled in the press, IAA finally decides to investigate, the Italians finally get told and you think the CEO is being open and honest???
Not that I would expect anything else, as your previous posts mark you out as an unquestioning FR groupie. I suggest you try critical analysis.

Aloue

24th Jan 2006, 15:50

EI-CFC I have to agree with camelAir. When this broke I said in a post above that I had heard that MOL did well on the radio managing the P.R. aspects, but later I heard that pilots would have had a few queries for clarification. There have been constant rumours that this incident was "under investigated" (or that the Ryanair report did not tell all) and that key information had not seen the light of day. Most Ryanair pilots will have heard rumours with very specific information quoted. I don't know what the facts are, or not. But, to be absolutely honest, I don't really think that we can completely rely on Ryanair's version of events. An independent investigation will do nobody any harm.

By the way, the pilots seem to have been treated very reasonably by Ryanair. Since the airline is constantly criticised for its treatment of employees I think this should be acknowledged.

Wing Commander Fowler

24th Jan 2006, 17:24

MOL says the company screwed up - not "him" and the pilots didn't pull down the flight data recorder...... Funny, I keep forgetting to do that! :rolleyes:

EI-CFC

24th Jan 2006, 19:15

Not that I would expect anything else, as your previous posts mark you out as an unquestioning FR groupie

I suggest you re-read my posts then. I'm far from unquestioning in the least. Unfortunately (for some) I like to question both sides...

Judge Whyte

25th Jan 2006, 08:29

Do Ryanair internal reports normally contain reference to F.D.M. information such as RA. Or is this Base Investigation report unique?
In the context of this report what is "unsafe altitude"?
Did the F/O intervene as a professional or as a matter of survival?
Finally, what happened in Beauvais?

RogerIrrelevant69

25th Jan 2006, 10:31

EI-CFC,
That seem to be the way it goes around these parts. It appears you have to be an extremist or face being denounced. On the one side you have LHC who seems to:

- have sworn to Ryanair as some type of fundamentalist religion
- live in a parallel universe with its own case histories and facts
- believes IALPA is in fact the representative of Satan on Earth
- have never answered a question put to him on pprune
- have swallowed a very cheap dictionary

And on the other hand you have the rabid anti-Ryanair lot who often do their case no favours as they either:

- keep predicting the downfall of a certain Mr. OLeary (who will in fact only go by his or Tony Ryan's choosing).
- think the Irish government are going to make union recognition compulsory in Ryanair (Warning - low flying pig).
- think the investor community gives a rats behind about anything other than the bottom line.
- can't spell or type to save their lives.

Reasoned debate when it comes to this company is sadly lacking. Funny that.

I LUV DUFF

25th Jan 2006, 11:21

JUDGE WHYTE,

To answer your question regarding Beauvais, it appears a non precision approach went very wrong.An inbound FR 800 was kept high due to opposite direction traffic.When clear of the traffic ATC cleared the 800 for the approach.Rather than enter the hold and lose the height they accepted the straight in approach and when it became evident that they were not in a position to complete a safe landing, instead of initiating a go-around they elected to carry out a descending orbit on short finals. When they rolled out of the orbit they were way off the centre line at approx 150ft agl. A missed approach was initiated and a/c overflew terminal at very low altitude (not part of missed approach procedure, needless to say). If I remember correctly, Capt was a contractor and was fired,not sure about F/O.

CamelhAir

25th Jan 2006, 12:42

The BVS FO is still in FR. Capt is not.

Thrush

26th Jan 2006, 13:37

Seems the F/O did what he was paid for. Well done to a low timer.

aerolearner

27th Jan 2006, 14:37

Italian Aircraft Accident Investigation Board (ANSV) news release:

http://www.ansv.it/It/Detail.asp?ID=573
(In Italian)

Inconveniente grave Boeing 737 irlandese

L’Agenzia nazionale per la sicurezza del volo (ANSV), informa che, sulla base delle prime evidenze raccolte, ha aperto l’inchiesta tecnica sull’inconveniente grave occorso in data 7 settembre 2005 all’aeromobile B737-800, marche EI-DAV, che operava il volo FR 9672 da Niederrhein (Germania) all’aeroporto romano di Ciampino.

L’aeromobile, con 171 persone a bordo - di cui cinque di equipaggio - ha dirottato sull’aeroporto di Roma Fiumicino a causa delle avverse condizioni meteo sull’aeroporto di destinazione, per poi rinunciare all’avvicinamento e dirottare definitivamente sull’aeroporto di Pescara.
L’Agenzia, informata solo recentemente dell’evento dalla omologa Autorità investigativa irlandese, sta provvedendo alla raccolta delle ulteriori evidenze tecniche necessarie per le valutazioni di competenza che riguardano, particolarmente, l’ultima fase di volo.

Translation:
01/26/06
Serious incident - Irish Boeing 737

The Italian Aircraft Accident Investigation Board (ANSV) informs that, basing on preliminary evidence, it has opened an investigation on the serious incident that involved a B737-800, registered as EI-DAV, during flight FR 9672 from Weeze-Niederrhein (Germany) to Rome-Ciampino on September 7th, 2005.
The aircraft, with 171 souls on board (including crew of 5), diverted to Rome-Fiumicino airport because of the weather conditions on the destination airport. After a missed approach at Rome-Fiumicino, the aircraft finally diverted to Pescara.
The ANSV has been only recently informed about the event by the Irish AAIU and now it is gathering further useful information for the investigation, which will focus on the last part of the flight.

6_DoF

29th Jan 2006, 18:42

Here Here AirScrew,

Thats why they pay for two upfront!!!!!!

jackbauer

30th Jan 2006, 22:34

Seems the F/O did what he was paid for. Well done to a low timer.
Not sure if you are refering to the Rome or Beauvais incidents but in both cases surely all the FO's did was sit there and let a serious situation develop. It should never get to this and intervention was called for a lot earlier. Sitting there while the aircraft descends to 150ft and then almost hits the tower in a half assed GA (yes this happened) is not something an FO is paid for! But then again this is Ryanair so maybe I'm wrong!!

GGV

31st Jan 2006, 10:41

SNAM you have said something quite emphatic. Have you read the BI as published on Crewdock, or are your relying on other information? If you have read the report, then what does the relevant section refer to?

I accept that bereavement is not mentioned explicitly - but that he should not have been flying is clearly established. Are you agreed? And why did Ryanair then re-emphasise certain policies?

the grim repa

31st Jan 2006, 16:39

snam and the smoking gun.

GGV

1st Feb 2006, 08:43

SNAM you seem to relying entirely on what a source "told you" - and not only that, but that source works for an organisation that has by their own admission yet to see any definitive information. The one other "fact" you produce, which is to claim that an incapacitation occurred, is itself highly disputable. If I recall correctly, the BI refers to "a sort of incapacitation", which almost certainly refers to a state that a human factors expert would probably describe differently.

You stated what was "told" to you as if it was a FACT. It does not look like anything approaching a fact to me.

Pilot Pete

1st Feb 2006, 18:42

The official Ryanair Base Investigation Draft Report states that the captain had very recently suffered a major personal traumatic event in his private life which he failed to disclose to Ryanair, and had decided to return to work a short period following the event.

PP

GGV

3rd Feb 2006, 08:32

SNAM it must be they way you assert things that just gives me the pip. The evidence that you are probably wrong is substantial - but still you keep making what seem to me to be very assertive statements - like this one:The reason for that incapacitation is the mystery that the Authorities are trying to solve at the moment.Apparently the fact that YOU spoke to somebody is enough to EMPHATICALLY state this as a fact: Not a single word of qualification, not a single caveat. Such confidence! Such a lack of supporting argument!!

tom de luxe

3rd Feb 2006, 11:17

I understand your memo.
The point is that I know very well the F/O (a very nice Dutch bloke) who was in that aircraft, who flew with that captain for that duty day, and he confirmed me quite a few things.
SNAM
Have you considered contacting the Italian CAA and sharing some of that information with them? If not, I'd suggest you keep it for yourself, esp. on a public forum.
:*

bacardi walla

4th Feb 2006, 07:40

Chaps, put your toys away now there's good boys :\

Who cares whether the pilots in question were Dutch, Polish, English, Irish, Mongolian, Macedonian, Lebanese, French, German etc etc etc etc.

What is important is that the relevant authorities carry out a thorough investigation and get to the bottom of why this whole event happened in the 1st place. Then, for FR to ensure events like this never happen again. I would hope though, that the latter has already been taken care of.

We all know FR is riddled with blame culture, so lets hope too that the investigation results will bring that to light too. It's not just African carriers who get banned from European airspace. Maybe it's time MOL had the carpet pulled from under his feet, even on a temporary basis.

The Real Slim Shady

4th Feb 2006, 08:32

Snam

Your opinions are not worth the bandwidth you are wasting presenting them to the public. The incidents have been / are being investigated in a professional manner by the competent authorities.

It would be prudent of you, and both more helpful and professional, to report any "facts" you have to the authorities to assist with that investigation rather than shout your mouth off hiding being a nom de plume.

essexboy

4th Feb 2006, 09:05

SNAM I hope your clog wearing friend appreciates you posting "He said this and he said that". He can't hide behind a pseudonym like you. Ehh Orr.

the grim repa

4th Feb 2006, 10:20

I believe that snam is entitled to voice his opinion,like all the others here.He may not use 1200 words or use up the dictionary,and i may not agree with him but he has the freedom to speak.The same freedom that Ryanair would have cut from his mouth if they found out who he was.So go easy on him folks.

The Real Slim Shady

4th Feb 2006, 10:53

I dont dispute anyone's right to freedom of speech or to hold an opinion. Nevertheless, if Snam feels so strongly about this incident and has some information or facts which may have a bearing on the outcome of the investigation he should bring them to the attention of the authorities, formally.This would assist the process of identifying the causal factors in the incident, thereby providing an avenue to prevent a recurrence in the future. His freedom to speak would not be compromised and his opinion would be listened to, but ignored, as facts are only taken in to account.

Most of his "facts", incidentally, appear to take the form of " A big boy told me": the authority would require the "big boy " to tell them first hand.

Moreover, any company,or authority, not just Ryanair, would be quite entitled to " cut his freedom from his mouth" if he is spouting off, opinion rather than fact, and likely to prejudice the investigation. Freedom of speech carries with it a responsibility; if he has verifiable facts Snam should deal with the matter in a professional manner. The benefit of his "opinion" here, serves no purpose.

Nick NOTOC

4th Feb 2006, 15:57

Oh dear Leo,

Again you have not been able to be the strong person you portraid yourself to be:

Quote:"Dutch first officer (tall, blonde, skinny, vacant looking, struts with depressingly familiar Dutch overconfidence) can’t tell the difference between Hungarian and Polish"

I wonder what kind of traumatic occurrence you have gone through that makes you take the p.ss at just about anyone unable to defend him/her-self
What a sorry attitude here.

SNAM: I understand that you wish to change some opinions posted here, but if you have fact that do so may I suggest you to share them so we can all form our opinion.

Nikky

CamelhAir

5th Feb 2006, 01:09

LHC is certainly not a very nice individual. Thankfully he's not a pilot as he sounds like the type of guy who would be a nightmare to fly with.

Snam, why don't you share your agenda with us? IF the FO in question is sharing such sensitive information with you, do you think he wants this knowlege aired in front of the many prying and vindictive eyes that watch this site?

dc8driver@night

6th Feb 2006, 09:10

Guys: By chewing each other up, you are getting off of the point! First, the system worked. The “Low Time” FO took over, and no-one was hurt. Second, this incident was caused by an error made by a man under great stress and NO-ONE not going under that stress can or should judge him! He made a mistake; thank God that no-one was hurt. Remember the phrase, “There but for the grace of God go I.” Lets just all learn from it and move on. Spreading the word on this one should be to learn and not to blame or criticize. Third, there is no excuse for comments about national origin or anything of the like! There are good apples and bad apples in every barrel, if you get my drift. That’s just my thought on the subject. Fly safe and play nice.

wheelbarrow

7th Feb 2006, 15:57

Gent's ( and to be politically correct in todays environment, Ladies),

It seems to me that a lot of hot air is being bandied around to no great purpose here. Having just wasted an hour reading this thread from the begining, (been away) it seems that it has not really advanced. Ideed it seems to have descended into the usual mud slinging drivel that most of the FR posts do!
I cannot see why anyone bothers to rise to the festering bait that Leo drops in from time to time. Surely the best way of conducting a reasoned debate, and also p*** off Leo would be to completely ignore his comments and conduct the debate as if he were not contributing.
As there has been FR BI carried out, and the result was to retrain and return to line flying, surely it can be to no one's detriment to discuss the true facts here. If as is being suggested there was a cover up and this was inappropriate then it would do well to air the information to prevent a repeat. If this was indeed a satisfactory response then it would clear the air and be seen to have been a stisfactory response.
The true purpose of investigating an incident / accident in aviation is to establish the facts, learn from them and instigate procedures and protocols to prevent re-occurrence. Unfortunately ours is a blame culture whereby this can often be measured in financial terms, so this is often the least important goal in an investigation.
Get a life and move on!

FJP

8th Mar 2006, 14:51

Thats the scary bit!
No it's more like the action of a company who are so hard up for crew they will put any warm bodies in the seats! Be careful who you and yours choose to fly with folks, remember you get what you pay for.

:mad: With all due respect you may methink that you be a proud pilot of any National N.1 flag carrier supported by our strong association and I'm affraid you do not recognize competence, - May be like yours and same level , if one is flying a low cost carrier?!
Many low cost pilots ARE great professionals -Just like you seem to be- and seldom fly to places we haven't been before.May be the so called air National carriers send you so many times under observation and Route Familiarization until you are released! Thats just one of the diferences.
Diference does not imply less safe! Or it Should not!
I fully resent on behalf of those having less pay check than you however not certainlly proportionnaly less standards and airmanship etc.
Just look at the example of an examplar carrier landing on a taxyawy in Brasil with an A340! It hapens in the best families, sir!
We professionals must understand the global picture before pointing the finger!
My Regards
FJP:*

moggiee

8th Mar 2006, 21:04

LHC
Its rather gratifying (like when Princess Michael of Kent comes out with one of her idiotic "go back to where you came from" jibes) when unconscious / incompetent bigots make this kind of shallow disriminatory statement.
You either over estimate your private education or under estimate the quality of state schools.
I am state educated but have an MSc in Business Mangagement (University of Warwick)..... only ever mentioned when dealing with clowns like you.
Would be more than happy to discuss this with you in person...perhaps you could PM me. (This thread will be history by the time I next log onto PPRUNE).
Nicely put, RMC.

I and my 3 brothers are all state educated, none went to university yet we have managed to produce (amongst us) 3 professional pilots, 2 military officers and one company director. So much for private education.

However, our "local" private school did a grand job of holding up the educational league tables!

Mercenary Pilot

30th May 2009, 17:16

By Simon Hradecky, created Friday, May 29th 2009 19:15Z, last updated Friday, May 29th 2009 20:58Z

The crew of a Ryanair Boeing 737-800, registration EI-DAV performing flight FR-9672 from Dusseldorf Niederrhein (Germany) to Rome Ciampino (Italy) with 166 passengers, completely lost situational awareness around 12:20Z, after they had abandoned their approach to Rome's Ciampino Airport and decided to divert to Rome's Fiumicino Airport due to adverse weather. The crew began to miss ATC instructions and descended below assigned altitudes, getting into conflict with other traffic forced to descend further to 1000 feet, but descending below 1000 feet too and thus getting just about 454 feet above ground at a speed of 200 KIAS perpendicular to the approach path at one point before the crew aborted the approach. The crew was not able to approach Fiumicino as well and finally diverted to Pescara, where the airplane landed safely with just 1520 kg (3350 lbs) of fuel remaining.

The Italian National Agency for Aviation Safety ("Agenzia Nazionale per la Sicurezza del Volo", ANSV) concluded in their final report, that the cause of the serious incident was

- the incorrect operation and conduct of flight by the flight crew in adverse weather at the unplanned and unbriefed diversion to Rome's Fiumicino Airport.

Contributing were

- the captain's state of mind, who had lost his only son three months before after a long illness
- the progressing loss of situational awareness by the flight crew
- limited experience by the first officer
- poor cockpit resource management and crew cooperation
- inappropriate informations provided by air traffic control in non-standard language
- inadequate analysis of weather data by the flight crew
- incorrect use of onboard weather radar by flight crew
- absence of timely available ground radar based weather data in the Rome approach sectors
- absence of the minimum safe altitude warning on the approach radar of Rome's air traffic control
Source+ full report, Aviation Herald (http://avherald.com/h?article=41a5f274&opt=0)