PDA

View Full Version : Away for a day and it's gone


woodpecker
6th May 2006, 10:25
What happened to the Ryanair thread regarding Cat 3 ops at stansted?

GMEDX
6th May 2006, 10:27
Must have hit a nerve somewhere.

Bearcat
6th May 2006, 10:46
the iaa wanted it removed as it coulnt take all the pressure from the caa over it....
in hindsight I apolologised in jest to the lawyers for the post...why the frig should? if what is alleged what happened actually happened heads will have to roll somewhere.

Dream Land
6th May 2006, 11:00
the iaa wanted it removed as it coulnt take all the pressure from the caa over it.:} :E Well said.

Danny
6th May 2006, 12:37
For the time being the thread in question has been removed at the request of Ryanair's lawyers due, according to Ryanair, false and inaccurate allegations which include "That on 24th April 2006 Ryanair crews were accepting approaches and landing at stn in RVRs of 200 metres at night with no centerline and no touchdown zone lights working." and "That Ryanair aircraft crews made CATIII and/or CATII approaches and landings at Stansted in RVR's below the minimum RVR".

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fish Out of Water
6th May 2006, 13:30
Boo moderators, boo! Or should I say, ****, ar5e............drink!:8

BEagle
6th May 2006, 13:53
Posts such as that posted by Fish Out of Water "Boo moderators, boo! Or should I say, ****, ar5e............drink" are not only stupid and childish, but undermine the integrity of PPRuNe and, as anyone with a modicum of intelligence can deduce, the very carfully-written post made by Danny immediately above.

The incidents in question should be easily proven/disproven by reference to records made by the airport on the date in question. It is therefore entirely reasonable that the thread was removed whilst the IAA makes its investigations.

However, the activity of Ryanair's lawyers would seem to do little to improve the perception many might have of the airline, it has to be said. A simple "We are co-operating fully with the IAA's investigations and will, of course, take any appropriate action should it prove necessary once those investigations are complete" from Ryanair would surely have been a more reasonable way of defusing the situation?

Incidentally, the thread provoked a very interesting professional discussion amongst professional pilots at an aerodrome I visited last week. We were not discussing any specific airline as such, more the knock-on problems caused by schedule disruption whenever an airport (the one we were discussing was FRA) cannot maintain its everyday movement rate (particularly when the airport is a major hub for the operator) - and whether such commercial problems were a factor which might increasingly influence the Commanders' decisions, now that there is so little margin in the way airline rostering and scheduling is run right to the limit in European short haul operations.

jondc9
6th May 2006, 14:27
Kudos to Danny for taking the proper course of action due to the circumstance.

PPRUNE must live to allow open discussion amongst those interested in aviation.

Waiting for all records and a proper investigation to happen will allow a bit of truth to come out. Once the truth is out I am sure we will be able to comment on it .

If the truth says things were legal and safe, fine!

If the truth says otherwise, ppruners' will be able to say so.


RVR readings will be checked and published eventually as will times of landing/approach clearance and the like.

the truth shall set you free.


just wondering how many airports there are in England with CAT3c mins (seperate question please)


jon

woodpecker
6th May 2006, 14:47
I have no problem with the moderators action. However just to remove it hoping that no one will notice is not acceptable.

Perhaps the thread should remain with all the posts removed and just a single post remaining (from the moderators) explaining their action.

Dave Spart
6th May 2006, 14:48
JonDC9, I can think of 5 airfields off the top of my head within 100nm radius of STN that are CAT III capable.

Regarding the wider topic, I think all the facts will be put in the public domain sooner or later. This sort of thing can't be hushed up completely.

Taildragger67
6th May 2006, 14:53
Danny,

Well said re the FR thread.

Suggestion - links somewhere to the Totalise vs. Motley Fool case reports so that posters can be reminded of their responsibilities.

haughtney1
6th May 2006, 15:57
Well said Danny...a nice clear explanation.

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

Last time I looked we lived in a country with freedom of speech (unless you upset emperor Bliar)..so it seems a little off-hand that those with more money than others can effectively buy silence with threatened expensive legal action.

Otterman
6th May 2006, 16:02
Sorry but I do have a problem with the removal of the thread (the thread itself being immaterial to me). I think when you go through the posts on pprune, almost nothing meets up to any journalistic standard. And any news outlet quoting from pprune better do a lot more digging than just quoting directly from the forums. If on the other hand the press uses it as a jumping off point in their own research all the better. My view of pprune, is of people, venting, expressing an opinion, or relaying something they feel is noteworthy. I am far removed from the UK scene, couldn’t care the least of what happens at Ryanair, Easyjet or BA for that matter. But I do follow our industry enough to realize that Ryanair is using unusual business practices that might not stand the light of day. This pprune episode is just another worrying element in their way of doing things.
If the influence of Ryanair (or its leader) extends as far as being able to convince Danny and his people to pull things off their website, I believe we are moving down a very slippery slope. The pprune folks better realize that if they want to built their business, and retain their relevance to us, these sort of things shouldn’t be happening. Pprune is used by people in, or interested in the business of aviation. Pprune does not broadcast over the “public” airwaves. You don’t just happen to come upon pprune, you search it out. If we start holding all posts to a higher (say, journalistic) standard not much will be left on the forum.
As a matter of fact, there have been things posted about my airline that were at the least badly informed and at most liable. I respond when I feel I can bring relevance to the discussion, or ignore it if I can’t. But it would never enter my mind to bring it to the attention of my company’s executives and have them take action. It is an anonymous forum for crying out loud.
If the UK is not the place it once was for freedom of expression, it might be time to pull the website host from there, and incorporate it in a place where those values are still honoured. In other words use the Ryanair model. Most of their business is on the UK, but they incorporated in Ireland, because they are more receptive to their “concerns”.
It is a sad day to me, that pprune has been compromised. I would have gladly contributed to a defence funds to fight this nonsense.
I hope I have made my point.
Greetings O.

angels
6th May 2006, 16:12
Oh for gawd's sake -

haughtney - you live in a capitalist society!! The guys with big bucks tend to win!

IMHO Danny was quite right to tug the thread -- I'm amazed it lasted as long as it did. He's provided you with an eloquent post to explain why he pulled it. He needn't have done. He's the boss. What he says goes.

I have no axe to grind with FR. I've only flown them once, they were fine. I've seen loads of posts criticising them and am sure that many have substance. So what?

As someone who has been on a course about libel laws (I write reports for my house) there was stuff appearing on that thread which overstepped the line and -- deep pockets or not, bullies or not -- I'm not surprised that the men in wigs stepped in.

The original title of the post was a legal no-no. I reported it to the mods and it was changed.

Whatever happened on this foggy night is being investigated. Maybe I'm being naive, but I don't think this is being going to be swept under the carpet.

Edited to add I've just seen Otterman's bizarre rant. Matey, if you don't like it, set up your own Web site with your own money. Allow any anonymous poster to have what could be libellous pops at a commercial organisation.

You'd last a couple of days at best.

It's not journalistic standards it's LEGAL standards!!

Cheers.

BOAC
6th May 2006, 16:14
Otterman -It is a sad day to me, that pprune has been compromised. - it is not 'compromised'. It is simply that a legal objection has been raised to posts that have no supportive fact. Put yourself on the receiving end of such. How would you feel?

Now, if hard evidence can be located/provided eg insufficient RVRs against times, landing times etc, I would expect the legal threat to be withdrawn, and as Danny has said I have agreed that the thread should be removed until such time, as and when, any evidence to back up the allegations is received.

Please also read the preceding post by 'angels'.

haughtney1
6th May 2006, 16:26
Oh for gawd's sake -

haughtney - you live in a capitalist society!! The guys with big bucks tend to win!


Very true...Im not disputing that..which is why we are SUPPOSED to have a fair and balanced legal system (I know money talks..but bulls**t outta be able to walk)

With respect BOAC
- it is not 'compromised'. It is simply that a legal objection has been raised to posts that have no supportive fact. Put yourself on the receiving end of such. How would you feel?
I disagree..this is a rumour sight, it IS compromised, effectively PPrune (Danny etc) is being gagged and censored by those who have more resources..(read his post again he says as much) hardly a state of impartiality. This is the whole essence of this sight, a place where one can air thoughts, opinion, rumour etc.. without this freedom whats the point?
I'm sure Ryanairs' lawyers would argue that ANY negative speculation/rumour is defamitory...again more censorship by chequebook.

angels
6th May 2006, 16:34
haughtney - I'm knackered mate, but you don't really get it. Just because the word rumour is in the site name doesn't mean you can present rumour as fact.

That is what the original post did.

And you can also get hit with a libel suit for spreading rumours, so beware!

BitMoreRightRudder
6th May 2006, 16:47
I agree with Haugtney, there has been a compromise of PPRUNE, but given the size of the readership of this site and the important role it now plays as a global relayer of news and opinion within the industry - whether said opinion is bullsh*t or not - it is hardly suprising that things like this should happen. The last major FR thread regarding the lads who landed at somewhere other than Derry was directly quoted by the BBC on national news. They even went as far as to show a computer screen with a post on it that they directly quoted, and I would add it was quoted out of context and its meaning was twisted to fit the angle the report was coming from.

I don't see what option Danny had. He explained it carefully enough. As someone else said, this issue isn't likely to be swept under the carpet. A site such as pprune, for the aforementioned reasons, makes any such event by any operator instant industry wide news, difficult to sweep away quietly, and the depth and diversity of readership here means that news travels fast - certainly fast enough to make legal gagging an unwanted fixture now. I guess pprune has become a victim of its own success.

terrain safe
6th May 2006, 16:55
As a suggestion, another forum I frequent has an area where Mods only can post telling all users when someone has been banned, for how long for etc perhaps brief reasons (i. e. complete idiot etc). Also all threads that are removed will also state why, unless of course the original poster removed it, in which case it disappears into thin air. This is at the top of the forum listing page, so for Pprune above rumours and news, and would also allow mods to post warnings, depletion of services (no notam action available:E ) etc.

Just a thought to save confusion

TS

Flap 5
6th May 2006, 17:06
The real worry here is that Ryanair have seen fit to issue a veiled threat to Danny and pprune. As has been said much has been said about other airlines. If Ryanair are worried about such threads on pprune then they clearly have got concerns about the legal implications of what happened on that foggy night. :hmm:

KiwiPassenger
6th May 2006, 17:24
No comment on the material points raised in this thread, but:

Otterman is fooling himself if he thinks that the Common Law (and the rest of the British legal system) affords too much protection to freedom of expression.

Unlike our septic friends across the water, there's no constitutional right to freedom of speech in English law. Hence the English laws on libel and slander (defamation to those of us from Down Under) are fairly strict!

Once the moderators of a thread on a recognised website have received a legal complaint, there isn't much they can do but remove any material which may contain a defamatory imputation or else the publishers of the material (which inlcude the owners of the site) become liable for any such defamatory comment.

However, don't disagree that a statement that a thread has been removed as a result of a legal objection (similar to a retraction in a published newspaper) would be appropriate in such a situation.

Cheers

KP

Stanstedeye
6th May 2006, 18:57
I have no problem with the moderators action. However just to remove it hoping that no one will notice is not acceptable.
Perhaps the thread should remain with all the posts removed and just a single post remaining (from the moderators) explaining their action.

An excellent idea woodpecker, hope the mods approve.

:ok:

LLuke
6th May 2006, 19:33
From my philosophical point of view:
I think the thread should not have been removed. If the lawyers of Ryanair disagree, they are free to post their view on this board. This board is about discussion and opinion. There's i.m.o. a clear disclaimer below each page, this BB is clearly not resposible for the contents of what is posted.

Then again I am unfamiliar with British/Irish law. Maybe it would have been sufficient to remove the name Ryanair from the discussion regarding libel and slander?

From my practical point of view:
I personally don't care too much what happens with Ryanair, and wouldn't be interested in taking any hits from this. This could ofcourse work as a precedent for future disputes.

Globaliser
6th May 2006, 19:39
There's i.m.o. a clear disclaimer below each page, this BB is clearly not resposible for the contents of what is posted.Unfortunately, that's not the case. If PPRuNe allows defamatory material to remain, it could get sued. And that could be the end of PPRuNe.

There's no such thing as complete freedom of speech, and we would do well to remember it. Danny's long post leaves up and visible everything one needs to know about the incident for the time being.

LLuke
6th May 2006, 20:04
I am sure you are correct in what you say, but since Ryanair has the possibility to post their own story, I'd expect this BB itself not to be guilty of libel/defamation since it is assisting both sides in expressing opinions.

fyrefli
6th May 2006, 20:06
From my philosophical point of view:
I think the thread should not have been removed.

Yes, the problem is it's the legal point of view that counts and Danny has little practical choice.

As they say, "Trust me, I'm (on this one) a professional" :)
(No, no, not a lawyer, I run a largely web-centred computing and hosting company!)

Cheers,

Rich.

ExSimGuy
6th May 2006, 20:46
(IMHO) no need to discuss further. Danny has done the sensible thing and the original intention (as I hopefully understand it) has been achieved in that the appropriate authorities are looking at the allegations.

As Danny has said, the outcome will become known - either way - on the BBS. If allegations untrue, then, quite rightly, a post will be made to that effect. If allegations true, then I guess we'll all have a field day.

Personally, I hope it will turn out to be a storm in a teacup, with "European Aviation" coming out "smelling of roses", if not then we will all (by implication) suffer - not just the airline concerned.

Rainboe
6th May 2006, 21:38
I can't believe how naive some of you are being. You cannot post unsubstantiated allegations on the internet and imagine that because the section is called 'Rumours and News' you can say what you like. Libel laws are getting increasingly restrictive, and it will be Pprune as well as the individual poster who carries the can. And if you think you are 'anonymous', then think again, you can be traced, and I know just someone who is likely to set the lawyers onto you! I am frequently astonished at the allegations some people make on this board, and believe a few examples will be made of them soon, and rightly so. Because Pprune would also carry the can, it is only right the owner of the board has the option of censoring. As said, if you don't like it, go elsewhere.....and take your legal complications with you!

chiglet
6th May 2006, 22:18
There was a recent case of a person being "Slated" on a "Chat Room" taking the "Slater" to Court........AND WINNING.
Rock on Danny :ok:
watp,iktch

fmgc
6th May 2006, 23:30
Whilst I can see that there is no dount that under the threat of legal action the thread had to be pulled, I have a couple of comments:

Should there be no evidence to support the claims that safety regulations as they relate to operation of aircraft in low visibility operations were breached then we are prepared publish the fact and give equal time to restate that Ryanair only operate their aircraft to the highest safety standards and regulations.

If these alleged incidents are proven to be false it certainly does not prove that FR "operate their aircraft to the highest safety standards and regulations", this would apply to any airline. So, Danny, apart from the fact that this is your train set, I do not comprehend why you have made this undertaking?

I think that everybody should perhaps ask themsleves why there are so many of these sorts of allegations made about one particular airline.

fmgc
6th May 2006, 23:35
exSimGuy

(IMHO) no need to discuss further.

Quite the opposite, this most definitely needs to be discussed. Whether censorship is justified or not it must not go unchallenged, lest we should end up in a Totalitarian state, (or maybe even a Theocracy!)

AN2 Driver
6th May 2006, 23:53
exSimGuy

(IMHO) no need to discuss further.

Quite the opposite, this most definitely needs to be discussed. Whether censorship is justified or not it must not go unchallenged, lest we should end up in a Totalitarian state, (or maybe even a Theocracy!)

It's a very common mistake that free speech in a forum means just that. It doesn't. Period. Nothing to do with dictatorship.

Two things to be considered.

First of all, all of us here are guests in this forum, as in any other. The owner of any forum has evey right to remove posts he deems damaging or just not compliant with his policies.

Secondly, any forum owner can and will be held responsible by anyone who feels his rights have been violated by posts in a forum. Therefore, removal of such threads pending investigations is necessary to protect the owner and with him the forum as a whole.

I think Danny has said it clearly and in a very eloquent post. So let's wait and see.

fmgc
7th May 2006, 00:04
It's a very common mistake that free speech in a forum means just that. It doesn't. Period. Nothing to do with dictatorship.

OK, lets not discuss it then!!!:confused: :confused:

Who gives you, ExSimGuy or anybody else for that matter the right to say "no need to discuss further"?

Anyway, AN2, I think that I need to reassert that I fully support Danny's decision lest your post should cause other less fastidious readers such as yourself in misrepresenting what I have said.

PAXboy
7th May 2006, 00:07
The real worry here is that Ryanair have seen fit to issue a veiled threat to Danny and pprune. Actually, it sounded like an OPEN and DIRECT threat. :=

If you think that anyone wants to be sued for libel, then it means that they work for Private Eye (a satirical magazine, published in the UK) and anyone who wants to keep their hobby and not allow a court judgement to infect the rest of their life, will follow the law of the land.

DingerX
7th May 2006, 00:39
From a Professional Philosophical point of view,
there is a distinction between statements of opinion and statements of fact. Statements of opinion propose (but, unlike arguments, do not seek to demonstrate) interpretations for facts. For example, an opinion would be, "I like the colour green". (A demonstration would be: when shown photographs of 40 pretty women, each with her eyes colored blue, green and brown, the synapses in the section of my brain associated with pleasure were 200% more active when presented with green eyes. Therefore I like the color green).
A statement of fact makes a claim about external reality. "Yesterday, there was a sea battle".

As pointed out earlier, allegations of fact also have legal significance. This is particularly true in a board like this one which is purportedly by and for professionals, yet anonymous and available to all (Welcome to one of the problems of the internet).

So take safety. A favorite jab against low-cost carriers is that they skimp on safety: or rather, management pressure on cost-savings initiatives often induces other parts of the company to take measures that are detrimental to safety. Is it justified? Sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't.
Making matters worse, there are conspiracy nuts and company axegrinders who routinely post negative material against particular companies, airports, and agencies.

But while this may be a "bull session" for pilots, it is, at least till now, a forum open to all, and occasionally cited explicitly in the press. People are reading these discussions and formulating opinions about who to fly with. Most of the time, you can assume that readers are critical: they know unsubstantiated BS and bitter employees when they see them. But if they get facts -- well, that's watercooler material tomorrow. And for Low Cost Carriers, since Valujet, if not long before, the public has been fed the suspicion that low prices=substandard safety. The most dangerous lies are the lies that support commonly-held beliefs; and, incidentally, the verisimilar is the biggest enemy of the truth.
So any statement claiming a factual incident where a given flight from a given airline busts safety regulations on a given day is going to attract attention. And you can bitch about Ryanair's counter-allegations all you want, but while there's an investigation in process that will determine the facts -- in a legal sense at least -- there's no reason to make statements of fact about the situation without indicating sources.

haughtney1
7th May 2006, 01:21
I still think it stinks that pikeyair threatens legal action......and PPrune has to remove posts...censorship any way you slice it IMHO

Sunfish
7th May 2006, 02:35
I think most of you are completelty missing the point which is without the original post starting the removed thread, there would be no IAA investigation.

Until these matters are brought out into the open, there is no possibility of an investigation. Pprune performs this function flawlessy. Don't believe me? Try making an allegation to any regulator of anything and see how far you get!

You will be fobbed off by a combination of "where's your evidence?", "this is an unfounded allegation", "You are not competent to make such an allegation". Furthermore, if your allegation has some truth in it, and you can be identified by the likes of a Ryanair, there is every chance of getting sued.

One final point. If there is found to be any truth in the allegations (which I am not competent to comment on anyway), it won't leave a mark on Ryanair because no matter what the company culture, it is the Pilot's decision and Ryanair will simply hang those concerned out to dry. This is the nature of the insidious "double bind" problem that can affect people's judgement.

MarkD
7th May 2006, 04:09
as usual in these kerfuffles, it's Danny's trainset. Don't like it? Airliners.net awaits.

Dream Land
7th May 2006, 04:44
Anyone want to talk about why this seems to be so complicated, this so called investigation:eek: , so the IAA reads PPRuNe and starts an investigation, I had been under the impression that ATC could not deny a landing clearance but in the case of an aircraft landing below published minimums it was automatically reported. :confused:

Kitsune
7th May 2006, 07:07
[quote=Otterman]Sorry but I do have a problem with the removal of the thread (the thread itself being immaterial to me). I think when you go through the posts on pprune, almost nothing meets up to any journalistic standard.

Sorry don't understand what you mean by this Otterman, I though the terms 'journalist' and 'standard' should never appear in the same sentence.

AIMS by IBM
7th May 2006, 10:44
From a Professional Philosophical point of view,
there is a distinction between statements of opinion and statements of fact. Statements of opinion propose (but, unlike arguments, do not seek to demonstrate) interpretations for facts.

As pointed out earlier, allegations of fact also have legal significance. This is particularly true in a board like this one which is purportedly by and for professionals, yet anonymous and available to all (Welcome to one of the problems of the internet).

So any statement claiming a factual incident where a given flight from a given airline busts safety regulations on a given day is going to attract attention. And you can bitch about Ryanair's counter-allegations all you want, but while there's an investigation in process that will determine the facts -- in a legal sense at least -- there's no reason to make statements of fact about the situation without indicating sources.


So this means that the general public should just accept the reports from the Egyptian CAA on the Flash Air crash, simply because they have no access to the facts ?

In other words, if you control the facts then you can post what you want!

I think that Danny should publish the letters he has received from any lawyer from any Airline that has forced him to remove a tread and put it in the Legal Bin or at least send a copy to those posters that were named in it.

I believe that Ryainair, taken into account the channel 4 saga, has every reason to avoid this from happening again.They are not being treated in the same way as others.

If clearly the Egyptian CAA is not up to speed (on two occasions this was proven by facts NTSB) why is Egyptair allowed to fly to the UK?

Is it not a fact by itself that people are indeed posting on these issues?

Maybe Nietzsche was right: "it´s all about power and God is death"

Globaliser
7th May 2006, 11:14
I believe that Ryainair, taken into account the channel 4 saga, has every reason to avoid this from happening again.They are not being treated in the same way as others.I think many posters here think that PPRuNe is a place where one can have the sort of free discussion that goes on in a pub, or crew bar, or whatever. Somewhere that one can say whatever one likes, without fear of follow-up or retribution, whether it's true or not.

Unfortunately, much as we might like it to be, that just isn't the case. PPRuNe isn't the pub. The laws that govern what PPRuNe might be legally liable for are not the same as those that govern what you might be legally liable for in a face-to-face gossip. And that's quite separate from the enforceability question - what's said here is written and open for all to see, unlike the ephemera of words spoken but never put down on paper.

So Danny has to take legal complaints seriously, or else risk seeing PPRuNe brought down by legal action.

There is a separate issue of why Ryanair is so quick to make legal complaints to PPRuNe, apparently taking a different view about this from other airlines and organisations that are regularly discussed here. That, IMHO, speaks volumes for Ryanair rather that PPRuNe. It may reinforce the opinions that some of us hold about Ryanair generally, whether we know more or less about the airline and the way that it is run.

But it doesn't change the position that if there is a legal complaint, Danny has to respond to it - which he has done.

CamelhAir
7th May 2006, 11:19
Anyone want to talk about why this seems to be so complicated, this so called investigation , so the IAA reads PPRuNe and starts an investigation,

The key to understanding this lies in understanding the role of the IAA. In order to do so, you must first bin any preconceptions you may have, perhaps formed by knowledge of other authorities, as to their role. Rather than effectively regulate FR, and others, their role is simply to collect all those lucrative fees from FR, and avoid at all costs upsetting the applecart, as to do so would risk MOL running off to Latvia to register all his aeroplanes. Now and again if something gets a little too public, like in this case, they must put on a show of investigating, all the while remembering where MOL has threatened to register the aircraft. Don't think effective regulation, think more the muppet show. :(

Wing Commander Fowler
7th May 2006, 11:28
DingerX - small point but "I like the colour green" is NOT an opinion - it is a fact! "Green is a lovely colour" is an opinion........:hmm:

AIMS by IBM
7th May 2006, 11:37
There is a separate issue of why Ryanair is so quick to make legal complaints to PPRuNe, apparently taking a different view about this from other airlines and organisations that are regularly discussed here. That, IMHO, speaks volumes for Ryanair rather that PPRuNe. It may reinforce the opinions that some of us hold about Ryanair generally, whether we know more or less about the airline and the way that it is run.

But it doesn't change the position that if there is a legal complaint, Danny has to respond to it - which he has done.

So then why does Danny create a perception about Ryanair by explaining why he has banned this tread while he does not do so for all other banned threads.

The perceptipion is created that Ryanair has something to hide, but this may well be the case for many other airlines that have made the same request in the past.

So Danny, put your cards on the table or face the risk; you may be judged to be impartial.

Now that would be a true reason to wipe this Forum from the face of this earth and start a real PPNe that hopefully is immune to this kind of manipulations.

PPRuNe is as much a business venture as it is a Forum.

Rainboe
7th May 2006, 11:57
Don't be so daft people, why should the forum owner risk being sued because of unsubstantiated allegations here? He has been notified in writing that a legal department is looking at what is said. Are you suggested that he should keep the thread up? Are you willing to pay his costs of possibly £1/2 million (or more) in damages and costs in the High Court for him- ie are you willing to shoulder the responsibility for him, legally? If not, then stop demanding the forum owner publish, because he will be dammed if somebody's 'anonymous' unsubstantiated allegations and critical comments are proved to be incorrect! It could still happen.

EI-CFC
7th May 2006, 12:37
As has been said much has been said about other airlines.

Oh well, that makes it alright then, doesn't it?

The thread was removed, and pretty correctly considering some of the stuff that was posted.

cwatters
7th May 2006, 13:26
Rainboe is quite right. I believe recent legal cases have demonstrated that you are liable for what you say online - just as you are liable for what you say outloud in a pub or any other public forum. It's what and how you say it that counts.

What makes people think their posts here are anonymous?

Bomber Harris
7th May 2006, 13:43
Danny is being his usual rational self. However, I am worried about his "mates". Who are all these guys saying "well done danny" for taking the post off the air? Lets gets this straight...somebody with bigger pockets than danny says "take the post off or i sue your ass off". Danny takes the post off. This is NORMAL RATIONAL behaviour. If Danny said, "to hell with you guys...see you in court", now we could say "well done danny", "bully for you", "danny is an idiot, don't take them on", "you'll burn in hell danny for taking on a skygod" or whatever else you felt. This becomes material on which we can comment.

So if you are one of the lapdogs saying well done danny, then maybe you understand how MOL operates his game!!!

Anyway, let the disussion on freespeech continue, which is what this should be about.

Rainboe
7th May 2006, 14:39
Well as a lapdog that understands how MOL works (which is legally), I quite understand that MOL is very likely to sue the arse off anybody who makes accusations and comments about his company that may be construed as in anyway incorrect. Don't you? Exactly how I would behave if I ran a company and some darn website posted unsubstantiated and possibly incorrect accusations/criticisms about my company. 'Free speech' be damned- there often ain't such a thing- it depends what you are going to say. Rights of free speech are not rights to say and accuse what you like- this ain't Parliament where you can say what you like. Free speech brings responsibilities for you to personally be accountable for what you say, and while people hide behing anonymity here with what they say, it is the webmaster who is directly accountable. So in court, where would the 'well done Danny' people be? Backing him up, or will he look around and see 100,000 Prooners have mysteriously vanished totally? Nobody has any right to question if he decides to delete anything he likes.....it's his football.

Farrell
7th May 2006, 18:08
Does the fact that we're still discussing this thread and again mentioning the 'supposed' events that happened on that night mean that even though the thread was pulled, that anyone who reads this new thread can pretty much work out what the content of the original thread was????

MarkD
7th May 2006, 18:17
Danny should publish the letters he has received from any lawyer

Ryanair certainly seem to like publishing correspondence of their website - remember that C4 programme?

Few Cloudy
7th May 2006, 18:21
There are two threads:

The removed thread containing the Rumour (or Allegation) and

This one - which is about the removal of the first one and the ramifications.

In my opinion, judging by the very detailed and well researched posts by Danny, he has had some sleepless nights trying to keep this thing on an even keel.

It is all very well for people to complain about a perceived giving in to the airline concerned. They don't appreciate that PPRuNe is not a free for all public service - leastways not this side of Jetblast (non moderated). It started off as a hobby and grew so big, that requests, threats or court action occur on an irregular basis and have to be taken seriously.

If you feel like filling Danny's shoes right now and treading the narrow path between freedom of expression and upsetting some eager lawyer then I question your seriousness.

The best suggestion of how to deal with cases like this in the future, I found to be the idea of keeping only the thread title going, with an explanation from the Moderators for the reason. To the Mods and Danny I would say, don't expect everyone to read between the lines of your explanation - short and sweet will have to do in future.

Good luck,

FC.

LTNman
7th May 2006, 18:37
This all reminds me of Robert Maxwell and the missing pension funds. When questions were asked out came the lawyers. After his death the truth came out.

Local Variation
7th May 2006, 19:00
Having sat on the sidelines for along time, my only surprise is that this has taken so long. And sure enough here we are.

The ever increasing amount of vitrialic (sic) accusations thrown at this airline in particular and another which happens to fly our proud union flag on it's famous tails around the globe made this day inevitable. I fully understand the actions of the airline and that of the owner of this wonderful website. They both had little choice I fear.

Working for a corporate outside the industry, I have on a small number of occassions requested action be taken as that employed by the airline in question, regarding statements made about the business I work for. And sure enough the legal time deemed it necessary to protect the rights and the image of the company and out came the size elevens. You look in wince and leave it, wince and leave it. Then bang, the line is crossed and you say "enough is enough".

Better all get used to it and fast.

threegreenlights
7th May 2006, 19:53
I have been reading this thread with some interest and notwithstanding the views about free speech. Here are the facts one more time.

1. Someone in the industry makes allegations on PPrune of a serious nature.

2. The matter is being investigated by the IAA.

3. Lawyers demand the thread is removed pending outcome of investigation.

4. Danny removes the thread.

Points one to four seem quite reasonable.:ok:

So let us wait and see what the outcome is. In the meantime the Captain has final jurisdiction on safety margins as has always been the case.

PAXboy
7th May 2006, 19:53
Those shouting for 'free speech' ought to bear in mind that that means the right to speak your opinion without fear of being persecuted by the government of the day. I sit to be corrected on that but giving an opinion behind a posting name, when someone else might get it into trouble is not the same thing!

Secondly, Danny has made it clear that, when the case has been investigated, he will be allowed to publish the results. He gets to print the truth, once it is known, and then people can say what they want. Therefore, he has not kow-towed to FR but has won!!

spekesoftly
7th May 2006, 20:06
Earlier today I read an excellent post on this thread written by Danny. He obviously has his own good reasons for subsequently deleting it, but it's a great shame that his detailed overview of the many rules pertaining to this subject has now gone. Perhaps when the dust has settled, Danny would consider re-posting an edited version, leaving out the specific 'Ryanair Connection', if necessary?

Speed of Sound
7th May 2006, 20:53
When questions were asked out came the lawyers. After his death the truth came out.

I hope you're not suggesting that somebody 'offs' that nice Mr O'Leary? :eek:

SoS

A330busdriver
7th May 2006, 23:17
Tell me this has nothing to do with large banner ads at the top of PPRUNE's home page for...........................



................................RYANAIR.





He who pays the piper calls the tune?????????????????

QDMQDMQDM
7th May 2006, 23:54
I ran a website called the Motley Fool which has very active boards and was involved in the early days of establishing liability in these kinds of situations. Unfortunately, it is very clear that in the UK (not the US) the website can be held liable for defamatory statements posted on its boards. In practice, a website like pprune cannot be expected to patrol its boards incessantly and pull all posts which could possibly be considered defamatory. However, if a complaint is made, along with a request that a post or thread be pulled because it is defamatory, and the post or thread is not pulled within a reasonable period and it does turn out to be defamatory, then the website will be liable.

So, everyone can whinge as much as they like about 'sell-outs' and 'manipulation' etc, but it is a very simple case of the law of the land and survival. Don't like the law? Campaign to get it changed, but don't impute anything to pprune. They are just doing what they have to do.

QDM

Flying Lawyer
8th May 2006, 00:38
Tell me this has nothing to do with large banner ads at the top of PPRUNE's home page for...........................

................................RYANAIR.



This has nothing to do with large banner ads at the top of PPRUNE's home page for...........................

................................RYANAIR.


And, unlike you, I am in a position to know.
You also clearly don't know Danny. If you did, you wouldn't have made such an offensive suggestion.


FL

Danny
8th May 2006, 10:46
Just to point out some facts... I removed the thread in question because, late on Friday, Ryanair threatened me with legal action because I had, in their opinion, allowed false, damaging and defamatory allegations concerning Ryanair's safety, safety record and operating standards to be published on this website.

Now, I and my mods try to keep a fair debate going and Ryanair tend to get more publicity on here than most other airlines when it comes to gripes. What they object to is allegations that their safety record and operating standards are anything but the highest and I am not in any position to dispute that.

I and my mods try to decide which allegations are serious and which are malicious. If any are obviously malicious then we take care to remove them as soon as we spot them. Others may not be so obvious and we sometimes don't notice them until they are pointed out to us by others who believe them to be, in their opinion, false and/or malicious. In this case, as I will point out below, the grim repa was out of order by making some of the claims in the original post. However, as I will point out below, there were some operations by certain pilots which appear on the face of it, carried out in breach of current regulations and safety standards.

In the letter I received Ryanair claim that their own investigations into the matter have revealed that none of the allegations are accurate or true. They also claim that further damage has been caused to Ryanair in that it appears that the allegations have now made their way into the national media. As far as they are concerned, Ryanair is an airline that operates to the highest safety standards and its good name has been tarnished by these, in their opinion, false allegations which were published here on PPRuNe.

Whilst PPRuNe does not and never has deliberately published false or defamatory allegations intentionally, we take as much care as we can to make sure that what is published is verified as far as is possible with our very limited resources. If anyone, and in this case Ryanair, does not believe that the allegations are true or that they are defamatory and request that they be removed, we remove them until such time as they can be verified. Unfortunately for us here at PPRuNe, Ryanair, who like to claim that they are bigger and better than BA appear to be much more sensitive to any criticism that impugns their safety standards. I have to respect that sensitivity and unless the bearers of such allegations are prepared to put their real identities to their claims they have no right to demand unlimited rights to free speech on here.

I do not work for and have never worked for Ryanair and as far as I am concerned, the only contact I ever have with them is as an occasional passenger. I do meet their pilots from time to time on my travels and I observe them when I am at work. I have no personal axe to grind with Ryanair and in fact they have been good customers of PPRuNe by taking out long term advertising. Ryanair have offered to settle their claim against me for what they regard as defamatory statements on the basis that I make a £5,000 contribution to an appropriate charity and that I immediately remove the thread.

They also want an undertaking that I will not publish any further false defamatory statements on the PPRuNe network relating to Ryanairs safety or operating standards and that I will provide Ryanair with financial compensation in the event that any such statements are published. They also reserve the right to bring legal proceedings against me for damages and to close down PPRuNe without further notice.

So, there will be no more allegations about Ryanair's safety or operating standards. Verifiable facts are allowed and an example of how they must be published, in this case with reference to the alleged operation of some Ryanair flights in breach of Low Visibility Operations, without exception, is provided here:

There are some publicly available facts. Some of which is teaching Granny to suck eggs, but hopefully doesn't leave any gaps.

Firstly, the recorded aerodrome Met visibilities are available from many sources, such as NOAA. As you may be aware, the IRVRs can be different, but the reported Met Vis at least gives a flavour of the conditions and points towards the possibility of potential breaches of the rules having taken place.

The recorded Vis values were as follows:

2120UTC - 1400M Fog
2150UTC - 0300M Fog
2220UTC - 0200M Fog
2250UTC - 0100M Fog
2320UTC - 0100M Fog
2350UTC - 0100M Fog
0020UTC - 0100M Fog


(Source: wunderground.com and NOAA)

PPRuNe contributors say the RVR was between 375M and 200M whilst some aircraft landed or made approaches.

Next, we know for sure that NOTAMs and other information were published regarding the serviceability of facilities at Stansted on the evening in question. The wind speed and direction during the evening was ~5Kts from the SSE, so it is probable that Runway 05 was in use.

Firstly from the UK AIP Supplement S03/2006

"LONDON STANSTED - MAJOR RUNWAY WORKS

1 Introduction

1.1 Starting Monday 20 February until Thursday 30 November 2006 major Runway resurfacing will take place which will require the runway to be restricted or fully closed. The work will also include the provision of a new airfield lighting pit and duct system.

2 Timetable and phasing of works

2.1 The works is planned in three phases. One and three will result in a reduction of the runway distances and/or the availability of supplementary runway services and facilities. During the nightly working period in phase two the runway will be closed.

2.2 Works will require the Runway centreline and TDZ lights to be withdrawn during this period, a separate notice will be issued detailing this."

This was issued on the 17th January 2006, so operators should have been given a heads up from that to look out for the temporary loss of Runway centreline and TDZ lights. The validity of the works contained in the Supplement was Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Saturday and Sunday evenings from 2259UTC until 0500UTC.

Further, the Supplement also lays down a note regarding the suitability of the lighting during the outages, namely:

"All lighting configurations during the nights working period in phases One and Three comply with the CAP168 criteria for non-precision approaches and take-off IRVR being in excess of 400 m."

If the alleged landing incidents took place during a Phase One period of working, then the lighting was suitable for a non precision approach.

NOTAMs filled in a bit more detail, and are long standing publications for this specific WIP.

For the approach lighting, there is a reduced service, but only between the stated times of 2315-0445UTC:

Q)EGTT/QLACG/IV/NBO/A/000/999/5153N00014E005

FROM 06/03/28 12:36 TO 06/06/29 04:45 A0731/06

E)RWY 05 OPR WITH LOW INTENSITY APCH LIGHTS, 210M IN LENGTH WITH ONE CROSSBAR. MON-WED 2315-0445

For the runway lighting, it is a reduced service from the 2nd of April until the 31st of October. There is no mention of greater availability during the day, before night work commences. It is a black and white reduction which was in force for several weeks before the allegations... and will continue for the main part of the rest of the year:

Q)EGTT/QMRLT/IV/NBO/A/000/999/5153N00014E005

FROM 06/04/02 05:00 TO 06/10/31 05:00 A0748/06

E)DUE RESURFACING, RWY CL AND TDZ LIGHTING NOT AVBL. RWY LEAD ON/OFF WHERE AFFECTED WILL BE REPLACED BY BLUE EDGE LIGHTS.

There is also an ILS NOTAM, but I think it is largely irrelevant as there is no corresponding NOTAM detailing what is available once works commence, the published NOTAM merely tells you what service comes back and when, so any reduction in ILS capability once WIP has commenced is inferred rather than stated. On that basis, I think it is safest to assume that full CAT III availability on the ILS system was in place for the times of the alleged incidents. It make little difference to the case anyway in my opinion, since other 'rules' override it as you need other components to allow such approaches.

Q)EGTT/QICXX/I/NBO/A/000/999/5153N00014E005

FROM 06/02/27 16:57 TO 06/07/30 23:59 A0376/06

E)ILS AVAILABILTY AFTER NIGHTLY RWY WORKS IS AS FOLLOWS.

CAT 1 ILS 0600-0730 MON-THU AND 0600-0900 SUN (CAT 3 IS AVBL IF FORECAST WEATHER CONDITIONS REQUIRES).

CAT 3 ILS AVBL AFTER 0730 MON-THU AND AFTER 0900 SUN.

(Source: UK AIS)

http://www.pprune.org/images/jaropsminima1.gif

So we have an idea of the weather, we know the equipment availability on the airfield, and we will make the assumptions that the crews and the aircraft are all fully compliant with CAT III operations. However, under JAR-OPS 1.45, there is a referral to AMC/IEM C, specifically AMC-OPS 1.430(b)(4) 'Effect on Landing Minima of temporarily failed or downgraded Ground Equipment'. This specifically excludes CAT III operations at night where there are no centreline lights. CAT II operations can continue provided the RVR is 550M at night. So at best, with a fully serviceable ILS, CAT II approaches could be carried out.

(Source: JAA JAR-OPS)

There are just 3 further parts to consider. The ATC 'rules', any UK CAA 'differences', and the actual landing times of the aircraft alleged to have not complied.

Looking at ATC first, the relevant rule is that concerning 'Absolute Minima'. There are 2 main relevant points within this. Namely that it is only mandated for non precision approaches or when CAT II or III guidance cannot be provided by the ILS. If the assumption is that the ILS was still at CAT II or III guidance levels, then this rule is probably a red herring. Regardless, ATC have no power to restrict an approach, whatever the category. The second point is that all RVR values passed should be recorded when the RVR falls below 1500M – so at least the CAA/IAA should have something to go on !!!

9.4 Absolute Minima

9.4.1 Absolute Minima is a theoretical value, calculated according to the instrument approach and facilities available at the aerodrome, which will be equal to or less than the specified operating RVR for a Category A aircraft carrying out that instrument approach.

The purpose of this procedure is to act as a 'safety check' where a pilot may have made a gross error in calculating his Aerodrome Operating Minima for that approach.

9.4.2 ATS Providers shall make available to controllers the Absolute Minima RVR for each notified instrument approach procedure at their airfield. These values are based on the calculation process notified in the AD 1.1.2 section of the UK AIP. This data will then be displayed at relevant operational positions.

9.4.3 Controllers shall apply the procedure below to all civil flights whether operated by a UK or foreign operator. Military flights, including those operating as General Air Traffic (GAT) are excluded from this procedure.

9.4.4 The Absolute Minima procedure is to be applied when the ILS is not capable of providing Cat II or III guidance and when non-precision approaches are being flown.

9.4.5 Existing legislation applies to Public Transport and non Public Transport aircraft making instrument approaches to aerodromes. When the reported RVR or equivalent RVR, is less than a pilot's Aerodrome Operating Minima (calculated for the instrument approach being flown), a pilot may not continue the approach below 1,000 feet above the aerodrome level.

However, if the pilot is already below this level and the RVR then reduces below his Aerodrome Operating Minima, it is permissible to continue the approach to the relevant specified Minimum Descent Height or Decision Height. If, at that point, the required visual reference for landing cannot be established then a missed approach will be commenced in accordance with normal practice.

9.4.6 Should a pilot indicate that he intends to commence an approach when the reported RVR or, if not available, an equivalent RVR (obtained by factoring the reported met visibility) is less than the calculated Absolute Minima value, then the controller must inform the pilot immediately with the following phraseology:

'(Callsign) you are advised that the current RVR/visibility is (number) metres which is below the absolute minimum for a (name) approach to runway (number). What are your intentions?'

If the pilot states that he still intends to continue the approach below 1000 ft above aerodrome level the controller shall inform the pilot:

'(Callsign) if you continue the approach and descend below 1000 ft above aerodrome level, it is believed that you will be contravening UK legislation and I shall be required to report the facts, acknowledge.'

This shall be followed, at the appropriate moment, by:

'(Callsign) there is no known traffic to affect you making a (name) approach to runway (number)'.

And subsequently:

'(Callsign) runway visual range (number) metres, there is no known traffic to affect you landing, surface wind (number) degrees (number) knots'.

Controllers must ensure that pilots are told as early as practicable, when they indicate that they wish to make an approach, that the RVR or visibility is less than the calculated 'absolute minimum'.

9.4.7 When a pilot has stated that he wishes to commence or continue an approach, controllers shall continue to pass any changes in the weather throughout the aircraft's approach. If a controller is required to inform the pilot that the RVR is below the 'absolute minima' and if it is known or believed that the pilot descended below 1,000 feet above aerodrome elevation when the RVR was below the calculated Absolute Minima RVR for that approach, then a CA 1261 shall be submitted.

9.4.8 Controllers are reminded that Absolute Minima values are theoretical values which, when used, serve as a final safety check to remind pilots that they must comply with their mandatory Aerodrome Operating Minima. If a pilot asks for the Absolute Minima he shall be advised that ATC are unable to supply this information to pilots and that he should refer to his mandatory Aerodrome Operating Minima.

9.4.9 This procedure is not intended to permit a controller to prohibit a pilot from making an instrument approach other than for traffic reasons or when instructed by the Aerodrome Authority. Controllers are not responsible for ensuring that pilots observe their mandatory Aerodrome Operating Minima.

Controllers are reminded that the decision to commence an approach rests with the commander of the aircraft. Controllers should not question the right of a pilot to commence an approach or perform a landing, other than in the circumstances described above, nor enter into extensive dialogue on the RTF once the Absolute Minima phraseology has been passed.

9.4.10 If a pilot requests the relevant Obstacle Clearance Height, this should be provided to him, together with a warning that he must make the necessary calculations to obtain his required operating minima.

9.5 Aerodrome Operating Minima

9.5.1 Aerodrome Operating Minima in relation to the operation of an aircraft at an aerodrome means the cloud ceiling and runway visual range for take-off, and the decision height or minimum descent height, runway visual range and visual reference for landing, which are the minimum for the operation of that aircraft at that aerodrome.

9.5.2 Controllers are not responsible for determining, passing or enforcing a pilot's mandatory Aerodrome Operating Minima. Controllers shall follow the 'Absolute Minima' procedure when the reported RVR, (or equivalent meteorological visibility1 if RVR measurements are not available), is below the calculated absolute minimum value for the published instrument approach that the pilot intends to follow.

Note: Observations of visibility and RVR passed to aircraft making an approach to land when the visibility is less than 1500 m shall be recorded. Records shall be made available to the CAA on request.

(Source: UK CAA CAP 493 Manual of Air Traffic Services Part 1 Section 3 Chapter 1)

Next up, the pilot rules and Absolute Minima laid down in the AIP. These are exactly the same as those specified in JAR-OPS 1.45:

UK AIP AD 1-1-2

2.10 Instrument Approaches.

Instrument approaches are divided into non-precision approaches and precision approaches:

a Non-precision approach

An instrument approach using non-visual aids for guidance in azimuth or elevation but which is not a precision approach;

b Precision approach

An instrument approach to landing using ILS, MLS or PAR for guidance in both azimuth and elevation;

Categories of precision operation

Category 1 operation

A precision instrument approach and landing with a decision height not lower than 200 ft (60 m) and with a runway visual range not less than 550 m (500 m for helicopters).

Category 2 operation

A precision instrument approach and landing with a decision height below 200 ft (60 m) but not lower than 100 ft (30 m) and a runway visual range of not less than 300 m.

Category 3 operations are sub-divided as follows:

i Category 3A – A precision instrument approach and landing with:

1 a decision height lower than 100 ft (30 m); and

2 a runway visual range not less than 200 m.

ii Category 3B – A precision instrument approach and landing with:

1 a decision height lower than 50 ft (15 m), or no decision height; and

2 a runway visual range lower than 200 m but not less than 75 m.

and then:

For CAT 1 Operations:

4.3 Precision approach

4.3.1 The lowest minima to be used by an operator or pilot for Category I operations are:

Table 5 - RVR for Cat I Approach

http://www.pprune.org/images/jaropsminima2.gif

Note 1: Full facilities comprise runway markings, 720 m or more of HI/MI approach lights, runway edge lights, threshold lights and runway end lights. Lights must be on.
Note 2: Intermediate facilities comprise runway markings, 420-719 m of HI/MI approach lights, runway edge lights, threshold lights and runway end lights. Lights must be on.
Note 3: Basic facilities comprise runway markings, <420 m of HI/MI approach lights, any length of LI approach lights, runway edge lights, threshold lights and runway end lights. Lights must be on.
Note 4: Nil approach light facilities comprise runway markings, runway edge lights, threshold lights, runway end lights or no lights at all.
Note 5: The above figures are either the reported RVR or meteorological visibility converted to RVR in accordance with Table 10 below.
Note 6: The Table is applicable to conventional approaches with a glide slope angle up to and including 4°.
Note 7: The DH mentioned in Table 5 refers to the initial calculation of DH. When selecting the associated RVR, there is no need to take account of a rounding up to the nearest ten feet, which may be done for operational purposes, (eg conversion to DA).

4.3.2 Night operations. For night operations by aeroplanes at least runway edge, threshold and runway end lights must be on.

(Source: UK AIP AD)

As there are no TDZs or centreline lights (H24), then the facilities are deemed Intermediate and the minimum RVR required would be 700M with a DH of 200'. This would increase to 800M when the RW05 approach lighting reduced to LI only after 2315UTC (becoming Basic).

There are no tables in the AIP for CAT II or CAT III, however, the minimum (with FULL facilities) would be 300M and 200M (CAT IIIA) or 200M>75M (CATIIIB). However, as we have discovered, the AMC-OPS criteria are the relevant ones and are more restrictive due to the reduced lighting availability.

The final part of the jigsaw would be to establish who landed, and when… this we are still trying to find out. Regrettably, asking Stansted ATCO's direct would probably not be a wise move on the assumption that the regulators are probably already giving them grief !!

In summary then:

What conditions were in place? – Night, with a steadily decreasing Met Vis of less than 1500M after 2120UTC.

Was there full lighting available at Stansted? – No, this was subject to an AIC Supplement and a NOTAM (both issued well in advance of the subject time period).

What CAT of ILS was available for an approach? – Due to the lighting outage, CAT III was not possible, the best that could have been in place was CAT II.

What RVR is required for CAT II at night with lighting as available at Stansted? – 550M Minimum

What was the measured RVR? – Unknown precisely, but Met Vis was below 550M from the 2150 METAR onwards. ATC were required to record any RVR or IRVR values passed to pilots making approaches. Anecdotal evidence puts the RVR at between 375M and 200M whilst some aircraft landed or made approaches.

Did any Ryanair aircraft land after 2150UTC? – To be determined.

Should Approach Bans or Absolute Minima procedures have been used? – If CAT II ILS was available, then this is not applicable.

Is there a case to answer?

There is a fair bit of public domain information out there, as you can see. With just a little more information, it would be possible to construct a set of facts from which people could form their own conclusions. I shall rely upon the learned opinion of PPRuNe's lawyers about Ryanair's complaints and claim. Posts by 'Jackwhoknowsabitofeverything' types giving us their unlearned opinion are not helpful.

The assurance in the letter I received from the lawyers that Ryanair investigated the 'allegations' and found them untrue is open to debate. They are not the Regulator and they would not be given unhindered access to ATC recordings or IRVR databases. So, if their pilots told them everything was fine and above board that is obviously good enough for them. However, there remains the question of why did some Ryanair aircraft land at STN when, according to the evidence so far obtained, the RVR's were below the minimum laid down in the safety regulations? Could it just be a coincidence that each individual captain breached the same safety regulation? Whilst the "buck stops" with each captain, the questions raised about the corporate and management culture within Ryanair and its effects, if any, on an individuals responsibility is not open to debate.

Probably enough to go on with for now anyway but if anyone has a record of the actual landing times of any aircraft on the night in question, please feel free to forward them to me. Until such time as the IAA decide to let us know the results of their own investigation then, as far as I'm concerned, this discussion is off limits.

You have been warned.

Edited to add that none of the above could have been put together without the assistance of PPRuNe's dedicated, professional and highly intelligent moderators. They are from all aspects of aviation, not just pilots and without them PPRuNe would never have become what it is today. All I have done is collate it and present it for consideration.

captplaystation
8th May 2006, 13:11
Danny, Christ man, I'm impressed. All I can say is that instead of making legal threats Ryanair should be trying to recuit you as the Base Captain in STN. I hope everyone has the sense to await the facts, I think you have covered every possible angle and more. " Vive PPRuNe" .

sky9
8th May 2006, 14:20
Excellent last post Danny. I do however think that when posts are pulled because of a Lawyers letter it would be extremely beneficial if the letter is published in full. That would mean that the lawyers would have to be very careful in what they write as they wouldn't half look stupid if their claims were not based on the facts.
In the meantime lets hope that the IAA do a full and detailed audit that includes the diverted flights and the duty and rest periods of the crews concerned - I'm sure that the Ryanair Lawyers would really want the IAA to give their clients a full rebuttal of some of the outrageous claims made on this thread.

wiggy
8th May 2006, 14:42
Well done Danny and all the experts who contributed to your excellent post.
Keep up the good work :ok:

Farrell
8th May 2006, 15:02
Is there any way we can chip in for the 5 grand? Quite a lot of cash for you to pay for something that you had no hand in Danny.



Have just ordered a Personal Title so maybe that will be a help! ;)

camlobe
8th May 2006, 18:58
Danny and the moderators,

Thanks for spending what has obviously been a great deal of time in putting together your latest post. I appreciate being kept in the picture here on PPRuNe and patiently await the publication of full facts in this highly charged and emotive, not to mention, serious matter.

Many thanks again to all of you.

camlobe

Oldy
8th May 2006, 19:15
Danny, I was once a chief pilot in BA. I seriously respect you in more ways than you realise. Good luck. PM me if you wish.

Faire d'income
8th May 2006, 19:16
Fascinating post Danny, absolutely outstanding.

Here is a link to Irish daily newspaper Irish Examiner (http://www.irishexaminer.com/text/story.asp?j=587664&p=5879z8&n=587956) which has an article on the subject. ( I assume I am not in breach of any law/directive/threat etc. )

Monty77
8th May 2006, 20:26
I don't recall a more comprehensive return of serve.

Now perhaps the lawyers will realize there's more to it than 'bus driving'.

A bad day in court is far less serious than a bad day in the cockpit.

fyrefli
8th May 2006, 20:46
Have just ordered a Personal Title so maybe that will be a help! ;)

Have just done likewise.

Brilliant work deserves support.

Cheers,

Rich.

Globaliser
8th May 2006, 21:13
Ryanair have offered to settle their claim against me for what they regard as defamatory statements on the basis that I make a £5,000 contribution to an appropriate charity and that I immediately remove the thread.Danny, are you really having to pay £5,000 as well as removing the thread? If so, then my personal opinion of FR as a company - never high to start off with - has gone even lower.

I find it hard to believe that any other airline, even those that get their regular share of flak here, would be such aggressive b*stards, when the BB has no advance control of what members post.

At any rate, respect, for having to put up with these tactics and for the way that you're handling it.

MrFire
9th May 2006, 01:10
It says they offered to take £5K off his hands, I dont see the bit where he agreed with that particular plan

flowman
9th May 2006, 04:32
For what it's worth I have just looked at data stored in CFMU systems. This data is available to anyone registered for access to RCA or CHMI - i.e. most aircraft operators.
I looked at 25 RYR flights planned to arrive at EGSS after 2140 and before 2340 UTC.
Arrival messages were received from the following aerodromes:
EGNX 6 flights
EGGW 3 flights
EGBB 7 flights
EGKK 1 flight
Radar plots were recorded for 2 other flights terminating in the vicinity of other aerodromes and the remaining 6 flights deviated from flight planned route away from EGSS without Div Arrival messages being received and without landing at EGSS.
I did not look at any flights outside the above mentioned times. It's the end of a night shift, I'm tired and I'm going home.

Hobo
9th May 2006, 07:01
Fantastic Danny, it was worth starting Pprune for that post alone.

cargo boy
9th May 2006, 08:46
Whilst I'm sure we have some concern for the crews involved as they seem to be a hard working and much abused bunch trying to make their way, the stories of inadequate report times and unavailability of NOTAMs etc. are easy to believe, considering the state of the operation at Stansted as reported by pilots. How can a carrier base 50+ aircraft at an airport and not have an Ops department there?

sean1982
9th May 2006, 09:13
WHat I find shocking is that a couple of people here on pprune take every chance they have to make allegations about Ryanair (False or not I will leav that in the middle) completly anonymously and in the end Danny has to pay up for it. Then they come back and talk some BS about freedom of speech.

I wonder if MR Grim repa wants to pay the 5000 pounds out of his own pocket ?

angels
9th May 2006, 09:46
scan - That's what I had in mind when the thread was started.

Some people had a pop at me for my posts warning that the ice was thin, but I was merely stating what the law was.

This whole thing could have been handled with a little more care instead of a 'shoot from the hip' style. Now Danny and his chums have got to go through a lot of work to avoid further trouble.

Hopefully any bashers, either of individuals or airlines, will think carefully before they post. The original post could have just asked a question. Did some pilots breach the rules?

Few Cloudy
9th May 2006, 10:04
Danny's last post was originally on the site for a short time on 7th May, which is why I made my post on the last page.

Having read it again I can only reinforce my comments.

Good luck again and to the whingers - some people round here are givers and not just takers. Appreciate what you are getting.

FC.

cwatters
9th May 2006, 10:57
Perhaps all anonymous posts should be moderated first? I wouldn't want to see anonymous posts banned but perhaps that would be a reasonable compromise? I guess the problem is one of proving identity and the agro that causes for board admin.

beernice
9th May 2006, 12:27
All this serves as a very good example to show how FR deals with its problems. Right and wrong is not the issue here, to FR its irrelevent. All that relevent is how deep the pockets of its opponents are.
The same methods are used when dealing with its employees as is seen with current events in Dublin. To anybody out there thinking of joining you have been warned, this is a perfect eample of how FR works.
Dont want to get anybody in trouble but FR had a serious incident in Knock a few weeks back resulting in the demotion of a captain.

A330busdriver
9th May 2006, 12:42
Danny,

thank you for such a detailled and clear explanation of events. In my previous post I did not mean to offend anyone - especially not yourself. I was unaware of the background to the matter and perceived the mentioned threats as being the usual rhetoric that comes from that stable everytime they do not see their version of the world being promulgated.


As to FL,

You have answered my question. No, I don't know Danny, never met the man, and never intended any offense to him. However, the fact of seeing a large banner ad for an airline on a page informing me that a thread was pulled because that same said advertiser demanded it so, prompted my question.

Keep up the good work.

captplaystation
9th May 2006, 12:53
What this "incident"(?),and the subsequent arrangements (or lack of) for crew and pax brings to the forefront is the hopelessly inadequate Ops structure which "tight control of costs" prevents being adequately expanded to match Ryanairs explosive growth over the last few years.If those of you outside RYR knew how many people were ( or more pertinetly were not? ) employed in Ops/ Crewing I imagine you would think it was some sort of sick joke.It is deeply offensive that the spineless crustaceans charged with regulating it ,need pressure from the CAA and the Press before they sit up and take notice,without that ,this would have been swept under the carpet.Most of the other problems documented here, such as pilots out of check etc, stem from the same inadequacies. Sure, RYR are at this moment trying to fix it ,but it appears to be too little/too late, and they are in a hopeless game of catch-up. Situations normal for us here unfortunately.

captplaystation
9th May 2006, 14:18
And if you didn't believe my last post, the latest gem to appear on Crewdock (our internal e-mail contact with our "masters" for those of you on the outside) is an URGENT ( their word ,not mine followed by multiple exclamation remarks ? duh ) request for pilots at 3 of our bases to forward details of their medicals. Amazing the chaos that can be caused by a simple house move.Don't suppose a vertically challenged " gentleman" that lost half his empire put a spanner in the works ? No,much too machievelian,surely, just another day with the loonies administering the asylum comes to fruition. Oh dear oh dear.

Doctor Cruces
9th May 2006, 15:16
Well said Danny...a nice clear explanation.

I don't know about anyone else but..


Last time I looked we lived in a country with freedom of speech (unless you upset emperor Bliar)..so it seems a little off-hand that those with more money than others can effectively buy silence with threatened expensive legal action.


There has never been an established link between the law and justice!!
Well done Danny for pulling the thread. We need PpRUNE more than a good thread on RYR.

Many of us have had an intake of breath through clenched teeth observing RYR and discussed it here, Danny's action ensures we will long be able to do so.

Best wishes

Doc C

Hellzapoppin
9th May 2006, 15:33
I am glad I saw Danny's vital post. Says it all. It's there for all to see but Ryan haven't bothered to look. The lawyers were happy with the 'facts.' Whose facts might they be. Minimums were apparently busted time and time again.

niknak
9th May 2006, 15:50
Its just my personal opinion that Danny was absolutely right to do what he thought was right for either his benefit or that of Pprune.

What does concern me is that there has been no mention of any involvement of the UK CAA, after all the "alleged incident" did occur in the UK, and they should be leading the investigation.

Again, its just my personal opinion, but I have no faith in the IAA to do anything positive when it comes to a certain Irish airline.:rolleyes:

Flap 5
9th May 2006, 17:15
For what it's worth I have just looked at data stored in CFMU systems. This data is available to anyone registered for access to RCA or CHMI - i.e. most aircraft operators.
I looked at 25 RYR flights planned to arrive at EGSS after 2140 and before 2340 UTC.
Arrival messages were received from the following aerodromes:
EGNX 6 flights
EGGW 3 flights
EGBB 7 flights
EGKK 1 flight
Radar plots were recorded for 2 other flights terminating in the vicinity of other aerodromes and the remaining 6 flights deviated from flight planned route away from EGSS without Div Arrival messages being received and without landing at EGSS.
I did not look at any flights outside the above mentioned times. It's the end of a night shift, I'm tired and I'm going home.

6 + 3 + 7 + 1 + 2 + 6 = 25. So in fact no RYR flights landed at EGSS?

Tags
9th May 2006, 19:13
If the subsequent enquiries prove illegal approaches and landings were made - will the passengers on the aircraft involved have a case against Ryanair for endangering their lives?

Maybe one for Flying Lawyer?

Globaliser
9th May 2006, 20:42
If the subsequent enquiries prove illegal approaches and landings were made - will the passengers on the aircraft involved have a case against Ryanair for endangering their lives?

Maybe one for Flying Lawyer?Even though it's more Flying Lawyer's field than mine, I'm confident that the answer is no. They suffered no actual loss, so they have no claim.

JW411
9th May 2006, 21:25
Perhaps Danny could make a deal here along the lines of:

1. If the elaborate claims made by the initiator of this thread are proved to be greatly in error then he/she pays Danny £5000 and then tries to make his peace with the Ryanair lawyers.

2. If his elaborate claims are proved to be correct then Ryanair pays Danny £5000 and the initiator can then sue Ryanair for defamation of his anonymous character.

It all adds weight to the fact that the sooner we get these (un)promising hysterics banned from taking part in sensible discussion the better. Otherwise, pprune is going to get shut down.

PBD 1
9th May 2006, 21:42
Can anyone remember those nice green pages they used to have in the AERAD manuals.....??

sky9
9th May 2006, 21:51
Just a thought.
IF the allegations prove correct, has Danny been defamed or threatened by the lawyers? Demanded money with menaces springs to mind.

Danny
9th May 2006, 22:45
Please note in my earlier posts, we do not need 'Jackwhoknowsabitabouteverything' giving us his unlearned opinion.

The allegations that "many" aircraft landed at STN on the night of the 24th April when the RVR was below the minimum allowed for the level of lighting available still stands. Those aircraft that landed that night in RVR's below the minimum allowed under safety regulations were not just Ryanair aircraft.

We already know the numbers and are waiting to see the results of the official investigation. We do not need speculative posts about the incidents or the investigation for now. All the aircraft landed safely but that doesn't mean that they didn't breach safety regulations. Our concern at the moment is why did we see one of the biggest breakdowns of operational integrity by a first world airline in a very long time?

Considering the numbers involved, which we will try to keep confidential for the time being, are we looking at procedural lapses by a group of individuals or do we need to look much further than that? It should not just be a case of firing the crews as they are an expensive and rare commodity in the market. It should be about educating them individually to correct any shortcomings, improving and/or correcting any company wide factors involved and finally educating and raising awareness of all personnel at the company about the lessons learned.

Should scapegoats be found individually and action taken against them in a punitive manner (education and retraining should not be punitive), then we would be outraged here at PPRuNe as that would not be tackling the real problems underlying why so many pilots breached the rules on the 24th April. We wait to see the results of the inquiry and will compare our notes at the time whilst watching the reactions from the companies involved.

The dogs have been unleashed against myself and PPRuNe and I am proud to say that as far as I am concerned, our integrity is intact and we will prevail with the truth in this matter. Whose court is the ball in now?

Pegasus77
9th May 2006, 22:59
Danny & team: You earned my respect big time...

At first I was surprised by Danny pulling the RYR-thread, now I see you did not give up.

Thank you Danny.

P77

Bomber Harris
10th May 2006, 00:12
Yeh I agree. My eye's have been opened to a lot of things by this post. I thought there was no point in discussing a simple issue. Danny gets a law suit threat...pulls thread....end of story. What's to discuss, maybe a whinge about free speech. BUT there is a lot more to this than I for one realised. This has turned out better than the original thread!!!!

GGV
10th May 2006, 00:29
First, may I add my thanks and congratulations to Danny and his team. The painstaking analysis and explanation they have collectively provided above is helpful and most valuable. In particular Danny has shown us how a “steady pair of hands” keeps the real issues clearly in focus whilst avoiding needless risk.

In that regard, and speaking as somebody who believes he has recently been in the company of a pilot who was directly involved in these events, may I particularly commend the following observation by Danny (which I believe goes to the core of the consistent message coming from pprune and other sources):

Should scapegoats be found individually and action taken against them in a punitive manner (education and retraining should not be punitive), then we would be outraged here at PPRuNe as that would not be tackling the real problems underlying why so many pilots breached the rules on the 24th April. We wait to see the results of the inquiry and will compare our notes at the time whilst watching the reactions from the companies involved. Of course these eminently sensible and constructive words apply as much to Aviation Authorities as they do to airlines.

If anyone has any doubts as to the litigious and legally threatening nature of Ryanair when it believes it important to silence adverse comment, they may care to look at the following link: http://www.ryanair.org.uk/

If you feel that Ryanair would not become involved in litigation unless the facts were on their side, you might care to search for various reports, of which the following is but one, on the Ryanair "one millionth passenger" case: http://www.rte.ie/news/2002/0619/ryanair.html

The following words of the judge, taken from the judgment in that case, relate to two findings of fact:
I found the plaintiff a more persuasive witness than Mr. O’Leary and I therefore find as a fact that the version of events given by the plaintiff is correct. … I reject Mr. O’Leary’s assertion that he was not hostile or aggressive or bullying toward the plaintiff. I find that he was.

Camel Killer
10th May 2006, 02:12
Serious kudos Danny, that's one hell of a comprehensive post.:ok:

For those who still don't get it or who cannot read in, on or between the lines perhaps you may care to compare and contrast:

a) Ryanairs response to the Dispatches program

b) Ryanairs response to these allegations on Pprune

c) MOL's previous opinion that various postings on Pprune were akin to "scribblings on a toilet wall"

SIDSTAR
10th May 2006, 03:30
Congrats, Danny, on an outstanding piece of work - probably the best ever seen on pprune. As stated by another poster, Ryanair has very often gone to law with their massive financial resources, to prevent any serious level of criticism of their operation. Pruners have to stand up to bullying tactics from whatever source they may emanate.

It may turn out that no Ryanair aircraft landed at Stansted on the night in question in breach of the JAA Approach Ban. If that's the case it will no doubt be given equal airing here as did the original post. On the other hand it may be shown that some Ryanair aircraft did land in breach of the law (and possibly some from other companies as well.) We will have to await the reults of the various enquiries to establish the facts.

The most telling item on this whole thread is the quotation from the judge in the millionth passenger case against Ryanair that he found a certain gentleman to be an unreliable witness and in fact found that the court did not believe this gentleman but did believe the lady who took the claim against the company. Official Ireland has stated that this person, on this one occasion, was not to be believed. It appears that Ryanair's lawyers are telling us that the Ryanair version of events on the night in question is the correct one. I leave it to your imagination as to which version is likely to be proved correct.

Let's all start by pledging twenty quid to Danny's fighting fund right now. Just tell us where to send it. Freedom of speech and flushing out those who are 'econmical with the truth' is still an important part of the British way of life. It is critical that accurate, informed comment is not silenced whether that be attempted by Ryanair or anyone else.

rubik101
10th May 2006, 11:19
Regardeless of the outcome of the investigation, there must be someone who knows which aircraft of which airline landed, what time these landings occurred and under what RVR conditions such landings occurred in STN on that foggy night. Regardless of whether the Captains are guilty or not of some infringement or have disregarded some rules and regulations, can we not simply have the facts and then form opinions for ourselves?
What those 'opinions' might be are purely our own and can be discussed ad nuaseam here or at work or in the bar etc.
Or do these facts constitute some breach of confidentiality or some breaking of the law once they become known?

Danny
10th May 2006, 12:46
Again, I reiterate, we are not going to publish the numbers or who was involved on here until we get the IAA's version of events. Needless to say, we have all the information and will be comparing notes at that time.

NATS collated all the information and passed it to the CAA SRG and to the IAA. As aviation professionals you will know that the information involved will include time referenced radar plots, approach and tower frequency audio, atis, met observations and, most importantly, the IRVRs constantly logged and updated when vis falls below specified limits.

The IAA have been under a lot of criticism on here for being 'toothless'. With the UK agencies' role and UK airline involvement on the night, the opportunity is there for the CAA to present the results of their own investigation.

It is our hope, here at PPRuNe, that the investigations and reports issued will not just be a limited, dry technical analysis of the multiple approaches that breached safety regulations on the night in question. All the aviation professionals who use PPRuNe are concerned that the investigations will not only delve into the operational issues but, in particular, will highlight the cultural issues that are behind what appears to be the biggest breakdown in operational integrity and safety for many years here in the UK.

This is not just an issue for the IAA but one that relates to the oversight functions of all regulators, including the CAA, and will possibly highlight the differences in their authority with respect to the way they deal with pan-national basings by individual operators. The CAA does not have oversight responsibility for foreign registered aircraft based here in the UK. All they can do is ramp checks and we all know that is not the same thing.

Operating to the same set of safety regulations in itself is not the only criteria that should be looked at. It's the same old adage about accountants, they know the price of everything but the value of nothing. We here at PPRuNe are trying to highlight the effects that different corporate cultures can have in a safety critical industry. Does corporate culture and the fallibility of human factors have an influence on the amount of 'Risky shift (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risky_shift)' that is the result? Could it be that the regulators have different attitudes to it on either side of the Irish Sea?

Faire d'income
10th May 2006, 15:49
Fantastic work Danny and Pprune.

For those who cannot read between the lines please stop asking questions. It appears all will be revealed in good time.

This is a monumental development and I am glad to see Pprune taking such a position.

Bravo.

TDK mk2
10th May 2006, 21:11
To any of you who have expressed your support of Danny Fyne and the PPRuNe team's postion on this matter: If you wished to make a contribution to assist their position in this situation, you could consider purchasing a personal title by clicking on those words under each posters name of each thread. You can choose the amount you pledge by the number of words and adornments you choose, or make a small donation by requesting no words at all be displayed under your name.

I have no connection with Danny Fyne or PPRuNe other than my membership but I am glad that Danny Fyne and the PPRuNe team have taken the position they have, I consider it to be on my behalf and therefore I have given them a small contribution towards any possible legal expenses they may incur.

Dream Land
11th May 2006, 04:18
TDK, do we know for certain that PPRuNe has incurred such a charge, if so, I am sure the vast majority of posters will step up to the plate.:ok:

angels
11th May 2006, 10:37
For crying out loud Dreamland!!

Look at the big picture rather than being pedantic. Do you think Danny makes a profit from this site?? Do you think this site is useful? Do you CARE?

Take TDK's excellent advice and cough up a few GBP/EUR/USD/AUD/NZD/VND or whatever to help keep this site going.

Step up to the plate.....:*

And kudos to the people who are obviously helping out with this one. :ok:

forget
12th May 2006, 11:09
View from across the pond. The April issue of Air Line Pilot

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b270/cumpas/OLEARY.jpg

Speed of Sound
12th May 2006, 12:26
In an age where integrity is often seen as a dirty word, and people are all to ready to take the corporate dollar for the sake of a quiet life, Danny's actions in this matter are like a breath of fresh air.

Donation on its way! :)

SoS

doubtfire
22nd May 2006, 11:03
Someone somewhere must have an accurate record of flights landing on that night. Surely. Anybody

VIKING9
22nd May 2006, 11:48
Think you'll find Airfield Ops and the airlines will have accurate records but most unlikely to be revealed on here :rolleyes:

Danny
22nd May 2006, 17:45
All parties involved will have 'accurate records' of who landed and at what time, and that includes PPRuNe. What some of the other parties may not have is copies of the IRVR records which, together with the 'accurate records' of who landed when, show who continued their approaches below the 1,000ft approach ban height when the broadcast RVR's were below the safety minimum published for the facilities available at that time.

One of the most interesting points about the large number of aircraft that were flown to safe landings, despite breaching the safety regulations concerning the minimum safe visibility allowed for the equipment available at Stansted that night, is the fact that they were all 'Low Cost' operators. What does this tell us? Is there a problem with the standards of training for LVP operations or could there be a problem with commanders decision making due to certain pressures within some corporate cultures that are not addressed properly by the regulating authorities?

Whatever happens, this needs to be addressed and any attempts to stifle the discussion should be seen as blatant attempts to put profit before safety. There were three 'Low Cost' operators involved in the breaches of safety regulations that night. Whilst there is no doubt that they all 'train and operate' to the minimum standards as set out by the regulators and the JAA, the questions raised because there were so many breaches of the rules that night must be dealt with by the regulators themselves. Either they have minimum safety standards for a reason or else they are just paying lip service to those same operators who fund the regulators activities in the first place. Conflict of interest?

sky9
22nd May 2006, 19:00
An interesting and thought provoking comment Danny.
I would have thought that if your comments are true the first action that the regulators must take is to withdraw the Low Visibility Approval for the companies concerned while they review their training and procedures.

As far as stifling discussion is concerned, I cannot think what you are taking about, surely no airline (worth an AOC) would compromise safety for profit now would they? Anyway how would they do that in a free society?

Faire d'income
22nd May 2006, 22:10
One of the most interesting points about the large number of aircraft that were flown to safe landings, despite breaching the safety regulations concerning the minimum safe visibility allowed for the equipment available at Stansted that night, is the fact that they were all 'Low Cost' operators.

But they repeatedly tell us that they operate to the highest safety standards.

That is not meant as a cheap shot at the crews involved, they have my complete sympathy, but rather at the company spokespersons who usually have no idea what they are talking about.

Q: Can anyone operating for any of the low cost operators confirm or deny for your company the rumour that some dont carry Cat III plates but merely use Cat I plates and change the minima?

05omega
22nd May 2006, 23:08
I don't mean to undermine Danny's argument but since it happened at STN and since the overwhelming majority of airlines operating there are low-cost companies, isn't it just normal (statistically speaking) that all the companies involved in the breaching of regulations should be low-cost operators?
I'd be curious to know how many aircraft from 'traditional' (ie not low-cost) operators were supposed to land at STN on that night.

Norman Stanley Fletcher
23rd May 2006, 01:02
I heartily commend Danny for all he is doing and I hope that the truth comes out. I am slightly intrigued by the other alleged transgressors. I do not know if aircraft from my company, easyJet, are included in those that committed the alleged breaches of regulations that night. If they are I would be both surprised and disappointed. I can only tell you that the level of LVP knowledge required at easyJet is way in excess of any of my previous 4 airlines.

At this juncture, knowing the safety culture of easyJet as I do, then I cannot imagine any conversation in one of our cockpits that could result in an approach being attempted with both pilots knowing the RVRs were below limits. If the RVRs are below limits then I would have expected that there was simply nothing to discuss other than the diversion brief. What I can imagine is a genuine mistake whereby the pilots believed that they were able to operate to Cat III B limits even if they were not. I think we would all recognise the difference between a genuine error of judgement and a deliberate flounting of the regulations. Frankly, if it transpires that crews have knowlingly landed in RVRs below limits for a legal approach without an overwhelming safety imperitive, then I would expect people to lose their jobs.

N380UA
23rd May 2006, 06:45
if it transpires that crews have knowlingly landed in RVRs below limits for a legal approach without an overwhelming safety imperitive, then I would expect people to lose their jobs.

Purely speaking from a company unofficial politics point of view, as it had been mentioned by Danny,

decision making due to certain pressures within some corporate cultures


and as we know does exist within some companies, the crew might find itself compromised by just that fact. A certain "Do or Die" mentality in the FD doesn’t necessarily mean that one would loose their job but reflects on the crews performance review. Too much sticking to rules and regulations might be regarded as overly concerned, low self-confidence and as a lack of loyalty to the company. Especially then when others have done it before without any incidence – "See! They did it no problem! So why did you divert and cost us a bunch of dough?"

Regardless of the events at STN that night or any carrier in question here, this is not an isolated phenomena. I have seen it before at airlines where I would have least suspected it. Bend the law a bit, sneak around the corner get there faster and cheaper and above all drive the pax to their destination. You'll get a cash bonus – if you get caught by authorities, well ain't our problem, your PIC!
If you wont do it then you’re a lousy aviator, Incompetent, as it will show on your PR. Three strikes and you get downgraded or even booted.

So what does one do in such circumstances? It happened to me once, albeit not in a flight deck. I stuck to the R&R, the aircraft suffered a delay, there were additional costs to do it right and thus my boss was unhappy and I without a job soon there after.

captplaystation
23rd May 2006, 13:14
I have never been subjected, in three and a half years at RYR, to any pressure to get in. Wx below minima? hold as long as poss if there is any realistic possibility of an improvement or temporary alleviation,if not, off you go to wherever you nominated, or have been asked, to divert. I think what we saw was simply an ignorance of the regulations for the airfield deficiencies that night.This can, and regretably will, be laid directly on the doorsteps of the crews concerned. However, had a certain individual been more concerned with being a bit more pro-active in safety matters , rather than passing his time writing to crews asking why they took more than 300kg extra fuel, perhaps he could have avoided this embarassment at our largest base , that he supposedly oversees.He will, as usual, come out of this smelling of roses, and that is the greatest injustice.

essexboy
23rd May 2006, 13:28
Faire d'income
Q: Can anyone operating for any of the low cost operators confirm or deny for your company the rumour that some dont carry Cat III plates but merely use Cat I plates and change the minima?

Slightly off topic but I shall answer you from a Ryanair perspective. Absolutely NOT true. CAT II/IIIA are carried. I think where this has come from is that the Low vis plates only show the CAT II minima as the CAT IIIA is standardized to 50ft/200 metres... etc.

AIMS by IBM
23rd May 2006, 14:55
There are far bigger problems in aviation then a few planes that land below minimums.

However the argument that nobody was killed seems to have become the yardstick.

The UK and all other European CAA should concentrate of those very fastgrowing Airlines in the Middle East that breach basic safety rules on a daily basis.

All the rest is plain hypocricy.

A330busdriver
12th Jul 2006, 15:59
Any news from the IAA yet?

arewenearlythereyet?
12th Jul 2006, 17:13
My auntie Mary know someone who told her that the IAA have decided not to proceed any further with their investigation into this incident(s). Surprise surprise!

sky9
13th Jul 2006, 14:42
In which case it is time for someone to publish the facts on this site.

Xploy Ted
14th Jul 2006, 09:10
Given the extremely obvious way that large corporations manipulate every detail of the systems in this industry, it is naive to expect anyone to play fair and by the rules.

Of course no regulator is going to do anything about Ryanair. The only thing that will affect the behaviour of such a company is losing money/pax.

For the Prune site to be subjected to the power of money -the cost of a law suit - is bowing to the powerful rather than the truth. I have not read the thread in question and it is not the issue.

Private eye is still going after many decades of publishing, whatever the consequences. They have always found their readers willing to contribute to a fighting fund and I suspect Prune would find the same, as a previous poster suggested. I too would cough up willingly.

Many pilots register complaints on this site, that stem directly from the corporate power (bullying) that they experience and yet some now support bullyboy Ryanair in direct conflict with their own interests.

One of the reasons UK pilots are teated the way they are is because of this lack of willingness to stand together aginst the bully. The removal of the thread in question, is just one more example of the playground bully winning the point yet again.

A330busdriver
14th Jul 2006, 10:58
XT,

well put!

THe FR action to silence comment on what happened that night in Stanstead is the same sort of action that was tried with REPA.

The tool used is fear.

O'Leary et al had managed to put fear into the FR pilots with the pending High Court case. The thought that FR management could have access to their names and details of their postings served to undermine their freedom to speak out about things that were wrong, and ultimately join REPA.

REPA stood up to them and won. The law is not on the side of the bully.

As with this thread, it would appear that some hard facts exist to support the statements made in the thread that was pulled.

Its just a pity that the facts may never emerge through any official line, and perhaps not at all.:ugh:

sky9
14th Jul 2006, 11:56
A330
Check back to Danny's posts, I think that all he is waiting for is the IAA verdict then all the fact could well be on this board.

All parties involved will have 'accurate records' of who landed and at what time, and that includes PPRuNe. What some of the other parties may not have is copies of the IRVR records which, together with the 'accurate records' of who landed when, show who continued their approaches below the 1,000ft approach ban height when the broadcast RVR's were below the safety minimum published for the facilities available at that time.
and:
Again, I reiterate, we are not going to publish the numbers or who was involved on here until we get the IAA's version of events. Needless to say, we have all the information and will be comparing notes at that time.

A330busdriver
14th Jul 2006, 13:26
sky9,
As you rightly point out, Danny has indicated that he is awaiting the IAA's version of events.

My fear is that the IAA will, in a fashion they are well accustomed to, dodge the issue. This may well come about by taking five or ten years to investigate, conclude, or even acknowledge that it might warrant their investigation. Even if they do conclude an invetigation, they will no doubt hide behind the cloak of confidentiallity. This is their modus operandi.

I'm not suggesting that the IAA are any worse or better that other aviation authorities -for example, one only has to look at the continual friction that exists between the NTSB and the FAA.

Investigating a matter such as this should only take a few days - not months or years as everything is recorded. A/c operators, callsigns, crew details, RVRs, Radar plots etc.
It is not something subjective - purely a matter of record as to whether the aircraft that landed that evening at Stansted had adequate RVRs to commence and continue their approaches.

Xploy Ted
15th Jul 2006, 09:53
Busdriver.

Sadly, all you say is true. We all know the issue can be resolved if there is a will. Will is the chap who is always missing.:ugh:

flash8
15th Jul 2006, 10:01
Problem is Ireland is a small place, and with only a few big fish. It's really the great man himself who runs the show, not the IAA, who have, on many occasions shown themselves to be spineless.

fmgc
15th Jul 2006, 10:06
Then perhpas the Authority in the Country that the alleged incidents took place will need to do something about it if the IAA don't.

Aloue
15th Jul 2006, 10:31
My tuppence worth is that Danny is doing the right thing, even if it is frustrating. We pilots tend to like quick results (normally TODAY). We complete our work in blocks and tend not to take a longer perspective. That came home to me at a meeting where I was one of many who signed a letter to the IAA about another matter, namely the demotion of a Ryanair captain following a fatigue call.

As I recall the explanation, the IAA investigation of this event is still "open" and hence it is impossible to do anything. What we were told was that our letters will be sent in to help remind the IAA of the fact that the matter is important and that it is not going to go away (that much was made very clear). So, we just have to wait. Frustrating, yes. But necessary, yes.

After all, nobody doubts what is at issue in all of these events. The issue is who is responsible for actually doing something, as in taking action to preserve and support the safety framework on which the industry depends. In the end, just as with the event which gave rise to this thread, the IAA will have to make a decision. Afterwards is when the fun will start.

Xploy Ted
15th Jul 2006, 12:12
Flash8 & FMGC both make vital points & it is not only Ireland where big business calls the shots. It is the new establishment & this can be seen by the way the CAA inspectors, et al, naturally identify with management.

For this reason I do not agree that the thread should have been pulled. Only a firm stand (even a confrontational one) will ensure that the issue remains live.

As it is, time will tick by, other events will gain prominence and more interesting causes will take eyes off balls and it will slip quietly into obscurity. You only have to look at the way government plays the media and uses spin.

If you can bury an issue for long enough you can distract the public with different bait and they'll forget or loose interest.

Remember too that the UK CAA gets its revenue from the industry. The more ASK out there for sale & the more fuel that is burnt, the more dosh they get. They are not in the business of rocking boats.

graviton
15th Jul 2006, 12:58
"There were three 'Low Cost' operators involved in the breaches of safety regulations that night."


Were they all under the IAA?

Have I missed some vital piece of information that exonerated those, if any, that were not?

RAT 5
15th Jul 2006, 18:21
Surely there are various agencies with an interest in discovering the truth. BAA own the airport. If an illeagal act occured on their turf, surely they have some jurisdiction. Likewise the UK CAA who have jurisdiction over users of the airspace for which it is responsible. NATS are probably without jurisdiction in this. How can the whole matter be monopolised by the IAA, even if it was only, perhaps, EI reg a/c involved?