Ryanair: approach incidents in the news

[MOCA]

From Press Association:

An airline is threatening to sack pilots who fail to abide by its safety
regulations in the wake of a series of dangerous approaches to airports.
Ryanair chief executive Michael O'Leary has issued a memo to pilots warning
that they will be demoted the first time they make a dangerous approach, and
sacked for a second offence.
The warning follows three serious incidents in less than a year, and the
fourth in two years, involving a Ryanair jet approaching an airport too fast or
at the wrong height and being forced to abort landing.
In the latest incident to emerge, an aircraft flew so low over rooftops that
it triggered two warnings in the cockpit and sixteen complaints from alarmed
residents.
All Ryanair staff are under pressure to meet turnaround times of only 25
minutes, the tightest in the industry, and pilot unions say this can lead to
mistakes.
The memo, dated September 25 2006, a copy of which has been obtained by The
Times, states that a new disciplinary procedure is being introduced in response
to a series of "high energy approach incidents over the past two years".
It adds: "From 25th September 2006, any event involving any of our aircraft
passing the 500ft landing-gate incorrectly configured or at excessive speed... -
and which does not perform a go-around - will automatically lead to both crew
members being demoted in the case of their first transgression of this policy.
"In the event of a second transgression of this policy, the relevant crew
member will be automatically dismissed."
Pilot unions fear the memo will force the problem underground, with pilots too
frightened of losing their jobs to co-operate with efforts to find out why the
incidents were happening.
A Ryanair spokeswoman told PA: "The board of Ryanair takes safety extremely
seriously.
"Safety is Ryanair's number one priority. Our safety instruction to all
pilots is if in doubt you must perform a go-around - that is, a second approach
of the airport.
"We expect all of our pilots to follow this safety guidance at all times.
"This memo underlines the commitment of Ryanair and its pilots to passenger
safety."
end

[das Uber Soldat]

"Safety is Ryanair's number one priority."

Always good for a laugh, and that goes for any airline.

[Two's in]

Good urban myth, but there's nothing remotely amusing about a hull loss for anyone concerned. The rationale for avoiding one might be slightly different from a management versus a pilot's point of view, but the final goal (safety = no losses) is always the same. If you think a go-around hits the bottom line, wait until you try a smoking hole.

[ray cosmic]

All Ryanair staff are under pressure to meet turnaround times of only 25
minutes, the tightest in the industry, and pilot unions say this can lead to
mistakes.

What does that have to do with unstabilized approaches?
The hardest thing to do is to fly SOPs in a correct way and have the discipline not to set uo traps for yourself...

[Joe le Taxi]

M'OL really doesn't have a clue.
Be fully configured at 100 miles out would seem to be an appropriate response; Wouldn't want to accidentally bust that gate, after-all.

[interpreter]

It seems crazy to me to try to turn around in 25 minutes from scheduled landing time. You fellows up front should ignore the scheduled landing time (certainly an item not under your full control) and let the appropriate staff turn the aircraft around in 25 minutes from doors open. Safety for everyone then.

[Bearcat]

Joe, as much as I object to some of the behaviour of a certain CEO, the co has suffered very public incidents and can not be seen to bury this in the sand as if nothing happened....hence the verbose.
Basically what they are saying is what would happen in most airlines. 1 big screw up your demoted, next one your out.....the second would happening in the RHS?
I am also concerned at their continuous expansion....bremen....dusseldorf bases now. They are the doyen of the stockmarket but it just takes one smoking hole to screw it up. cia, knock, cork and the fast approach in the baltic were not pretty.

[Nick NOTOC]

How difficult is it to just go-around if you do not meet the stabilized criterea at 500 ft?
I would be interested to see to what extend untable approaches have actually contributed to the events mentioned!
I think MOL is just expressing his meaningless opinion again when it comes to safety.
Some questiones for LEO: How come thet FR needs such a memo to prevent the increased risk of unstable approaches? Does this not mean that the safety culture in FR is failing in all it's purposes?
Just a quick reminder here culture is the collective achievement characteristic of a comunity, therefore you cannot force it on somebody (many dictators have tried this and failed miserable)

Good luck to all you FR pilots in dealing with this dictator!

[fmgc]

I notice that Flights talks of 3 incident fruther to the Cork one, including Knock, Rome what was the other one, and didn't they have a Hard Pull Up in Reus a while ago?

What happened in the Baltic incident?

[I-FORD]

"This memo underlines the commitment of Ryanair and its pilots to passenger safety."
This memo is exactly what is needed to convince the majority of passengers that FR is committed to safety.
Infact most of the unaware public just want to see a public hanging in case somebody screws-up airplanes operations, if it is a pilot is better.
Also many in this forum (pilots or else) follow the same path.
Unfortunately this culture goes against all the last 30 years studies in aeronautical safety, that can only be enhanced by a non-blame environment.
Fast and unstabilized approaches are for sure encouraged in FR, even if not overtly, otherways I cannot see a reason for FR pilots to shoot them.
The result of this memo will be that everybody screwing an approach will try to hide it without looking further at the causes that lead to the mishap.

[captainpaddy]

So what happens when you get a little positive windshear at 550 feet and the autothrust brings you quietly back to idle for a second or two?? With O'Leary and his understanding of these things, I can see either many crew being demoted or many unecessary go-arounds in the future!

I am not suprised that RYR's chosen line of attack in an attempt to improve safety is to issue crew with strong angry threats. MOL clearly has no clue how Human Factors works.

Threat to demote or sack if you refuse to fly extra sectors at the end of your day.

Threat to demote or sack if you make an error of judgement during your flight.

Hmmmmm....

[Bearcat]

Guys, do you not get it...they have to been seen addressing this issue publically....

[RogerIrrelevant69]

MOL forgot to add:

The beatings will continue until morale improves. :)

[Joe le Taxi]

Bearcat; I dont think anyone is suggesting that RYR should remain silent, (well I certainly wasn't) - But that to have such a huge penalty imposed on a gate which under some circumstances you can be unaware you have busted (eg 160 to 4, then tailwind/gust - then with prompt action; back to stable Vref) - It sends a powerful message that goofs of all sorts will be severely punished and if possible, it would be far better to cover them up and hope management dont notice.

The same goes for reporting deficiencies you spot in other parts of the operation - Can you imagine reporting a problem knowing the person responsible for it is likely to lose his or her job?

[fmgc]

Joe,

500' gate is pretty common in most airlines.

[Joe le Taxi]

I know, but in the Western world, you doesn't usually get demoted/lose your job for busting it.

[captainpaddy]

I'm sure we can all recognise that there may be occasions when we are suddenly aware that we might miss the gate by a fraction, but on taking the big picture into account (such as busy airspace with Spanish ATC!!!) it will be seen to be safer to continue.

(Head down while waiting for firing squad.....:oh: )

Bearcat, this is not a public message. As I understand it, it was issued almost 5 months ago and has only just leaked out now.

[Daysleeper]

So hypothetically speaking whats the punishment for say, oh I dont know, continuing an approach below minimum RVR?

[fmgc]

You mean this (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/02/06/211913/probe-into-ryanairs-april-series-of-possible-stansted-fog-rule-breaches-hits-buffer-as-irish.html)?

[smith]

I notice that Flights talks of 3 incident fruther to the Cork one, including Knock, Rome what was the other one, and didn't they have a Hard Pull Up in Reus a while ago?

Think there was one in Sweden with an Aussie pilot on his last day before returning to Oz, and one where the captain had suffered a bereivement, think that was Rome.

this will force the reporting of incidents underground

With reference to the Swedish incident above, the dangerous flight profile was flagged up by a computer flight data link to ops/safety department. The parameters on the data link could be set to flag up non standard profiles hence reporting could not be sent underground.

Could demotion be another way for MOL to save money?

[dimitrispa31]

I am so glad i dont fly for this airline,in the airline i work for there is something called air safety report,if sth goes wrong,we come unstabilised and go around for example we give this report and we dont lose our jobs. Safety is always first,if you are flying fast to get the turnaround thats not safe guys.From one point the ceo tells the guys to be perfectly balanced and do the best approach or else they lose their job,on the other hand they must be there asap so as to reach the goal of a turnaround 25 minutes.Thats ridiculous.If i was a ryanair pilot i would be fully stabilised 50 miles out,i would never have to do a goaround since if i do one and i dont give a really great reason why i did that i would lose my job!!

[hetfield]

BTW, in my airline we have to be fully stabilized at 1.000' AGL.

IMC or VMC, doesn't matter.

[Danny]

OK, before some of the usual Muppets get their knickers in a twist and start frothing at the mouth (keyboard) with indignation at the merest mention of Ryanair, this thread is not going to be open season for some of the obviously less educated and almost certainly inexperienced pilots out there, never mind the wannabes and enthusiasts. Some of you can't even keep a civil head yet try to come across as though you are experienced in airline operations and have had some sort of education that is higher than gutter level.

To begin with, whilst Ryanair are not necessarily the best of friends with PPRuNe, that does not excuse some of the posters on this and other Ryanair threads from their foul mouthed and uncouth expressions that have been making regular appearances on here. Add to the above, statements and comments that are obviously from supposed 'pilots' that show a total ignorance of the realities of day to day airline operations on a modern jet, only lead me to suspect that there are too many Flight Sim 'experts' and enthusuiast/fantasists under the misapprehension that the rest of us really care what they think. :*

Anyone who doesn't understand the concept of a stabilised approach and the 1500', 1000 and 500' "gateways" (dependant on IMC or VMC ops) and voices off on here about it, isn't a professional pilot or else is a cowboy working for a gash operator! Just because MOL has put his name to the memo and thereby adding to the perception of his bullying management style, doesn't mean that the directive isn't a positive and safety related one. Normally, this kind of memo is issued by the flight operations department by a chief pilot for example.

The point here, is that there needs to be some analysis of why Ryanair has been highlighted for the reported string of unstable approaches. Does the bullying style of management have a human factors influence on the pressures to have such short turnaround times which are, in effect, in some cases, having a knock-on effect on some pilots willingness to lower their own safety standards by ignoring some company SOP's?

Ryanair has been around for 22 years. Whilst it went through a massive transformation after deregulation in 1997, it as had a long time to develop a flight safety culture. The fact that MOL likes free publicity, it is a double edged sword and in instances such as the ones in the article that started this thread, can come back to haunt them.

The one thing that Ryanair will give no quarter over is their insistence that safety is one area where they will not compromise on. Most of us have no doubt that that it true. However, the scepticism that is often shown on these forums is almost certainly a product of the conflict between the management style of their leader, his lieutenants and the that of the flight operations management where flight safety, as in all other major airlines, is a priority.

If there is already a written criteria that all approaches whether in IMC or VMC conditions and whether precision, non-precision or visual, that they should be in a particular configuration by the "gateways" and if not then a mandatory go-around or missed approach should be carried out, then that is what all their pilots should be practising. Because there have been so many reports of unstabilised approaches highlighted then one needs to look at the human factors that led to these flight crews willingness to compromise their flight safety.

Unfortunately, the willingness of the regulators to study the relationship between management style or culture and flight safety is somewhat lacking. No one is saying that it is easy to define the precise links that may be behind some of the thinking that led to the breaches of flight safety in the reported unstabilised approaches. However, there is no shortage of discussion on here with speculation from a few of the more experienced and educated pilots who are able to articulate the reasons in a polite and reasonable manner. Sadly, it is the hoards of unthinking and inexperienced posters who are the ones that get PPRuNe into trouble on a fairly regular basis with comment and speculation that bears no resemblance to reality or experience.

[woodpecker]

High energy approaches, speed gates, short turnrounds.....

Will the yellow (and red) cards also be issued for the "high energy approaches to the gate" that I frequently experience AFTER we have landed?

[4on4off]

"The one thing that Ryanair will give no quarter over is their insistence that safety is one area where they will not compromise on. Most of us have no doubt that that it true"

WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT?

[Accident Prawn]

Again, turnaround times do NOT affect approach speeds!
I work for a famous LoCo. We also have 25 minutes turnaround times and speed gates!
Turnaround is not from touchdown to take off, it's chocks on to off! How could this affect any approach is beyond me.

[fmgc]

Danny,


The one thing that Ryanair will give no quarter over is their insistence that safety is one area where they will not compromise on. Most of us have no doubt that that it true


Do you mean that most of us have no doubt about their insistence or have no dount that they actually will not compromise on safety?

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/02/06/211921/ryanair-approaches-probed-again.html (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/02/06/211921/ryanair-approaches-probed-again.html)

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/02/06/211913/probe-into-ryanairs-april-series-of-possible-stansted-fog-rule-breaches-hits-buffer-as-irish.html (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/02/06/211913/probe-into-ryanairs-april-series-of-possible-stansted-fog-rule-breaches-hits-buffer-as-irish.html)

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2006/12/12/211032/ryanair-737-nearly-crashed.html (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2006/12/12/211032/ryanair-737-nearly-crashed.html)

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2006/12/07/210977/ryanair-and-jeppesen-take-irish-air-accident-investigators-rap-over-march-aborted-high-speed.html (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2006/12/07/210977/ryanair-and-jeppesen-take-irish-air-accident-investigators-rap-over-march-aborted-high-speed.html)

[Danny]

What some of you are misunderstanding is the difference between the flight operations department and the SOP's that are there for safety reasons and the the fact that some pilots, a tiny fraction of the whole Ryanair pilot workforce, have breached those SOP's and caused incidents that have been highlighted.

What needs to be understood are the reasons that those pilots ignored those safety related SOP's. I have no doubt it is not because there is a lack of safety culture within Ryanairs Flight Ops department. It is highly probably that there is an underlying link between the corporate management style which was recently lambasted by an Irish high court judge and the repercussions that pilots could face without independent representation.

As for the lack of a connection between 25 minute turn-arounds and rushed approaches, I think the emphasis is more on the rush to keep to the schedule rather than just the turn-around itself. What are the pressures on the commanders if there is an inherent atmosphere of intimidation or bullying from the corporate management for delays that cannot be satisfactorily explained or is there a leak of the bullying management style over into the flight ops department?

[captainpaddy]

Danny,

I couldn't agree more. It is preprogrammed in just about every pilots brain to operate safely (Hence the fact that people get so heated over discussions like these). Flight Ops in any company will have the same lean. It is entirely inappropriate to point the finger of blame at RYR's pilots or individual Ops departments.

What must be recognised is that the company culture is moving us all back in time. People must realise that corporate decisions which seem miles removed from day to day operations can have the most discreet yet signifcant effects on how people perform their tasks. RYR management do not appear to be willing or perhaps even capable of accepting that a dictatorial management style, while it will keep shareholders very happy for a while, can push the whole operation closer and closer to the edge.

As I said in another forum on a similar topic: If you stretch 50 pieces of metal to their theoretical limits, some will be fine, some will be at breaking point and some will have broken already. In the past, companies have used margins in all areas of their operations to maintain a high level of safety. The closer you get to the limits, the smaller your margins, the closer you are to disaster.
A boss that says his airline can withstand 2 hull losses, obviously has looked at safety as nothing more than a financial tool. He has seen that he can reduce the margin in order to save money and increase profits while calculating that the increased risk is still financially and economically manageable. It is a backwards trend. Not modern, forward thinking management.

[shoey1976]

Re: today's warning of disciplinary action against Ryanair pilots: I read in the Times (London) that Capt Evan Cullen from the Irish Airline Pilots Association is concerned about the pressure Ryanair (and presumably the other no-frills brigade) puts on staff to meet the 25min turnaround target.
I'm wondering: does this lead to corners being cut? Are pilots and crews under too much pressure? any specific incidents come to mind?
I'm a journalist working for the BBC's Radio Investigations Unit. Any replies naturally treated in strictest confidence, and don't worry about staying anonymous.
Best wishes
Ian Shoesmith
[email protected]

[Rainboe]

Ian, instead of always just asking the questions, how about you answer some? Tell us, do you ever have days when you make an error- something that on reflection you wouldn't do again if you could re-run the events and avoid? Do you feel anyone should have the latitude to rarely do things not quite as well as they would have liked without getting totally crucified for it? Have you ever made a professional mistake and found you had journalists sniffing around for a bit of blood, despite the fact that nobody got hurt and nothing was broken?

You might resolve your investigations into justification that you are furthering the cause of safety. Believe it or not, you are not really achieving anything. The safety system is acting now to investigate how and why this happened, and that is the reason that you are aware of the incident. Being an airline pilot is always a job of fine judgement of working as close to the safety line as possible within reason. Sometimes that line isn't readily visible, and occasional minor misjudgements occur. But overall, the safety system is working fine, and will be resolved without your input, but of course you want an exciting story of death on the high seas!

[shoey1976]

hi there
of course I make mistakes, as my colleagues would testify. But in our daily post-programme meetings the phrase "it didn't work, x cocked something up, but at least nobody died". I'm very glad to say that's the case for us, but not always the case for pilots!
my point / purpose of my email is not to target pilots. Rather it is to examine the possibility that pilots are being put under undue pressure to meet the tough targets which (especially the lowcosts???) airlines set their flight crews.
I'm by no means a specialist in aviation matters, and I genuinely don't know the answers. That's why I'm asking, since it's surely a matter of public interest and safety?
best wishes
Ian

[captainpaddy]

Ah Rainboe! Go easy on the poor chap!

It will suffice to say that aviation is a complicated industry with it's own built in safeguards. However, it is difficult to defend an industry and in particular an authority such as the IAA which takes over 7 months to report on the apparent breach of rules by RYR at Stansted. How can you honestly say that the system is working fine?

I would like to see would be pressure on the authorities to ensure that incidents are investigated thouroughly and objectively. Yes, the public are only aware of the RYR incidents because of the safety system investigating. But, isn't that also the point? Aviation is a closed industry. We rely completely on one or two bodies not just to investigate what happened, but also to tell us that something has happened at all. In the case of Stansted, the public are still unaware as to what actually occured.

Ian, in terms of pressure on RYR or other LoCo operators, the one thing I would love to see happen in public is the removal of O'Learys mantra that RYR pilots only work 18 hours a week and therefore can't complain. This number is based on the maximum allowed FLIGHT TIME per year of 900 hours divided by 52 weeks. It is an entirely and deliberately false indication of real life:

RYR Pilots report 45 minutes before first STD.

They also have 25 minutes between each flight for turnarounds.

And are then off duty I presume something like 30 minutes after last STA.

For a 6 sector day that means almost 3 1/2 hours on duty while on the ground.

Alowing 900 hours flying over an average of 200 days work a year makes 4.5 hours duty while actually flying per day.

Total then is 8 hours a day, 40 hours a week. More than the average worker anywhere. Add in occasional delays and you get a decent picture of the way things are. MOL simply uses the understandable lack of knowledge of the general public to his advantage by putting the 18 hours a week thing into every single discussion to try to make his pilots look like moaning babies.

[alibaba]

Ian good afternoon,

look at what Danny said in "Ryanair Approaches"

"What some of you are misunderstanding is the difference between the flight operations department and the SOP's that are there for safety reasons and the the fact that some pilots, a tiny fraction of the whole Ryanair pilot workforce, have breached those SOP's and caused incidents that have been highlighted.

What needs to be understood are the reasons that those pilots ignored those safety related SOP's. I have no doubt it is not because there is a lack of safety culture within Ryanairs Flight Ops department. It is highly probably that there is an underlying link between the corporate management style which was recently lambasted by an Irish high court judge and the repercussions that pilots could face without independent representation.

As for the lack of a connection between 25 minute turn-arounds and rushed approaches, I think the emphasis is more on the rush to keep to the schedule rather than just the turn-around itself. What are the pressures on the commanders if there is an inherent atmosphere of intimidation or bullying from the corporate management for delays that cannot be satisfactorily explained or is there a leak of the bullying management style over into the flight ops department?"

Also what Captainpaddy says in the same topic;

"I couldn't agree more. It is preprogrammed in just about every pilots brain to operate safely (Hence the fact that people get so heated over discussions like these). Flight Ops in any company will have the same lean. It is entirely inappropriate to point the finger of blame at RYR's pilots or individual Ops departments.

What must be recognised is that the company culture is moving us all back in time. People must realise that corporate decisions which seem miles removed from day to day operations can have the most discreet yet signifcant effects on how people perform their tasks. RYR management do not appear to be willing or perhaps even capable of accepting that a dictatorial management style, while it will keep shareholders very happy for a while, can push the whole operation closer and closer to the edge.

As I said in another forum on a similar topic: If you stretch 50 pieces of metal to their theoretical limits, some will be fine, some will be at breaking point and some will have broken already. In the past, companies have used margins in all areas of their operations to maintain a high level of safety. The closer you get to the limits, the smaller your margins, the closer you are to disaster.

A boss that says his airline can withstand 2 hull losses, obviously has looked at safety as nothing more than a financial tool. He has seen that he can reduce the margin in order to save money and increase profits while calculating that the increased risk is still financially and economically manageable. It is a backwards trend. Not modern, forward thinking management."

I would also read this thread, "Ireland: Ryanair Fears €20m Pilot Hit"

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=258282

That is what many people see as the problems in Ryanair! :ok:

[shoey1976]

very interesting stuff -- thanks very much for that, and feel free to get in touch again if needs be,
best
ian 44 (0) 7769 977665

[J-Class]

Rainboe, speaking as a humble SLF, can I say I think the journalist-bashing in these forums is excessive. Yes, of course there's plenty of uninformed drivel written about the industry and splashed in full colour in the newspapers, and of course much of this nonsense is very frustrating reading for industry professionals, and so fair dibs for those who vent their frustration on these forums. But surely you accept that you are happy to live in a free country where press enquiry has very few limits, and where you as a citizen and a consumer regularly benefit from the work carried out by investigative journalists? What would you have said if Ian had been a journalist investigating Farepak a year ago and you were a professional in the consumer finance industry at that time - would you have said that the industry self-regulation was going well, with precious few negative incidents, and therefore journalists should simply keep out? As George Orwell said, "journalism is a profession not to be despised", however much it rummages in the gutter.

As to Ian's question itself, I think it is a perfectly respectable one, although the positive safety record of Southwest Airlines over many years seems to suggest at least anecdotal evidence that there is no correlation between short turnarounds and safety. Whether Ryanair or any specific carrier has a good safety culture is anyone's guess, although as a pax I've always suspected it's the legacy carriers who fly closer to the safety line - but then again what do I know?

[oliversarmy]

Ian

Just out of interest why are the BBC now using yahoo email addresses and mobile telephone numbers as a point of contact ??;)

OA

[shoey1976]

hiya
reason's very boring really ... I'm spending half of my working week in TV Centre in London, and half in the Manchester office, hence mobile is easier to get me on / ditto email - but for the record it's [email protected]!
Ian

[fmgc]

the pressure Ryanair (and presumably the other no-frills brigade)

Please don't lump all LoCos in the same basket.

You need to differentiate between each individual airline and their own safety cultures. You also need to appreciate that they have different controlling authorities, Ryanair, Irish Aviation Authority, easyJet, BIMI baby etc on the British CAA.

I will happily fly on any airline that has an AOC from the UK CAA.

[haughtney1]

J Class,

Yes, of course there's plenty of uninformed drivel written about the industry and splashed in full colour in the newspapers, and of course much of this nonsense is very frustrating reading for industry professionals, and so fair dibs for those who vent their frustration on these forums.

So what is wrong with venting our frustrations? no one that I've seen is advocating censorship of the free press.

What would you have said if Ian had been a journalist investigating Farepak a year ago and you were a professional in the consumer finance industry at that time - would you have said that the industry self-regulation was going well, with precious few negative incidents, and therefore journalists should simply keep out?

As this isn't a financial services website/forum I would suggest that your comparison is worthless, after all, we are talking about airline safety standards:=

Whether Ryanair or any specific carrier has a good safety culture is anyone's guess, although as a pax I've always suspected it's the legacy carriers who fly closer to the safety line - but then again what do I know?

Well J class, rather than suspecting, speculating, or indeed insinuating, perhaps a quick scan through some of these forums and taking on-board the informed comment that many of us who work in the industry take the time to put forward...you could formulate or more informed opinion.

Ian, regrettably members of your professional body have less than pure motivations, when it comes to getting the story. I suspect your request for more info will be met with suspicion.

[chateau57]

As Danny has already said on another thread ....

"As for the lack of a connection between 25 minute turn-arounds and rushed approaches, I think the emphasis is more on the rush to keep to the schedule rather than just the turn-around itself."

I agree, at RYR under our FTL scheme (approved by the IAA), we have a maximum flight duty period of 12 hours. Despite this, we have several 4 sector days that are rostered for duties lasting 11 hours 50 minutes, 11 hours 55 minutes and even one for exactly 12 hours !!!

There is simply "no slack" in the schedule with days like these - a minute late on stand, or a turnaround longer than 25 minutes could mean the crew going into discretion on the last sector of the day.

I am not justifying this as a reason for unsafe practices, just pointing out some of the problems many pilots at Ryanair face as a result of the unrealistic targets set by the management.

12 hours should be a duty hours limit - Ryanair sees it as a target !

[shoey1976]

Hi
Can obviously understand a degree of suspicion, which is why I'm being completely upfront and straightforward with my questions. It would have been very easy to pose on this forum as joe public.
one of the benefits of working for the bbc is that we don't have any shareholders or any outside interference in what we look at.
most problems in industry and elsewhere don't simply go away, and need highlighting. I'm just the conduit who is interested in hearing from anybody concerned about the state of safety in the airline industry. That's all!
Ian

[PAXboy]

A pax speaking: My I suggest that you search for this subject in PPRuNe? It has been discussed ad infinitum in the past years and you will readily find the whole range of responses and from all sides in many of the forums.

For my part, having followed such threads with interest, I think the people you want to investigate are the CAA and their cousins in other European countries. Are they keeping up with developments in the airline industry??? One example, the 900 hour limit was (it has oft been said) a limit that was to be reached only occasionally. Now all airlines see it as a target to be met. Their need to do that is obvious but what effect is that having on flight crew?

Consider the problems reported in Spain. There is a thread running in this Forum: Barcelona Runway TO/Ground Close call Are the Spanish authorities on top of their expanding responsibilities?

If ANY airline is cutting corners, they will only be able to do so if the oversight is not there. Look at the NHS, we know that the rise in MRSA is not just due to casual attitude by some medical staff - but the steady reduction in cleaning costs by managment. They have steadily cut costs and eventually, it cost lives. Is the same thing going to happen in the airline world? (Murphy says, Yes')

The in built benefit that we as passengers have is that - the flight crew are sitting in the same place. In hospitals, the MRSA does not get the people who make the decision to cut the cleaning budget! So there is an enormous saftey net that continues to work for the greatest number of times.

The problem for you is that "Is the CAA up to the job?", is a very much longer (and more expensive) research job than trying to find out if one airline or another has put a bit of pressure on it's staff. BUT the benefit for you is that - NO ONE HAS ASKED THIS QUESTION at least, not in any meaningful way. How do the CAA recruit their staff? How much money do they have? Has their funding increased with the enoromous rise in air travel in the past decade? Have the instructions from their political masters changed???

The old question still pertains ... Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

[JCB 1]

Firstly, I have to respond to Rainboe's outburst by saying that, someone who averages almost 60 PPRuNe posts per month certainly does not work for an airline about which Ian is enquiring. Either make a valid contribution or keep quiet.

In regard to the point made by Captainpaddy on O'Leary's mantra of RYR pilots only working 18 hours per week, paddy is of course totally correct, in fact O'Leary is simply using a tired old line used in the media by Rupert Murdoch during the 1989 Australian pilot dispute.

Our governing bodies laid down operational crew duty limits many years ago when airlines were very different. These limits were respected as such and seldom came close to being infringed. However, the rules have not kept pace with the whirlwind of change that our industry has experienced, Low Cost airlines now roster to these limits as a matter of course, and as alibaba quotes : "If you stretch 50 pieces of metal to their theoretical limits, some will be fine, some will be at breaking point and some will have broken already."

I have no doubt whatsoever that the culture that exists, predominantly within the Low Cost sector, leads to corners being cut in day to day operations, and recent events certainly support this.

[J-Class]

Haughtney1:
So what is wrong with venting our frustrations? no one that I've seen is advocating censorship of the free press.
Nor am I and there's nothing wrong with anyone venting frustations - as I said, it seems fair dibs to do so;
As this isn't a financial services website/forum I would suggest that your comparison is worthless, after all, we are talking about airline safety standards
The point is you either accept that the existence of investigative journalism is at least potentially beneficial to you as an individual in society - in which case you also tolerate the fact that it occasionally gets pointed at your own industry - or you don't tolerate investigative journalism and would be happier living in a police state without a free press.
Well J class, rather than suspecting, speculating, or indeed insinuating, perhaps a quick scan through some of these forums and taking on-board the informed comment that many of us who work in the industry take the time to put forward...you could formulate or more informed opinion
Fair enough, but as others have said many times before on these forums, this is a rumour network, not gospel and as such we all have to sort the wheat from the chaff!

[Faire d'income]

Welcome to the board Ian.

You will have to excuse the reflex abuse hurled at any journalist by some pilots. The vast majority of us have clauses in our contracts banning contact with the media and therefore are very reluctant to do so. However we are frequently the victims of articles which are either management rants reproduced as informed opinion or poorly researched journalism. Hence our prickly personalities when a hack shows up. The problem is a Catch 22 situation though as how can we as pilots expect the hacks to publish informed articles when we just keep our mouths shut.

There enough links to published stories and websites such as AAIU.ie/incidents (http://www.aaiu.ie/aviation/aaiu/reportsevent/index.asp?lang=ENG&loc=1280) on the various threads here to add up the pieces of a pretty scary story. With the noble exception of IALPA you are unlikely to extract statements from too many individuals invovled. The personal risk is too great and given the 'special attention' endured by some IALPA officers they deserve our thanks for their courage. This site also deserves credit for taking the hard decision to allow continued debate on certain outfits despite enormous pressure.

A good starting point for the problem might be the IAA rather than any airline. In 3 of the high profile incidents mentioned in this Morning news (http://travel.guardian.co.uk/article/2007/feb/07/travelnews.theairlineindustry.uknews?gusrc=rss&feed=travel) stories it appears that the operator failed to report the incidents immediately, as required, in one case it was IALPA who raised it months after the event. This information is available at AAIU.ie. The lack of action on this matter by the IAA seems incredible.

Reporting incidents is the cornerstone of our safety culture. Most of our procedures and warning systems have been developed in response to events in the past. As an industry we learn more from our mistakes than any other. It is incumbent on the IAA to rigorously impose the best safety practises in it's sphere of influence. That does not appear to be happening. It may be time to call on the Irish Goverment to bring in some outside agencies to review the effiency and capability of the IAA.

Another point worth mentioning is that the media tend to focus on a soundbite. In this case the 25 minutes turnaround. That is not the reason for any of the mentioned incidents. Any pressure to stick to the schedule would not be merely felt during a turnaround. It would be a constant.

[chateau57]

PAXboy....
Ryanair has its largest European base at London Stansted Airport, employing hundreds of pilots.They operate Irish registered aircraft and the company's Flight Time Limitations scheme is regulated and approved by the Irish Aviation Authority.
By and large, the CAA cannot touch them .......

[Bigmouth]

25 mins is enough time to do all the required checks on a turn around. Of course in this business we used to be into a thing called "redundancy". And our own standards were always higher than the CAA's.

No more.

[lawboy6]

"The memo, a copy of which has been obtained by The Times, states...."

Safety assurances aside, methinks the well-timed nature of this "leak" indicates that this is simply another publicity stunt by the airline to reassure pax that RYR is safe.

If I am wrong, why no memos after Knock or Rome?

Go on, tell me.

[anotherthing]

Ian,

first, may I applaud you for being so open and honest from the very first post onwards in this thread - I think Rainboe was a little too uppitty in his response.

However you state -

most problems in industry and elsewhere don't simply go away, and need highlighting. I'm just the conduit who is interested in hearing from anybody concerned about the state of safety in the airline industry. That's all!


Could you please inform me how this statement ties in with the docudrama "The day Britain Stopped" or whatever the programme was called? I am an ATCO, working at London Terminal Control, West Drayton. I along with other ATCOs trawl the pilots forums as it is quite often a good place to learn (I am sure pilots do the same with the ATC forum).

NATS as a company, tried to advise the programme makers about the reality i.e. what the every day procedures are concerning the ATC aspect of this programme. Unfortunately, the programme makers declined to take any inout. They were happy, however, to wheel out an 'expert' who to all intents and purposes, did not know what they were talking about, to give commentry on a disaster caused by ATC.

Therefore, you can surely understand the suspicion that greets you, even when being totally honest and upfront!

Good luck with the research, but please keep it honest. As an ATCO, I find the Lo Co pilots are as professional as any other, (not what you are asking, but an indication of standards as far as I am concerned)... some are very good, some ok, some bad - just as in any other airline I regularly deal with.

I hope you do get a decent programme out of this, even if it ends up being a positive spin on Lo Co carriers - anything has to be better than more tosh such as "celebrity come dancing" or "celebrity master chef", or the latest offering "where can we find a boy like Joseph" or whatever other w:mad: :mad: k name the BBC bosses have come up with for cheap, easy to make TV!!

[captainpaddy]

I really think it is worth highlighting what Faire D'income said:

In 3 of the high profile incidents mentioned in this Morning news stories it appears that the operator failed to report the incidents immediately, as required, in one case it was IALPA who raised it months after the event.

Does that really sound like an airline who has safety as their first priority?

More to the point, although we may never know if they are, the IAA should be all over RYR for that point alone.

As has happened all over the world, notably the USA, the regulatory authority makes their money from those who they regulate. That kind of system will never work 100 % correctly. The IAA have seen a massive increase in their revenue as a result of RYR's expansion. The weight that that carries is the main reason why RYR has remained on the Irish register.

[omnidirectional737]

I don't really see what the problem is, if your unstable go around - no problem. If people are blatantly disregarding SOP's and continue with cowboy approaches what are the company supposed to do, just say don't worry about it.

I think the wider issue regarding corporate culture and intimidation is the real concern and this needs to be looked into by the authorities, but to tell people of a sanction for disregarding SOP's at least people are left in no doubt as to where they stand. If you think you even might be unstable go around.

[hetfield]

@omni

I totally agree with your post. Just keep it simple.:ok:

[captainpaddy]

Cowboy approaches are dealt with the same way by every company. Discuss, investigate, and demote/dismiss if necessary. Every company I have worked for would have demoted or sacked each of the pilots in the RYR incidents. That is not what is up for discussion though.

SOP's are SOP's and everyone knows what they are there for. But for a CEO to issue a memo threatening demotion or dismissal is not necessary. It is just another case of the over the top management culture in RYR. Angry, aggressive, memos do not serve the purposes of flight safety.

If you company is beginning to show signs of things going wrong, a good manager tries to find out why and fix the root of the problem. A bad manager screams and shouts and tells people to shape up or ship out.

[mtiggy]

Ian, sorry for jumping into your thread.

Mark Tighe here, I'm a journalist with the Sunday Times in Ireland. We are looking into the Ryanair culture to see if it contributes to the recent incidents that were investigated by the AAIU.

I've been speaking to official spokesmen but I'd like a pilot to give me their views on Ryanair procedures, the IAA enforcement of regulations and the letter from MOL. All off the record of course.

I'd appreciate any views or insights on this. I'm not an expert on aviation but am open to suggestions about what needs to be looked at here. I can see there a number of different issues that people believe haven't been addressed.

mark.tighe at sunday-times.ie ([email protected])
+353 1 4792449

[fmgc]

Is the question not why one operator should be experiencing so many incidents and what can be done to prevent something more serious happening.

[Banzai Eagle]

Was the memo published on pprune Sept 06, can't imagine it not being leaked here

[radarman]

Omni...737 has stated the 'gold-plated' safety answer to an unstable approach: go around. But can any RYR flight crew tell us what disciplinary procedures MOL imposes on a crew who b*gger up the schedule by making a go around?

[The Real Slim Shady]

Omni...737 has stated the 'gold-plated' safety answer to an unstable approach: go around. But can any RYR flight crew tell us what disciplinary procedures MOL imposes on a crew who b*gger up the schedule by making a go around?

Delighted to oblige.

"Ryanair is a Go Around airline. Go arounds are non punitive"

[graviton]

"Omni...737 has stated the 'gold-plated' safety answer to an unstable approach: go around. But can any RYR flight crew tell us what disciplinary procedures MOL imposes on a crew who b*gger up the schedule by making a go around?"



www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=262132&page=4 (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=262132&page=4)

[20driver]

Ian, one of your problems is pilots live in a different world and march to a different drummer.
Two suggestions. Get hold of a Ryanair pilots roster and book your self on all their flights for a tour. Take the days off and do it again. This will give you an idea of what 900 hours per year means. It is not the same as 18 hrs per week.
Second, take a few flying lessons. Do it at a busy regional field with commercial passenger traffic, not your local farm strip etc. (This is work, not an expense account doddle)
After that the information you are collecting will look very different.
20driver

[theamrad]

Ian, sorry for jumping into your thread.



"your thread" ????


The Professional Pilots Rumour Network (PPRuNe) is a community of professional pilots and people who work in aviation, both experienced and inexperienced.


So why, like before, does it seem like journalists are crawling all over this forum? When does posting the SAME request for "information" on two different threads start to look like spam?

Ok, so posts from pilots/ATCers/techies/engineers etc, those who know a lot, those who know a little, those who are new to the industry, others who want to comment, including passengers, enthusiasts (esp. with genuine questions etc) even, but I think the line has to be drawn somewhere. Are we supposed to believe that information obtained from a source found on a forum on which anyone can register will be used for the purposes of "journalism". (Rhetorical question!) So much for verifiable sources/information. I've seen the frustration level of some over the ill-informed, self-appointed experts (thankfully the minority) on threads such as the 'BA B744 engine out and continued flight'. With this in mind, and considering the 'wheat and chaff' point made by J-Class, I can imagine the type of waffle that would result from a production based on some of the posts on that (and some other) thread(s). That is without an industry expert standing beside the author to indicate what is probably accurate/believable, possible accurate or downright piffle. Let's not forget the Bristol issue; specifically the world of difference between opinions voiced by many pilots flying into Bristol at the time - and how some of the media just kept allowing a certain person to nullify (frankly IMO bull####) the slippery runway factor totally unchallenged. And that was after similar requests for 'insider' information on this forum. Who could blame the general public for thinking there was nothing wrong - it's just that SOME of the pilots/operators are a bit "panicky' when it rains.:eek:


As has happened all over the world, notably the USA, the regulatory authority makes their money from those who they regulate. That kind of system will never work 100 % correctly


I agree - one only has to look at the implemenation time of some of NTSB recommendations - and the list of those delayed indefinitely (permanently:E ). A read of some of the submissions made on individual AD's can sometimes be quite educational/entertaining:} .

[Airbus Girl]

I have no problem with journalists being here if they do some digging and finish with a report that is full of fact.

Personally I have seen a couple of very interesting approaches by Ryanair aircraft, unbelievable, have joked when seeing an aircraft turning finals at about 300', stable at around 50' !!!

I think any journalist should be digging around at the IAA. I believe a while back (might have been reported on here somewhere) Ryanair were found to be not carrying some required documents, might have been approach plates or notams or something, can't remember. I seem to recall it was the CAA that discovered it, despite the IAA supposedly doing their regular audits. And now the IAA have not jumped on Ryanair when some of their pilots have, allegedly, been doing approaches below minima? And I'm sorry, but NOTAMs don't have to "emphasise" that the reduction in approach lighting = higher minimas. That is what us pilots have to know.

I often wonder whether there has ever been a case of an Aviation Authority (not necessarily Irish) having a close relationship with an airline boss? I guess in theory it could happen.

[captainpaddy]

theamrad,

You're entitled to have your own opinion. No, no, there's no need to thank me. i insist.

I have joined PPrune to get advice on problems I have encountered, to see what the rest of the aviation community think and fell about certain issues, and to get some idea of how things may change in the future. I am very aware however, that many on these forums are opinionated and incorrect.

Nontheless, if there is any chance for the reality of the RYR situation to come out officially (whether it is good news or bad), I welcome it. I agree that many reports in the past have been badly informed and misleading, but I also believe that they were not deliberately misleading. Aviation is a very difficult business for the public to get their heads around. For a majority of the general public, you could tell them what you like about how a plane flies or what our job entails and they would have no choice but to believe it.

In that respect I am delighted that journalists would take the time to come to forums like these and make an attempt to understand the details of the argument. Any presssure on the IAA is good pressure. Any pressure of RYR to listen to their pilots is good pressure.

You have two choices:

Either accept that these journalists are trying to establish the truth, even if they don't actually get there.

Or accept that every report will be as poor as the previous ones and there is no point in trying again, so we might as well continue to moan forever on our sad little forum where at least there are other people like us crying into our coffee.

Airbus Girl,

I agree with you. I also remember something about paperwork (I have Jeppesen manuals or something like that in my head). And when I think of how many times the IAA have had 'mystery shoppers' on other airlines hiding packages under seats and in overhead bins to see if cabin crew do there security checks. I have never once heard of a case in RYR. One such check on a small operator which was leased in on behalf of another apparently failed the check when somone missed a package in a seat pocket. The IAA threatened to stop them flying immediately until they audited their security procedures. I can not, under any stretch of the imagination see how the same would not happen in RYR when I think of the sandwich packets, sick bags and other rubbish I have been greeted with each time I sat in a RYR aircraft. These checks simply must not be happening or are being notified in advance.

[blackmail]

hello ,airbus girl,

notams would be easier to read & important information would less likely be overlooked by having all the irrelevant information(90% or more), filtered out. ours are filtered, but still contain hughes amounts of non essential info. but, i agree, to decide what's relevant & what it is not is a subjective matter & in any way, the relevant authorities have to have their sixes covered. a high glow marker might be the answer to beat the system.
kind rgards,
bm

[The Real Slim Shady]

captainpaddy, the vast majority of Ryanair aircraft do not have seat pockets; hiding something in a non existent seat pocket is impossible. Again, the vast majority of aircraft do not have lifejacket stowage under the seats which precludes anything being hidden there. Security checks are carried out rigorously: Ryanair are subject to the same rules, regulations and inspections as any Irish carrier and also are subject to SAFA inspections, the same as any other carrier.
Airbus Girl, the reason so much effort has been put in to the process of education and re-affirming the need to stick to the SOPs - if the approach is not stable by 500ft - GO AROUND - is to avoid any recurrence of a rushed or unstable approach. There is absolutely no point in bolting the stable after the event; taking action to avoid the event in the first place is surely both sensible and laudable. A new 500ft call was introduced recently; PNF calls either "500ft - continue" or "500ft - go around". If the call is "go around" from either the Captain or FO as PNF a go around must be executed.
As to the problem with Jepp docs, that could simply have been the crew picking up a doc which was out of date by accident. All the plates are available in the crewroom and a further complete set of plates etc are in the ship's bag and all the other required documentation in the ship's library. NOTAMs are automatically generated when the weather for the departure, destination and alternates is printed; if a plate for an obscure alternate isn't available that too can be printed from the Jepp site at briefing, along with performance data and an airfield brief. If we need performance data at short notice Dublin Ops can provide it instantly, over the phone, using hot data on the Boeing Laptop System.

[miles offtarget]

Does anyone have a link to the full incident report, or any more details on any of these, but especially the Cork low flying display one.

Cheers,

MoT

[jbsharpe]

http://www.aaiu.ie/AAIUviewitem.asp?...g=ENG&loc=1652

http://www.aaiu.ie/upload/general/8770-0.pdf

[oggie]

I have nothing to with aviation professionally; just a fascinated and occasional SLF, with a career behind me in academic Computer Science.
When I was a student (and that's MANY years ago) I read a book entitled "Road Accidents: Prevent or Punish?". Its author, the County Surveyor for Dorset (in the UK), made a very strong case that a blame-and-punish mindset will never get to the bottom of why road accidents happen, and so will never result in the safer environment everyone wants. He was professionally concerned with issues like junction design and signage, surface dressing and so on.
I was very impressed at the time, and suggest that the same quality of thinking should be the norm for flight crew, boardrooms, engineering operations and regulators, right across the board.
Most of you guys whose office is the flight deck put your lives on the line every day, so I guess this pattern is deeply embedded in the way you operate. Others need to take it on board too!

[jbsharpe]

Anyone know anything about the FR aborted landing in ORK last Sunday, from London? (don't know if it was STN or LGW..)

A friend of mine (non-aviation enthusiast) was on board and she said the second attempt was "very scary".. I stress she is the merest of mere SLF and knows nothing about aviation.. furthermore, any go-around tends to spook those down the back, presumably increasing the perceived 'terror' of the second attempt!

JBS

[captainpaddy]

Slim,

Ya got me there! Just shows how long it's been since I flew with RYR! T'was back in the good old days and black smoke and seat pockets!

Could you just explain the bit about the vast majority of aircraft not having lifejacket stowage under the seats? Every machine I have ever been on has had them there. Not challenging you, just asking.

As I remember it the Jeppe thing was regarding a large number of RYR aircraft flying with out of date plates.

[captainpaddy]

Right so, just found out there sometimes up above with the O2 masks. :O

Fair enough. You learn something new every day!

[Faire d'income]

Ryanair are subject to the same rules, regulations and inspections as any Irish carrier and also are subject to SAFA inspections, the same as any other carrier.

This statement tells me you are not a pilot. This is the spin that Ryanair excrete ad nauseum to the media. It is utterly false.

Airlines are self regulating. They submit an Operations Manual outlining their own rules and regulations for approval by the relevant authority and when approved they ( are supposed to) operate accordingly. The airlines have different Operations Manuals and as such operate to different rules. Obviously there will be many similarities ( mainly to stay within manafacturer and JAR regs ) but your statement is deliberately misleading.

There are a tiny number of audits carried out by the IAA. It is not unknown for an IAA audit to consist of an IAA officer flying as the Captain of a line flight with only a Ryanair co-pilot in the cockpit. This system is completely insane. The flaws are many but it is worth pointing out the conflict of interests where the IAA officer is effectively completely responsible for the operation he is supposed to be impartially auditing. It is also worth pointing out that this does not happen with other carriers.

[RAT 5]

Is it true at an IAA officer flies as a Captain on line flights with RYR, but not with any other Irish AOC holder? Or do they also with other Irish AOC holders? Or is the answer No to both the above?

[Echo 97]

Cityjet on occasion have an IAA inspector flying with them. However an incident involving this person is revealing.
Said person was sick on the flight and absented herself from the flight deck for the approach. Such is the life. However:
Captain in question (a senior training capt) continued the approach, made no mayday call or otherwise informed ATC of the situation and landed in CDG. Apart from the poor airmanship in not notifying that the flight was operating under severely degraded conditions, no calls made is in total contravention of the ops manual.
The result: captain shortly promoted to check captain. Not a word from the IAA. No incident report, no investigation, no nothing.
You can decide for yourself how effective IAA auditing is if this is the outcome when the IAA are on hand to personally view the cock-up.

[Thomas coupling]

I am a professional pilot by trade (rotary) but I am writing in light of feedback I get when I fly with Ryan Air as a passenger.
I bought a house in Italy not so long ago (12 months) and because of that had to fly about 6-7 times to Rome from Liverpool. Each time with RA.
I also fly during normal hol periods with other airlines (mainly BA).
EVERY time I have flown with RA without fail, the landings have given me some cause for concern. Normally I wouldn't blink but when my family question the landings and then the passengers break out in nervous laughter, clapping hands and cynically commenting that the pilot needing L plates/Co-pilot under trng etc...and on two separate instances individual passengers trying to get to the toilet to throw up!!! Something has to be up.

Add to this the fact that they landed at the wrong airport not so long ago and shortly before that, misidentified the wrong airfield on finals....and now this news report, what is going on?

I have a theory:

From an employee perspective (having innumerable colleagues flying other airlines), no-one wants to fly RA because of the life style and working conditions they offer. O'Leary gets his money's worth and then some, everyone knows he is ruthless. [Is it true that the crew don't even get fed onboard (they even have to find their own bottled water)?
My assumption therefore is that only the lower echelons are attracted to RA either to get on the FW ladder and clock up hrs, or just to get a job flying!
Co-pilots have to practice, so combine the two and the flying standards in that cockpit cannot surely be on a par with the average airline?

It wouldn't surprise me if I saw RA on the News one evening suffering something a lot more serious than a heavy landing.:\

[Wheel Nuts]

It wouldn't surprise me if I saw RA on the News one evening suffering something a lot more serious than a heavy landing

Retract that comment or every fixed wing will have your blood!:*

[newboy007]

This thread kinda smells of RYR bashing but just a couple of points.

The first post is misleading, at least to me, it reads as if anyone not in the landing gate by 500' is going to be demoted. This is not the case.

The reality is you would be asked to explain yourself to the OFDM liason. The demotion/sacking applies to approaches that have not met the 500' gate and continue to land having generated GPWS hard warnings (i.e PULL UP aural).
Thats a big difference, and of course not quite so dramatic reading.


The missing documentation you speak of probably refers to isolated incidents of crews not taking the correct in-date charts. Or it could be related to RYR aircraft not previously carrying lists of effective pages (LOEP's) which give the correct dates of jeppy charts (hardly saftey related).

Those of us who work for RYR having previous experience of other operators (in many cases UK operators) are well aware of the safety focus that RYR SOP's take. The small number of incidents and no hull loss in 21 years of operations isnt by luck...

[st patrick]

The IAA also sends inspectors on Aer Lingus flights, however the inspector is under the supervision of a Training Captain (who remains the PIC I believe) AND a safety pilot is carried.

[beernice]

A few things for the record.

Ryanair is very big on constant descent approaches (CDA). If I don't do a CDA (even if its to comply with ATC) I get a letter from my chief pilot asking me to explain why I did not do a CDA. The letter will normally refer to a flight about 3 months previously. These letters put undue pressure on some pilots. To avoid this hassle some pilots delay may their desent in order to ensure a CDA. This often is the beginning of a high energy approach.
Most of the airfields we fly to are small and have no ATIS. We have been told not to contact the tower above 5000ft to avoid blocking freqs.. We do not have a data link. Essentially we are guessing the R/W in use and hoping the weather has not changed from the forcast. If things change we can of course go to the hold and set up and brief. However the temptation is to continue. Again this can be another factor in a rushed approach. Easy and many other airlines in Europe with a real interest in safety carry this equipement.
Last week I did a 11.30 duty, followed by 11.30 duty, followed by 10.30 duty and then 2 shorter 9 hour duty days. The first 3 days were like being asked to fly to new York, go to bed, get up in the morning go back to Europe, bed, and then back to New York. The main differance is that I had to do 4 approaches, landings, tunarounds and take offs a day. The long haul pilot has to do one of each a day. Still it is within FTL's so I was not legally tired.
In the last month I have only flown with 2 F/O's with more than 500 hours experiance. When things are busy most are understandably not quite up to speed. Now if I'm tired and things start to go wrong again the ingrediants are there for a rushed approach.
There are reasons behind Ryanairs high energy approaches, I have given a few. A professional organisation would pick up this trend and analyse the reasons behind these approaches. They would alter SOP's and training and certainly stop sending harrassing letters to captains. Not Ryanair, out with the big stick, well its cheaper.

[Thomas coupling]

That's cheered me up no end Beernice...thanks for that. Can't wait for my next flight with mickey mouse airlines now:ooh: :eek:

[PAXboy]

Regular pax speaking.
chateau57 My comment was in another thread that has been merged. I understand about RYR and STN and CAA/IAA, the reason that I mentioned CAA was that I was drifting the thread away from RYR as I think there is a wider issue and many other posters have been pointing in that direction too.

Select Pedant Mode: RYR was referred to as the doyen of the Stock Exchange, the most respected or prominent person in a particular field. Although they certainly are prominent, I suggest that they are more the darling of the Stock. Deselect Pedant Mode.

When I worked in the City of London in the late 80s, there was a culture in a number of companies that encouraged financial dealers to break the guide lines to make more money BUT if they were caught - they were on their own and hung out to dry.

[theamrad]

Beernice - thanks for the insight from your perspective - especially concerning CDA - I can definitely empathise about that. While I personally wouldn't mind encouragement towards CDA being used wherever feasible/planned for (wrt what you say about lack of ATIS,etc, at some airfields) and at the discretion of the crew - I agree that the pressure you describe concerning CDA's is at the least undue and NOT conducive to a safe operating philosophy.
As far as the duty time is concerned, as intimated by you and many others for a long time - they (RA) are sticking to the regs - can you honestly see any change to that situation without external pressure (regualtory) or, obviously we hope NOT, incidents becoming an accident? We already had one 'shock and horror' documentary about RA - from what I sense, it had zero practical impact on RA or the public's urge to fly with RA.

captainpaddy:
Bristol runways 'issue'. - As ONE example only.
1. Pilots (and others) discuss on this forum.
2. Reporters turn up looking for the 'truth'.
3. Media, for the most part, ignore 'enlightenment' which was sought here.
4. Certain 'managerial' level person continues to bull'''', "runway is safe", etc. Pretty much unchallenged.
5. Much of the public left totally confused, others probably thinking that certain operators are whinging about nothing.
Q.E.D. IMHO.
In an ideal world, I would probably agree with you. But then, RA management/MOL wouldn't behave the way they do, RA pilots would have nothing to complain about, there would be no 'incidents' and this thread wouldn't exist.

As for stating my opinion here:

No, no, there's no need to thank me. i insist.

..........whatever.

[akerosid]

Today's Irish Times reports that the IAA has completed its investigation of the FR landings in "below limits" visibility at STN last April.

Of the fifteen aircraft involved, four landed in visibility of less than 500m (RVR) and should have diverted; another eleven had visibility of 550m and were okay to land. The IAA said that due to lighting being less than it would normally have been (no TDZ or centreline lights available), the visibility standards were higher. FR's Ray Conway said that the NOTAM on the issue was misleading as it didn't say that the RVR was affected.

The IAA said that since this was a technical breach rather than a critical safety issue, no further action was being taken. The IAA was satisfied that the airline had taken the necessary steps to address the issue, including extra training for the crews involved.

[captainpaddy]

theamrad,

No need to take it personally, it's just my poor sense of humour.

Nonetheless, I do not see your logic. I agree that 9 times out of 10 the media will get it wrong and follow the wrong lead or get advice from the wrong person. But do you really think that's is, it's all done and there's just no point in trying anymore? Throw the rattle out of the buggy?

If there is an issue that needs to be looked at, I am aware that I can't look into it and make a difference myself. While I may have little confidence that this case will be handled properly by papers, etc., I live in hope. If I didn't and if you and others didn't have any hope, then this forum would not exist and nobody would care.

As for akerosid's post:

Is there any more reason left to doubt the inability of the IAA? What a complete farse.

[chateau57]

A few weeks after these incidents, our ever vigilant,"on the ball" and proactive flight operations department in Dublin, printed a section on all our flight plans (plogs) reminding us of increased RVR requirements for CAT 3 operations due to reduced lighting availability during work on runway at Stansted.

The words "horse" stable door" and "bolted" spring to mind !

PS
The same comment is still being printed daily on our plogs - several months after the work was completed and the runway lighting is back to its full spec !!!

[captainpaddy]

As if by magic, just hours after the CAA said they would have expected a decision by now from the IAA..........

Kevin Humphries from the IAA quoted in the times:

"It's easy to see how they could have been misled. A pilot could easily think that because it's category three, an RVR of 550 metres doesn't apply. But lighting is an integral part of the instrument landing system and with less lights available, visibility needs to be greater," he said.

Every LVP course I have been on or heard of has emphasised that many many things (including lighting) will affect minima and increase RVR requirements. How is it possible that the IAA could say this???

No other airline was involved. How is it that every other pilot was knowledgable enough to avoid breaking the rules, but RYR wasn't? Does anyone know roughly how many airlines operate into STN??

Absolutely embarassing to be Irish. I am ashamed of the IAA.

[hetfield]

"The IAA said that since this was a technical breach rather than a critical safety issue, no further action was being taken."

Ooops
:ugh:

[Ashling]

Unbelievable

If this isn't safety critical what is ? As was said other operators avoided this snag so why did Ryanair breach it not just once but 5 times ?

There just seems to be a mounting pile of evidence that all is not well at Ryanair. What will it take for the regulator to finaly act ?

[chateau57]

At RYR there is a standard pre flight report time of 45 minutes. Given that crews have to be at the aircraft at STD - 25 at the latest, and allowing anything up to a 5 minute walk to the aircraft, that allows only 15 minutes to plan for a 4 sector day ! At Stansted, it is not unusual for crews to waste 5 minutes or more of this time looking for a computer terminal that works, to print off the day's flight plans and weather, and then only to find that the printer has no paper /jammed/out of toner ! :ugh:

Other airlines presumambly have sensible report times (ie 1 hour plus !) With some of our duty days being 11.50 or 11.55, and even one that is exactly 12 hours long, report times longer than 45 minutes would not allow Ryanair to roster these long days (to extract the maximum out of their crews), without the crew going into discretion.

I am not seeking to justify what happened, but its easy to see the pressure crews are under ......

[captainpaddy]

house57,

I agree. Those report times are ridiculous by anyones standards.

[hetfield]

In my company reporting time is 1:10 for short range, 1:30 for long range......

[The Real Slim Shady]

Ryanair are subject to the same rules, regulations and inspections as any Irish carrier and also are subject to SAFA inspections, the same as any other carrier.
This statement tells me you are not a pilot. This is the spin that Ryanair excrete ad nauseum to the media. It is utterly false.

Faire d'Income, as this thread is running at the behest of a journalist trying to discover the facts, who may have little depth of knowledge on the issue and is searching for information and accuracy, your unenlightened comments simply fan the flames of sensationalism.

Firstly, don't make statements you can't possible validate as fact: whether you believe that I am, or am not, a pilot is an OPINION and irrelevant when we are discussing regulatory issues. Secondly, you will no doubt wish to retract your erroneous statement that Ryanair is not subject to SAFA inspections and that the rules and regulations Ryanair operates to are somehow different to any other Irish carrier. My remark, was then, accurate and factual.

Airlines are self regulating. They submit an Operations Manual outlining their own rules and regulations for approval by the relevant authority and when approved they ( are supposed to) operate accordingly. The airlines have different Operations Manuals and as such operate to different rules.

Airlines do indeed submit a suite of Operations Manuals to the Authority for approval: this would be done during the initial application for the AOC and subsequently whenever a variation is applied for. However, the operating procedures outlined within the manuals do not constitute rules and regulations which will be at variance with the umbrella of statutory requirement. In this case the JAA regulations, the Irish SIs and D of T requirments.

Obviously there will be many similarities ( mainly to stay within manafacturer and JAR regs ) but your statement is deliberately misleading.

The vast majority of start ups base their Ops Manuals submission either on the manuals of an existing carrier, JAA if applying to a JAA member state, or on the template manuals available, at a price, from the Authority. Where there are variations these will be more restrictive than the existing legislation, as no Authority may approve operating procedures less restrictive than the prescribed requirement. For example, a carrier may wish to operate to a Decision Altitude of 100ft on a Cat 1 approach and include that text in their Ops Manual: that would plainly be rejected. Hence, they do NOT write their own rules and regulations. The one single area where the Authority is permitted to allow a degree of latitude is in the company FTL scheme, which may be more restrictive than the legislation but cannot be less restrictive. The company normally submits this for approval, and if accepted, it becomes " the company's approved scheme". The company then "self regulates" this scheme: as this is not unique to Ryanair or the IAA, I fail to see how you can justify your statements.

There are a tiny number of audits carried out by the IAA. It is not unknown for an IAA audit to consist of an IAA officer flying as the Captain of a line flight with only a Ryanair co-pilot in the cockpit. This system is completely insane.

As someone who has been on the receiving end of IAA audits, not I hasten to add with FR, let me assure you that they are neither tiny in number nor superficial. Moreover, an audit is technically different to an inspection; an audit tends to focus on the compliance of the carrier with written procedures ( JARs, SIs and Ops manuals ) and the conformity of the paperwork generated with those same requirements, and normally is the precursor to an inspection. During the audit the Authority may well invite changes to be made and new or revised procedures to be introduced and offer assistance and advice. Whereas the inspection is a formal rigorous process more akin to an examination.

It is normal practice within the majority of licensing authorities, JAA or otherwise, to have an Authority inspector current on the type of aircraft "his" carriers operate. The Authority usually requires any carrier to provide a conversion course, line training and line flying to allow the inspector to "get up to speed" if the aircraft is new to the register. As the inspector normally flies as Commander your insanity remark is simply inflammatory.
An inspection flight involves the IAA Ops Inspector observing from the jump seat; routine flights to retain currency and inspection flights are completely different and separate.

The flaws are many but it is worth pointing out the conflict of interests where the IAA officer is effectively completely responsible for the operation he is supposed to be impartially auditing. It is also worth pointing out that this does not happen with other carriers

Perhaps you would care to be more specific?

Ryanair bashing is a popular pastime on this board, however, when a journalist is chasing fact perhaps a considered response would be more constructive.

[The Real Slim Shady]

The "pressure" to fly a CDA comes not from the respective airline: the "pressure" comes from the airport and the noise sensitive areas under the approach.

If you don't fly a CDA, for whatever reason, the operator receives a "snottogram" from the airport!!

[Marvo]

Why is it that fellow pilots on this board believe that because you work for Ryanair you are "the bottom of the pilot community" and substandard. Thomas Coupling claims that three times he has been concerned about the landing, yet he still climbs on board again and flies off to his house in Italy ! Never mind the supposed pax waiting to throw up in the toilet, I read your post and felt ill.

Ian and Co, please be careful. I would be expecting a call from one of Leo Hairy Camels not so nice friends very soon and they are not the most understanding of people!

[captainpaddy]

From the Belfast Telegraph:

Ryanair criticised for failing to divert during heavy fog

Friday, February 09, 2007
The Irish Aviation Authority has reportedly criticised Ryanair for continuing to land at a British airport in heavy fog.

Reports this morning say 15 Ryanair jets landed at Stansted on the night of April 24th despite the fact that most other aircraft diverted elsewhere.

Visibility was within safety regulations for 11 of the landings, but reports this morning say the IAA has found that four of the landings breached these regulations.

The authority has reportedly described the case as a "critical safety issue".

Just a little of the usual discrepancies in what the IAA have actually said then: :ugh:

[judge.oversteer]

Paddy.

Well said. Absolutely unbelievable!
15 approaches = 15 capts + 15 f/o's who didnt know what they were doing!

JO

[jbsharpe]

Visibility was within safety regulations for 11 of the landings, but reports this morning say the IAA has found that four of the landings breached these regulations.

Only four landings breached regulations...

JBS

[Airbus Girl]

But its OK coz the IAA have had a nice friendly chat with Mr O'Leary and he says if they do it again he'll sack 'em.

OK, on this occasion they didn't crash, but they did get caught operating outside the regulations and they could have crashed. If they had, god forbid, then I am sure the IAA would be doing slightly more than saying "its OK".

And didn't someone post that the RVRs were down to 275m? Without centreline and TDZ lighting? And was it freezing fog?

Anyway, although yes, the finger points at the pilots here, I have every sympathy with the busy long days and lack of time. Sometimes the NOTAMs seem like reading War and Peace.

The IAA should be pointing the finger at the airline and asking WHY would pilots miss this in the NOTAMs and/or why did they continue? Perhaps on their third full duty-time day, late at night, absolutely knackered, want to get in coz a divert will mean hassle and an even longer working day. Sometimes, when stressed and fatigued, we make wrong decisions. But if this is caused by company pressure and working practices then the IAA should be investigating further.

[fox niner]

Slightly off topic.....

What is the connection between camels (hairy) and RyanAir? I come across this combination quite often but I don't get it.

Just wondering.....:ok:

[Faire d'income]

Firstly, don't make statements you can't possible validate as fact: whether you believe that I am, or am not, a pilot is an OPINION and irrelevant when we are discussing regulatory issues.

It is my opinion that anyone who regurgitates Ryanair spin is a manager and unlikely to be a pilot. It is very relevant to the other readers of a Pilots Website.

Secondly, you will no doubt wish to retract your erroneous statement that Ryanair is not subject to SAFA inspections and that the rules and regulations Ryanair operates to are somehow different to any other Irish carrier. My remark, was then, accurate and factual.


I did not say Ryanair was not subject to SAFA inspections. The Operations Manual is the de facto rulebook for any airline's pilots. Ryanair's OM is different to other carriers ergo Ryanair operate to different rules. For example this thread is about the new 'rule' at the 500' gate. No other Irish carrier, that I am aware of, has that rule. Different rule.

For operating pilots most of 'the rules' are contained in the Operations Manual. Certainly the Statutory Instruments and various Jar regs must be complied with. BTW it is Ryanair that feel the need to repeat the original statement publicly, I have heard no other airline doing it and while my point is probably pedantic it is not incorrect.

As the inspector normally flies as Commander your insanity remark is simply inflammatory.


The inspector never flies as Commander in my airline and there is always a full crew with him/her and if they operate one is always a training Captain. Anyone from another airline like to comment. Do the regulator's inspectors fly only with a co-pilot at any time with your airline?

Where there are variations these will be more restrictive than the existing legislation, as no Authority may approve operating procedures less restrictive than the prescribed requirement. For example, a carrier may wish to operate to a Decision Altitude of 100ft on a Cat 1 approach and include that text in their Ops Manual: that would plainly be rejected. Hence, they do NOT write their own rules and regulations. The one single area where the Authority is permitted to allow a degree of latitude is in the company FTL scheme, which may be more restrictive than the legislation but cannot be less restrictive.

Your view of the rules seems to constitute only what the absolute state limits are. That is not the case for us flying the line. We are certainly bound by the state limits but we must remain within the parameters of the Operations Manual otherwise what is the point in having one? Surely one wouldn't just print it as an exercise merely to satisfy the Regulator, would they?

Until recently Ryanair boarded/disembarked passengers at Dublin while refuelling without taking any special procedures ( i.e no one on a headset and no one supervising the refueller ). The other operators all followed what we understood to be the correct 'rules' ( contained in our OM ) for that situation and were always amazed to watch your guys. I note this has changed now.

Ryanair bashing is a popular pastime on this board

You do seem to have a magnetic attraction for negative attention, I wonder why?

[braking action poor]

12 months ago RYR had an engine failure enroute and diverted to the nearest suitable airfield, because of an engine gear box going hay-way.

Noone in the media wrote anything about it.

1 week ago RYR had a tyre- burst+ brakes spitting flames after landing at one of their bases, slides were blown and pax evacuated, against capt's orders. RYR claims it never happened, the pax would beg to differ.

Noone in the media wrote anything about it.

Who's in their pocket you say?
:mad:

[Tom the Tenor]

Would you like to let us know the base where all this is supposed to have happened one week ago? Thank you.

[Ashling]

If you have a report of std-45 and are rostered that close to FTL limits that has got to put pressure on crews.

Looking on from the outside it seems all this has got to be linked to the pressure percieved or actual directly or indirectly applied to crews. This would seem to be leading to crews making poor decisions. I appreciate its a very small number in relation to the total flights but even so too much seems to be going on.

4 crews or 5 crews landing outside limits, does it matter which ? Not in my view, either is unacceptable. I struggle to buy that they were all ignorant of the rules which leaves a very unpleasant other option. Sorry and feel free to correct me.

During the recent Bristol debacle one airline led the pack with a bold decision, others followed. Ryanair ? well they just said they were unaware of any problem ! Seems the IAA share their approach.

[maxalt]

Do FR use Jeppesen charts?
On the 'minima' panel on the Stansted runway plates there are two headers "FULL" and "ALS out". The "ALS out" column shows the appropriate vis value to apply. Likewise on the Take-Off minma panels, where the decrements are even more specific. How can any crew not know how to read and apply these blindingly obvious corrections? They are right there on the plate. Not tucked away in an Ops Manual.
Are approach briefings carried out in FR?

[mill island]

intersting that the IAA don't see such events as "safety critical"....I recall this is the same IAA that stated before a government committee that "the death of a passenger on an irish registered aircraft is of no concern to the IAA".....
makes you wonder what purpose the IAA actually thinks it serves???:confused:

[curser]

Maxalt, I understand from friends that briefs are carried out by RYR flight crew. You are quite right that the ALS out figures are printed on Jepp. plates, however on this occation it was not the whole system that was u/s and therfore those were not the figures required. Most ops manuals have a form of JAR aerodrome operating minimums table 10 which lists failures and there effect on RVR even if RYR didnt have this in theirs they would have had access to it in their Jep. text. It only takes a minute to look it up, but may be thats the point!

[Leo Hairy-Camel]

You do seem to have a magnetic attraction for negative attention, I wonder why?
Perhaps its because he, like I, have a very clear idea about what is really going on, Faire d’income.

In understanding the current spike in anti Ryanair chatter, might I suggest first viewing it through the prism of IALPA’s recent blistering defeat (http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/09859e7a3f34669680256ef3004a27de/39e4508ad30bd86080257275003db5ad?OpenDocument) in the Supreme Court of Ireland.

The outcome of this case was long anticipated by the pilot unions and was to have represented the apotheosis of IALPA’s scurrilous attempt to thrash a negative consensus of sorts from the pilot corps at Ryanair, at apparently any cost. In arriving at this point in time, IALPA, BALPA and their dilettante ninny REPA have lied, intentionally misled, coerced and intimidated any individual within, or component part of Ryanair they see as fair game in their comprehensively failed attempt. Their bluff has been called and they don’t like it.

Ladies and Gentlemen, lets be perfectly clear. Since October 2004, the principal pilot unions in the Irish Republic and Great Britain have being doing their utmost to colonise Ryanair as a means of control. Ryanair’s commercial success represents a threat to the continued existence of dozens of heavily unionised carriers across Europe, all of which have been compelled to develop responsive strategies to answer the commercial threat we represent. Attempted unionisation of our pilot corps is merely an extension of this strategy by other means. In order to achieve this, however, the unions have singularly failed in the one area that matters to them most. They have failed to construct a persuasive narrative around the central theme that commercial pressures or management style may be responsible for a tarnished safety culture within Ryanair. They fail because their claim is demonstrably false.

Their nefarious plans have backfired badly and it is plain that these latest tabloid style attempts to point the finger of doubt at the Ryanair operation, along with a contemporary Leader article in Flight International and the journalistic interest it has quite understandably generated, as being, if not entirely then in very large part, related to IALPA’s last ditch, gloves off, attempt to justify their expensive existence and the orchestrated litany of lies they continue to employ in failing to make their case.

Ryanair is an organisation of 130 aircraft, 1500 pilots, and around 1000 flights every day of the year. Those figures are, I think, well worth reflecting upon. Like all organisations in our industry, every flight we do is underwritten by an open safety culture that is very nearly obsessive. Unlike other companies though, we make no secret of the fact that when we get it wrong, as all airlines do from time to time, we turn ourselves inside out trying to find out why so as to improve future performance.
Unfortunately, this openness is easily abused by those with a murky agenda as a stick to beat us with and you’re witnessing the latest manifestation of that now.

The LoCo business model is, more than any other, necessarily predicated on doing everything to prevent the development of a nexus between low fares and low standards in the collective psyche of our customer and no amount of failed union tantrum or tabloid journalism will change any part of that at Ryanair.

Journalists are supposed to be good at the temporal assessment of seemingly disparate events, Messers Shoesmith and Tighe. Lets hope so. As is the case with all media, be it the BBC, the Irish Times, Pprune or Flight International, published views have implicit powers of persuasion. I would caution, with the greatest of respect, that you both ensure your perceptions of Ryanair are not formulated, as is too often the case, by the regurgitation of falsely received wisdom.

[Bearcat]

Leo with respect what is the above anti-union rant got to do with appallingly executed approachs that have caught everyone's attention?

Also dear Leo why did your boss not make an appearance on Irish radio this morning to defend a piece done on Ryanair re safety, unions and the unsafe approach?

Bluff, bluster and verbose.....

[jbsharpe]

Leo, why are the CVRs never available after these incidents?

JBS

[blackmail]

jbs... . because as you say, these are incidents & not accidents.

[Leo Hairy-Camel]

Possibly due to the fact that CVR's are, by design, a constantly re-recorded 30 minute loop. If an investigative event comes to light, even an hour later, the data is long since overwritten. CVR's are only ever useful in extremis.
Leo with respect what is the above anti-union rant got to do with appallingly executed approachs that have caught everyone's attention?
Everything.
Also dear Leo why did your boss not make an appearance on Irish radio this morning to defend a piece done on Ryanair re safety, unions and the unsafe approach?
Haven't the foggiest, Bearcat. Might have something to do with the fact that he's got the most successful airline on earth to run and stroking journalistic egos isn't a priority first thing in the morning. Ask him yourself.

[curser]

Ahh leo,time was when you brought somthing new to a debate, no longer. What blistering defeat? Back to the labour court,a delay, thats all.
Litany of lies indeed! only ryr executives have been found to be liers on the stand under oath, a legal fact!

[Rivet gun]

During the period when the runway centerline lighting was inoperative at STN the minimum RVR for take off was 250 m. I know of one occasion during this period when an aircraft belonging to another well known low cost airline took off with an RVR of less than 250 m. The pilots of the Airbus and the controller who issued the take off clearance appeared unaware of the minimum RVR required by JAR OPS.

So it's not just Ryanair who were caught out by this.

[hetfield]

@Rivet gun

Don't actually know what british regulations are. In most countries the commander can determine the actual RVR for t/o if below or RVR not given (counting the lights).

[curser]

you don't mean counting the lights which were u/s do you?

[hetfield]

@curser

Ooops:\

Sorry
:O:O:O

Shame on my head.

[maxalt]

Here's a link to the radio item mentioned.
Story begins at minute 22.
http://dynamic.rte.ie/quickaxs/209-rte-todaywithpatkenny.smil
Too busy running the airline, eh Leo? Funny, it never stopped him before. Any chance for a bit of a promo is usually grabbed without hesitation, and sure Micko is well able to bluff the credulous public into believing whatever he tells them. Bluff and Bluster is his stock in trade.
Maybe the real truth is that the bulls*it is getting too heavy to shovel now, even for Mick.
If your hero had any of the integrity you bestow on him perhaps he would announce that he was right in the beginning about the wisdom of these 25 minute turnarounds, which you know well he resisted strenuously when first dreamed up by Mr.C. McC.
He might even gain some credibility in the pilots eyes by declaring that it was indeed a failed experiment which placed undue pressure on the safety of the operation.
He could legitimately shove the blame onto 'those others' who forced him to accept it by going over his head to Tony Ryan.
Not likely.
For Micko has, on numerous occasions, duplicitously taken personal credit for inventing the 25 minute turnaround (prompting an insulted Mr.McC to huff off to Asia), and has crowed about its efficacy in making FR the most efficient of airlines. What a twister!
Besides which, even if he didn't think it up (btw, has Micko thought up ANYTHING that has worked lately?) he knows a nice little earner when he sees one, and he just can't help himself.....they've got to stay, because deep down he's just a greedy little :mad:

[Faire d'income]

Leo, as usual to the untrained eye it is difficult to separate the spin from the truth. Your claim that the world’s pilot unions have organised a conspiracy against Ryanair, and Ryanair only, is at best paranoia. This conspiracy is your explaination for the large number of threads here and the increasing number of media articles reporting incidents at Ryanair.

In arriving at this point in time, IALPA, BALPA and their dilettante ninny REPA have lied, intentionally misled, coerced and intimidated any individual within, or component part of Ryanair they see as fair game in their comprehensively failed attempt. Their bluff has been called and they don’t like it.

Firstly the only finding in any court of anything resembling was against Ryanair when the judge found the management style to be oppressive. There is no evidence to suggest any unions or group of employees has acted as you state and in fact when Ryanair took a case against IALPA on the matter the court found the reverse was true.

They have failed to construct a persuasive narrative around the central theme that commercial pressures or management style may be responsible for a tarnished safety culture within Ryanair. They fail because their claim is utterly false.

Leo, could it be that the reason they fail is because there has been no investigation into the effects of the management style or indeed into the relationship between the Low Cost model as used by Ryanair and unusual incidents such as only Ryanair aircraft landing below minimum visibility limits?
Ryanair is an organisation of 130 aircraft, 1500 pilots, and around 1000 flights every day of the year. Those figures are, I think, well worth reflecting upon. Like all organisations in our industry, every flight we do is underwritten by an open safety culture that is very nearly obsessive. Unlike other companies though, we make no secret of the fact that when we get it wrong, as all airlines do, we turn ourselves inside out trying to find out why so as to improve future performance.

Let us reflect on those figures. You have 1500 pilots many who are not permanent Ryanair staff, many co-pilots who would be consider very low hours by other airlines, captains promoted far quicker and with lower hours than would be considered normal elsewhere, operating to off-line airfields with limited navigation aids, in high tech aircraft that require intensive training and comprehensive understanding of their systems. Add in the fact that many of your crews operate to the state limits, often clocking up 50 hours duty time a week on shift work and you can see safety might be a common theme amongst your staff and their representatives.

Particularly galling is your Chief Executive’s oft repeated mantra that pilots only work 18 hours a week. If we assume that he thoroughly believes this claim then we have to assume he is referring only to the time pilots are in the air. We can then assume that Mr O’Leary appears to think that none of the following constitutes pilots work:

* checking weather for destinations/alternates/en route airfields
* checking weathers charts for the various levels likely to be flown
* checking Notams for destinations/alternates/en route airfields
* checking the maintenance status of the aircraft
* checking the flight plan is legal and accurate
* checking the fuel load for each leg to be flown
* external pre-flight inspection of the aircraft
* checking status of tech log including fuel/oil etc on board
* ensuring required security checks have been carried out
* pre-flight cockpit set-up and programming of Navigational computers for the flight
* liasing with cabin crew/engineer/dispatcher to exchange relevant info
* getting Air Traffic clearance/checking slots
* receiving/checking and inputting load sheet data
* Ensuring all necessary systems are working and carrying out all before start checks
* any unusual events/decisions such as use of the MEL/disruptive pax/missing pax w bags etc.

Journalists are supposed to be good at the temporal assessment of seemingly disparate events

Let’s hope they can see exactly what the great leader’s 18 hour claim was trying to achieve.

As for your claim of an obsessive safety culture well I won't argue with that. However words like obsessive, oppressive etc don’t meet my idea of a proper safety culture. We should have a look at Ryanair’s performance with regard to some of the recent incidents.

Cork (http://www.aaiu.ie/AAIUviewitem.asp?id=8770&lang=ENG&loc=1280): event date 04 June 2006
Ryanair reported event 13 June 2006

Knock (http://www.aaiu.ie/AAIUviewitem.asp?id=8545&lang=ENG&loc=1280): event date 23 March 2006
Ryanair reported event 4 April 2006

This report states: This delay is unacceptable and contrary to the requirement of Section 11 Air Navigation ( Notification and investigation of Accidents and Incidents ) Regulation, 1997, S.I. No 205 of 1997.

The AAIU site doesn’t appear to have any report on the Rome Fumicino incident which 4 months after the event the IAA claimed it didn’t have to investigate as it happened in Italy. Before that of course they investigated the Skavska (http://www.aaiu.ie/AAIUviewitem.asp?id=6946&lang=ENG&loc=1280) incident which presumably they felt obliged to do as it hadn’t happened in Italy.

I am willing to accept that Ryanair are indeed serious about safety ( I don’t doubt it for a second ) there is however evidence is that they don’t seem to learn from earlier mistakes. Three times they have been late reporting incidents and twice extenuating circumstances suggest a pilot reported when clearly unfit for duty. Once, it seems they had no intention of reporting the incident as suggested by the four4 month delay in doing so.

The problem would appear to be the managements inability to connect what one might call the “ temporal assessment of seemingly disparate events “. For example on the one hand we had two incidents directly linked to pilots who IMHO should not have flown, on the other hand a memo appeared on this site as follows:

RYANAIR
THE LOW FARES AIRLINE
Corporate Head Office Dublin Airport
County Dublin
Ireland

Over the past year over 10,000 days have been lost through absenteeism in RYANAIR; which equates to 7 un-crewed aircraft every day, all year around!!!
Your attendance record shows that you have been absent from work on [ 3..4.. etc.] occasions during the last 12 months. This high frequency of absence cannot be sustained, as other people within your area have to pick up additional work in your absence.

All absences in the future will be closely monitored and I need to see a dramatic and sustained improvement in your attendance in the months ahead.
Please confirm receipt of this letter and measures you will take to eliminate further absence from work. If you have any queries on the above please do not hesitate to contact me.
Yours sincerely,

[Stoic]

I have never flown on your airline. Nor will I ever, if I can possibly avoid it. The reason is this:

You may be obsessive about your safety culture, but you did not give a damn about the health of a 92-year-old friend of mine when she flew with you from “Strasbourg” to Stansted three-and-a-half years ago.

You may remember that you were arguing about wheelchairs for the disabled at the time.

My friend, Betty, had travelled unaccompanied to Strasbourg for a 60th wedding celebration. She had requested a wheelchair to and from the aeroplane, for which she was quite happy to pay. On the way out she was given one. On the way back she was not, but instead was abandoned by Ryanair on the tarmac at Stansted underneath the aeroplane. She was rescued by the ground staff of another airline. It took her an hour to get to the arrivals hall.

She wrote a lucid letter to Ryanair to complain – she had been a distinguished English teacher in her professional career. She showed me the letter. I explained to her that Ryanair’s customer service department is a wastepaper basket. She did not believe me. Shortly afterwards she suffered a stroke and was following Ryanair’s wheelchair court case with interest from her hospital bed when she succumbed to another stroke and died.


Sadly, Betty died before the result of the wheelchair case was known. She never did receive an apology.

I am not blaming Ryanair for Betty’s demise, but whenever I see or hear Ryanair principals mouthing off, as they do, I am reminded of Ryanair’s treatment of my friend.

Stoic

[the grim repa]

A Latin scholar he may be,but mathematician he ain't.

130 aircraft,1500 pilots and 1000 flights per day(except on christmas day) = pilots who fly 18hrs per week.Hmmm!

[olegmurphy]

Leo, maybe a trip back to the books is in order.
The cvr has a 2 hr loop on the 800 that you profess to fly.

[akerosid]

This week's Flight (and some comments on this thread) refer to a "near disastrous unstabilised approach at FCO in stormy weather" on 7/9/05.

In general terms (and I appreciate that an investigation is still under way) what happened here?

[fireflybob]

I have tried to steer clear of this debate but cannot resist.

There are two ways to get the tallest building in town - you can build your own or knock somebody else's building down, metaphorically speaking. I am sure that the continued "success" of Ryanair is rattling many cages in the "establishments" and it is almost natural that they will attempt to knock it down, especially when "normal" working practices are being changed or questioned.

Does that mean that all is rosey in the garden? Quite obviously not since change can sometimes be painful. However notwithstanding that safety in aviation is paramount, the whole culture of our industry, whether we like it or not, is changing so rapidly I am tempted to say "You ain't seen nothing yet!". This does not mean I agree with everything that is happening and that, as pilots, we should not fight for what we believe is right and proper but I do think we need to get some perspective. 25 minute turnrounds, for example, are not intrinsically unsafe in "normal" circumstances. Show me a pilot of experience who has not screwed up at least one approach! (Remember the BA 747 at Nairobi that came within a few feet of the ground before executing a Go Around many years ago?).

We need to embrace change and negotiate a "win-win" situation even if the other parties appear to be being "unreasonable".

[Bearcat]

Captpaddy says

"The fact that Ryanair shareholders expressed utter confusion when their darling company declared a hostile takeover bid for Aer Lingus"



Utter confusion is a far fetched....concern in some financial camps would have been expressed.

That concern has been softened since their share price has risen from 8 euro ish to over 12 euro in the intervening period.....money talks.

If the commision reports backs with a positive result for FR with some crippling stipulations I still believe they'll have AL eventually.....

[captainpaddy]

Poor Leo,

I must say I am somewhat jealous of your apparent belief in all things blue and yellow. It must be quite comforting to have no ability whatsoever to see the wood for the trees. Every argument is a carbon copy of the news you give to your shareholders. Profits are up. Passenger numbers are up. All must be well.

Or perhaps that is why you are here? Is it possible that real reason that the boss of Europe’s roughest airline has decided once again to swap posts on a 'rumour network' on the internet with anonymous unproven pilots, is because he see the potential threat?

Aviation is a unique industry. Almost every other consumer driven business on this planet involves Joe Bloggs deciding he wants something and going to a shop, catalogue or website and picking what he wants, paying for it and walking away with it in a bag or waiting patiently for the delivery boys knock on the door. However, for so many the prospect of a flight from A to B is daunting. There is no catalogue. There is no shop. You can not see what you pay for. The simple reason being that the average Joe Bloggs doesn't know how aviation works. And nor should they for it may take years of training and large amounts of funding to develop peoples knowledge to an acceptable level. Like pilots for example. Or Cabin Crew. Or a very small number of other aviation professionals who know the effects of corporate bullying can be detrimental to safety, know that an excessive pressure on time keeping can lead to mistakes, know that just because the rule says a duty is legal doesn't necessarily make it a good idea. No, no, the public have only price, service and their limited working knowledge of how aircraft fly to choose from.

The real threat to you I dare say, is that you recognise that this forum provides an outlet for those who understand aviation. Some may not be experts, some, like me, may be inexperienced, some may just be downright vindictive. But the vast majority are honest, knowledgeable and concerned. You see, and quite wisely I might add, that 17,000 views and well over 100 posts means trouble for Camp Ryanair. Unless of course you can inject the appropriate amount of dribble and statistics to mask the concerns of so many so that Joe Public will avert their attention back to price, service and their limited working knowledge of how aircraft fly.

Credit, of course where credit is due:

It would be difficult to disagree with the theory that when it comes to understanding consumer desire, economics and financial planning, you are unrivalled. You have an impeccable record in continuing to deliver consistent growth and return to your shareholders.

It would be equally difficult to disagree that Ryanair's expansion is not second to none. The potential for future growth seems as of yet uncapped. In this respect it is the envy of many a fellow CEO.

But what about all the other areas of "management" that would feature in any honest results table? What about...

The fact that Ryanair has the worst record of any company in terms of morale and staff contentedness. As shown by repeated attempts by your staff to have courts look after their concerns.

The fact that Ryanair has alienated the majority of their workforce, even beyond those represented by the dreaded pilot unions. Such as Ops staff who shred paperwork and 'lose' company property because of they way they are treated during the brief time they are employed prior to their resignation. Like the droves of dispatchers who move on because of ridiculous work practices on the ramp.

The fact that Ryanair recently has the worst record for time taken to refer incidents to the investigating body as required by law.

The fact that Ryanair shareholders expressed utter confusion when their darling company declared a hostile takeover bid for Aer Lingus.

The fact that Ryanairs only method of providing passenger opinions is by misrepresenting statistics. Like claiming that having a larger passenger number than another airline is being "voted" favourite. Like saying having a lower number of lost bags per 1,000 than some other airline is being "voted best for customer service". Simply because other true polls don't agree.

Yes, I can see how a little educated discussion could really expose all of these things. I also can see how it could affect Ryanair's business going forward. I really can't blame you for wanting to come on this forum and fight your corner. Damage limitation I think they call it.

Joe Public doesn't care about how things work. Joe only cares about price. You figured that out long ago. But, unfortunately if Joe thinks he may be in danger on the way, he doesn't see it as much of a bargain anymore. That is why you are here.

The truth is that we all feel that there is a serious risk to flight safety as a result of your efforts. You refuse to accept that fatigue is prevalent in Ryanair because your conscience quite rightly wants to stay removed from the possibility. If it all goes wrong, I expect you will plead ignorance. Perhaps you won't be lying.

Although any boss who states that 2 hull loses are financially weatherable must be considering the possibility. Surely who have some working knowledge of the last 30 years of aviation? Surely you know that the worst aviation accident in history was caused in part by the need to meet the constraints of Flight Time Limitations and commercial pressure? So how can you possibly say that so many of your pilots who say fatigue is a problem are wrong? I suppose if you've met the legal requirements (I'm awaiting your response to say "we far exceed the requirements....") all must be well.

And before you say "if pilots don't like it why do they continue to work for Europe’s biggest airline where they’re earnings are over three billion euro per year....". They stay because they have lives, families, kids in schools, mortgages, loans, etc. But you wouldn't be too worried about any of that I suppose. You could pick up sticks any time you like.

You really must realise that by becoming involved in these discussions you only serve to give us all credibility, where before we perhaps were just idle minds with nobody to point a finger at.

So,

Thank you very much Mr O'Leary.

[captainpaddy]

Sorry, the posts are a little out of order as I inadvertantly deleted my original!

Bearcat,

I have tried to be careful not to attempt the pointless excercise of challenging Ryanairs financial performance. In my mind most of the recent share price growth is the result of improved forecast and actual profits and new base announcements. All the same, their financial strength has nothing to do with this thread. I was referring to the fact that Ryanair were out of touch with their shareholders wishes.

Just for what it's worth, with 46% of shares tied up and out of reach already, Ryanair need control of 93% of all shares remaining. While obviously not impossible, it is highly improbable.

[The Real Slim Shady]

Faire d'Income
May I commend you on your obvious intelligence: a tangible grasp of Leo's arguments indicates your comprehension of English, yet, your prejudices and raging belief that your opinion, not fact, please note, holds any water when you are patently incapable of validating your claims, does let you down somewhat.

You claimed that my statement about Ryanair being subject to audits and SAFA inspections was utterly false. If that isn't is a clear, concise statement of your much vaunted opinion, perhaps you have had the opportunity to reflect and have accepted that, indeed they are audited and inspected as all JAA carriers are. Of course, if you still insist that your are 100% correct and I am 100% wrong, perhaps you would be kind enough to present some valid evidence to back up your allegation.

I do, however, detect a softening in approach as I have progressed from "not being a pilot" to being "unlikely to be a pilot" ! Keep this up and in 3 or 4 posts you could be of the opinion that I'm the Chief Pilot!!!

The Operations Manual is the de facto rulebook for any airline's pilots. Ryanair's OM is different to other carriers ergo Ryanair operate to different rules. For example this thread is about the new 'rule' at the 500' gate. No other Irish carrier, that I am aware of, has that rule. Different rule.

I reiterate: the Operations Manual contains procedures. The rules are laid down in JARs. The very first parargraph of JAR Ops 1 spells this out:

JAR-OPS Part 1 prescribes requirements
applicable to the operation of any civil aeroplane for
the purpose of commercial air transportation by any
operator whose principal place of business and, [if
any, its registered office] is in a JAA Member State


If you open your own company Ops Manual A, or Volume 1 and turn to Section or Chapter 8, the nomenclature varies by company, you will find that it is titled "Operating Procedures": this is a copy of the first paragraphs from the FR Part A,Chapter 8. It is probably no different to your company manual.

8 OPERATING PROCEDURES
8.0 General Operating Procedures
8.0.1 Objectives
8.0.1(a) Our primary operations objective is to conduct our air transport activity safely. It
is also Ryanair policy that Flight Operations shall be conducted efficiently and
punctually. This policy devolves on Flight Crew as their basic duty.
8.0.1(b) Commanders and Co-Pilots are required to adhere to the policies and directions
contained in the Operations Manual.

Note however, the use of the phrase "policies and directions"; not rules and regulations.

So willl you accept that Ryanair operate to the rules and regulations, but may have different policies and procedures?

One of those being the "landing gate"; this is a procedure which requires that the aircraft approach is stabilised at 500ft VMC and 1000ft IMC. I believe that bmi, and probably BA, also have a 500ft stabilised gate. The only modification to this policy / procedure which Ryanair use is a "500 -Continue" or "500 - Go Around" call. Your company " procedure" may be to call " Decide" at DA or DH; another company "procedure" may be to call " minimums" a third may decide that their "procedure" - to comply with the JAR "rules" will be to call "Land" or "Go Around".

Turning to the question of Inspectors flying as Commanders. If the airline and the Inspector have agreed that the Inspector may "fly the line" to remain current and operate as a Commander, that is quite different to flying on an inspection flight where the jumpseat would be occupied and the Inspector would be an observer.

If the Inspector has to regain his / her currency a flight with a TC or sim session would be in order, as per JAR "rules".

Your view of the rules seems to constitute only what the absolute state limits are. That is not the case for us flying the line. We are certainly bound by the state limits but we must remain within the parameters of the Operations Manual otherwise what is the point in having one?

Not at all. I was merely using the situation as an example. The hierarchy of rules, regulations and requirements form the umbrella. This can range from ICAO to IATA to JAR, EASA, State law to National requirements. The approval of the Operations Manual is predicated on the procedures and policies being at least as restrictive but not less restrictive than the regulations.

This where the 500ft procedure falls: it is more restrictive than the regulation, hence it is acceptable to the Authority. The example I used of the 100ft Cat 1 DH/DA is not and hence is not permitted as a "procedure".
As to refuelling procedures, an extract from the JAR is reproduced here:

[A two-way communication shall be
established and shall remain available by the
aeroplane’s inter-communication system or other
suitable means between the ground crew
supervising the refuelling and the qualified
personnel on board the aeroplane;]

Note the phrase "other suitable means". Ryanair management obviously decided, or the IAA decided, that the "other suitable means" previously utilised, in accordance with JARs required a review in the light of incidents reported or recorded. In that review the company or Authority is quite at liberty to impose a more specific instruction which meets the JAR. In this instance Ryanair decided that a member of the flight crew should supervise the refuelling whist in communication with the other crewmember via the interphone. The JAR always was complied with; the "procedure", or Acceptable Means of Compliance, was just different.

Your amazement was probably a result of scant knowledge of the rules and regulations, but an intimate reliance on your own "company" procedures.
You will, I trust, accept that there is more than 1 way to skin a cat, and acknowledge that FR are bound by the same rules and regulations. The procedures just differ slightly in achieving compliance.

[curser]

@ R.S.S.
You are wrong, your ops manual is the law, your policies and directions are rules and regulation and you had better adhere to them.
now back on topic....

[Two's in]

Interesting that no-one has mentioned the strategy of short turn-arounds was effectively developed by Southwest Airlines (and emulated by many) and very few LCC's here seem to think 25 minutes is some unattainable Holy Grail, but is indeed the secret to success. It also appears that SWA have reached a far more desirable position in terms of the managment/staff realationships than those of other LCC's, but then again, maybe you get out what you put in.

[GGV]

After a quick look through this entire discussion three things strike me.

First, a Chief Pilot who makes a statement in which he appears to demonstrate ignorance of the impact of deficient lighting on low visibility proceedings (post # 85) - with not a comment from anybody!

Second, a Hairy Camel whose post was completely off subject. While it was vintage Leo, it is worth reading his contributions in the light of the violence of his point of view. Anyone who has personally been on the receiving end of MOL's vitriol may sense an identical ideological orientation. Which raises the question as to why such an intervention took place.

Unions have nothing to do with the particular characteristics of the events giving rise to this discussion. There is a definite sense in Leo's post that unions were responsible for these matters being publicly identified. But if you look at it, this seems rather unlikely - since other events gave rise to these things coming into the media, most particularly Flight's reaction to the publication of a report of an AAIU investigation. (Not to mention the fact that something around 1,500 pilots have receive a copy of the "leaked" Board document many months ago).

Finally, the entangling of the "union bashing" and the safety issues has worked to a degree in muddying the waters and discussion.

Let's be absolutely clear about this. No matter what the truth of the matter, the position of Flight is more than reasonable. All they have done is to state the very obvious, which I take to be the following: there are grounds for being very suspicious that all is not well with safety management in Ryanair. An appropriate investigation of the many, many signs and clues of dysfunction in Ryanair is long overdue.

The responsibility for taking action lies with the Board of Ryanair and the IAA. The former clearly find the threat of dismissal to be a satisfactory safety management tool.

The IAA ... well what do they think? Does anyone know? Could they really think, like Leo, that this is all caused by unions? If so, they live on a different planet from me. There are not just whiffs of smoke here, there is a lot of smoke.

[RYR-738-JOCKEY]

[QUOTE][/@ R.S.S.
You are wrong, your ops manual is the law, your policies and directions are rules and regulation and you had better adhere to them.
now back on topic....QUOT
??:confused:?? Are you for real? I believe you are just trying to make a point regarding the importance of adhering to your ops manual, but you have lost the plot if you regard it as being the law.
Rules, regulations, requirements, company policies. That is the order of it. Of course sticking to your ops manual will keep you out of trouble, but it does not by any means form the basis of other documentation.

[curser]

jockey, we are way off topic. I prefer short posts and in my last my point was poorly made. I could write for days, wearing down my fingers and boring you, trying better to explain myself or just say your own point is well made, which it is. now back to the others.

[old,not bold]

Quote from way back in this thread.....

"It is not unknown for an IAA audit to consist of an IAA officer flying as the Captain of a line flight with only a Ryanair co-pilot in the cockpit."

Various comments have followed about this particular, and peripheral, aspect of the thread's main subject.

However, it is such a devastating assertion, if true, that it would be good if someone who really knows what he/she is talking about would confirm or deny it authoritatively.

There are so many issues that it raises (discipline, control, insurance, validity of the inspection/audit, etc etc etc) that I suspect and hope that it simply cannot be true.

Is there a confusion with the very necessary flying a FOI does to keep current? That has been suggested.

Anyone out there know the definitive answer?

[The Real Slim Shady]

Old,not bold

Relax. The inspector occupies the jumpseat on an inspection flight.

[Carmoisine]

Thomas Coupling IN response to Post 76 of yours (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3115090&postcount=76) :
when I fly with Ryan Air
I don't mean to be a pain in the arse and you are not the only one, but please it is Ryanair not Ryan Air neither is it RA their code is FR. Not important but one of two factually incorrect points in your post.
Add to this the fact that they landed at the wrong airport not so long ago and shortly before that, misidentified the wrong airfield on finals....and now this news report, what is going on?

If you refer to an incident in Derry, Ryanair did not land at the wrong airport, but a sub chartered Airbus from Eirjet (R.I.P) did. They were an independant airline who flew Airbus' and had nothing to do with Ryanair.
As for the hard landings then yes, I would agree. Our Chief Pilot wrote recently :
The Ryanair incidences of hard landings have reached an unacceptable level to the extent that Ryanair is now in discussion with both the IAA and Boeing on the issue.
While it is accepted that trainee pilots will occasionally misjudge a landing resulting in a “firm” arrival during Line Training it is not acceptable for a Commander to test a relatively inexperienced co-pilot in adverse conditions.
I want to bring your attention to the requirements in this regard in Operations Manual
So it would appear that a problem officially exisits. It is my opinion (As a relatively fresh F/O) that a number of problems contribute to these. In no particular order:

A very pressurised Training environment where Sectors are being counted.

Line Trainers in the job for money and not because they have the ability,not really caring about anything other then ticking boxes


Lots and Lots of very Green F/Os online in the last year or two. I made an arse of a landing shortly post training and had a Captain take over in the flare. Maybe the hard landings happen to Captains with slower reactions?


Short runways. We have airfield briefings which state "Caution, approaching 737-800 landing limits." When you have 10,000ft of runway at major airports maybe you can hold off for a while longer to smooth the touchdown. At Carcasonne you bang it on the markers.

[old,not bold]

Old Slim Shady

Thanks for that; I know that it is normal practice - to say the least - for an FOI to occupy the jumpseat. It would be impossible any other way, of course.

But some-one, who sounded as if he/she knew, made an astonishing assertion that IAA F.O. Inspectors have flown as Captains on Ryanair with only a First Officer, and implied that this was while attempting to carry out an inspection, or audit.

This now needs to be denied, rather more specifically, conclusively and authoritively than you did it, if untrue. Can you do that?

[Jambo Buana]

Carmoisine,

You should not treat any runway differently in terms of your touchdown technique. It is exactly what you say that may cause a heavy touchdown!

Brdgs

[757manipulator]

Ahhhh Leo, on another planet as usual..:}

Your enlightened accusation of the Flight editorial department makes me laugh.....they are hardly a publication that have a history of courting controversy:}

As is stands, it is a monument to unfair and misrepresentation journalism from a man who is supposed to know much better. Learmont has had unprecedented access to Ryanair, a fact he conveniently neglects to mention. He has been invited as a guest to the very heart of the operation, poked his head under ever skirt, looked under every rug, and is even to attend our final Flight Safety Roadshow in Liverpool later this month, and this is the sort of tawdry, misleading hack journalism that results. Other boardrooms beware!
It is, of course, perfectly fair and reasonable to closely examine these events. It is appropriate to view them within the context of a rapidly expanding airline involved in the LoCo business operating around 1000 flights every day. That’s a lot of flights since July 2005, Mr. Learmont, and you’re writing about four approach events. Four out of many hundreds of thousands!


And your point? he IS a journalist :hmm:

It is a vulgar and offensive notion unbefitting a publication with the reputation of Flight International.

Or it is a product of the skirt lifting, and unprecedented access shown to Mr Learmont that you seem to be at such pains to point out :=

Mr. Fine, there IS no such atmosphere.

Oh Hail Caesar! you have spoken, your word is law.....:rolleyes:

[Leo Hairy-Camel]

Let's be absolutely clear about this. No matter what the truth of the matter, the position of Flight is more than reasonable.
Do you really think so, GGV? I don't.
there are grounds for being very suspicious that all is not well with safety management in Ryanair. An appropriate investigation of the many, many signs and clues of dysfunction in Ryanair is long overdue.
Lets all think about that for a moment.
The current issue (6-12 February, 2007) of Flight International has on its cover the rather immodest headline “Ryanair back under safety spotlight” in big red letters on the front cover. Flick over to page three, and there under the title “The wrong approach” is a shabby little piece written by David Learmont (one grows accustomed to his ‘style’ over the years) asserting that “questions need to be asked” and pointing an accusatory finger, not for the first time, at the Irish Aviation Authority. What slovenly journalism!

We’re not finished yet, though. Another flick takes us to the very next page where the bard of Quadrant House goes on about a day in April of last year where some company aircraft were allegedly involved in landing events involving unusually increased RVR minima due to runway lighting degradation. Three flicks more and we land on page 11 and the lurid headline “Ryanair approaches probed again”. This time we’re treated to a pictorial extravaganza of the Cork incident. To finish off this week’s ‘balanced’ journalistic foray into Ryanair, we’re told that the Cork incident is one of four since July 2005 in a sidebar entitled “Unstablised arrivals in the spotlight”.

That makes one highly subjective and intentionally provocative headline, and four separate articles negatively dedicated to Ryanair in one issue. Embrace for a moment that the recent Supreme Court case was widely expected to go the way of IALPA, and this week’s issue would surely have been a slam-dunk fiesta of anti-Ryanair sentiment. Coincidental timing? Really? Headline and four articles in one issue? Hmmmmm.

As is stands, it is a monument to unfair and misrepresentative journalism from a man who is supposed to know much better. Learmont has had unprecedented access to Ryanair, a fact he conveniently neglects to mention. He has been invited as a guest to the very heart of the operation, poked his head under ever skirt, looked under every rug, and is even to attend our final Flight Safety Roadshow in Liverpool later this month, and this is the sort of tawdry, misleading hack journalism that results. Other boardrooms beware!

It is, of course, perfectly fair and reasonable to closely examine these events. It is appropriate to view them within the context of a rapidly expanding airline involved in the LoCo business operating around 1000 flights every day. That’s a lot of flights since July 2005, Mr. Learmont, and you’re writing about four approach events. Four out of many hundreds of thousands!

Is it reasonable to consider 4 flights out of many hundreds of thousands as being suggestive of some as yet unprobed human factors aspect of the low cost operation that is worthy of further examination? Perhaps. Is it reasonable to suggest the IAA is the sole arbitrator of such an enquiry? No. Is it reasonable to conclude, as Learmont has evidently done, twice, that we at Ryanair are hiding a flawed, Dickensian operation behind the skirts of a compliant regulator? Certainly not! It is a vulgar and offensive notion unbefitting a publication with the reputation of Flight International.

Not surprisingly, Learmont is not alone, though. The owner of this website has recently posed the question:-
What are the pressures on the commanders if there is an inherent atmosphere of intimidation or bullying from the corporate management for delays that cannot be satisfactorily explained
Mr. Fine, there IS no such atmosphere. Can it be that even you, to whom we here all owe so much, have permitted your cognitive skills to be bruised by such blatant union ballyhoo? Intimidation and bullying, if they exist at all, are to be found at the hands of IALPA and their press-gang recruiting methods. What would you say, I wonder, about the unsavoury spectacle of new entry cadets working through their line training, and new DEC’s alike, being lassoed, brainwashed and told to sign on the dotted line "or else" without so much as five minutes experience of the company to formulate their own points of view?

In the light of such slovenly reporting and decidedly tabloid instincts as Flight International has displayed this week, is there any wonder?

[autobrake3]

Such continued pious diatribes fail to excuse the increasing number of seriously mishandled aeroplanes. Please address your attitude and safety culture to prevent an incident that we will all regret.

[Carmoisine]

What would you say, I wonder, about the unsavoury spectacle of new entry cadets working through their line training, and new DEC’s alike, being lassoed, brainwashed and told to sign on the dotted line "or else" without so much as five minutes experience of the company to formulate their own points of view?


Leo Hairy-Camel If you can show me one, one, case of IALPA bullying or intimidating any such Pilots, I promise here and now infront of everyone I will surrender my Union Card and never have any further involvment in REPA or post again. Just one! Even for you that is impressive spin, I'll give you that....

[Stoic]

You said: "Is it reasonable to consider 4 flights out of many hundreds of thousands as being suggestive of some as yet unprobed human factors aspect of the low cost operation that is worthy of further examination?"

The answer is: "Yes."

Regards

Stoic

[Danny]

Leo, if you would re-read my post. For clarification, I will re-quote the bit you refer to here with some emphasis on the relevant bits:
What are the pressures on the commanders if there is an inherent atmosphere of intimidation or bullying from the corporate management for delays that cannot be satisfactorily explained

You appear to have conveniently left out the question mark at the end of that bit. Now, I raised the question in light of the fact that it was an Irish High Court judge that found the management style to be repressive and bullying and inferred that there was an atmosphere of intimidation from within the Ryanair management. If, there is indeed an atmosphere of intimidation or bullying within the company, which you categorically deny, then that could be a factor that should be investigated by the relevant authority or regulator.

My own sources, current and ex-Ryanair pilots, are that there is indeed a problem with the management style which is filtered down from the very top of the company. I stand to be corrected if my assumptions are wrong. However, a flat denial by Leo Hairy Camel does not do it for me. Anyone with such a rabid anti-union stance and the inability to disassociate that stance from anything remotely connected with it leaves you with little, if any, credibility amongst your fellow colleagues and pilot brethren.

As I tried to point out in the thread that relates to the Minima busting approaches at STN last year, it was not only Ryanair that had a/c break the rules. If Leo's angst and kneejerk reaction is to jump to a defence when none is actually required, then perhaps he is feeling guilty. He doth protest too much.

We have already stated on this and other threads that Ryanair is going to be spotlighted more than others if only for the fact that they are bigger and operate more sectors than all the other LoCo's. That is going to be a burden that they have to bear, not just because of the managerial problems that surface due to their litigious nature but because statistically they are more likely to have an incident. The discussion on here and the reports in Flight International are just a product of those statistics.

Finally, for Leo to impugn the journalistic skills of David Learmount is a bit wide of the mark. At least he doesn't try to pretend he is above the rest of us with his knowledge of Latin! :rolleyes: Unfortunately for him, if as you suggest, he has been given unlimited access to the goings on within Ryanair, does that mean that he is therefore not supposed to say anything that might be detrimental to their management style? I think I detect a whiff of the undercurrent that that so many of Ryanairs pilots and other staff complain about and we are highlighting here and in Flight International. :hmm:

[GGV]

Leo Hairly Camel – the man who claims to be a Ryanair captain, but who has never uttered a single word of criticism of ANY of the acts by Ryanair discussed on PPRuNe – is now presenting himself as a safety expert. But his post gives it all away. I think he understands little about air safety and may well not be a line captain at all. No surprise that he works for an airline which frequently cites its compliance with JAR minimums as being in itself a statement about compliance with “the highest European safety standards”.

This, as far as I can see this is Leo’s first serious effort to address safety issues. As he started by criticising my judgement and comments, I would like to take the time to address his arguments. I also note the absence of the normal vitriol, so maybe he is not quite in full ideological mode today ….

First and foremost: to claim that there is sufficient evidence to merit an investigation of something is not really radical if you are in the safety business. Airlines do it all the time. What is different about Ryanair is the nature of the corporate culture and the evident inability of the organisation to consider objectively undertaking such an exercise. The unwillingness to do so in the face of evidence is perverse and unwarranted. The effort to dismiss the events he discusses as some kind of aberration on the part of Flight is also evidence of “much missing of the point”.

My statement, as quoted, merely says
there are grounds for being very suspicious that all is not well with safety management in Ryanair. An appropriate investigation of the many, many signs and clues of dysfunction in Ryanair is long overdue. It should have been noted by Leo that I did not pre-judge the outcome. I merely said that there is evidence. And there is. There is evidence of late reporting of SERIOUS incidents. There is a consistent history now in Ryanair of “late” reporting of events - after they are "discovered". (Cynics might even refer to the possibility of “cover up”). The question must be, for a safety professional, why so?

There is evidence of other repeated characteristics in some of these events – including in Ryanair’s own admission that high energy approaches consistently followed the introduction of the B737-800 from Ryanair base to base, with a delay of a few months. A reflective airline with an open safety culture would have addressed that matter. Some people in Ryanair did identify the problem. But the airline did NOT address the issue until, in the very last base, Dublin, where it enjoys a tense relationship with its pilots, the notion of demotion became popular. (More questions of the form Why? arise here too). This was followed by the famous Board memorandum which introduced, as I read elsewhere, the notion of “safety management by threat” (which pretty well sums it up).

Leo the fact that you are a partisan commentator is demonstrated by your lack of reflection and desire to defend and protect (using that characteristic Ryanair technique called attack). David Learmount is now presented as an ungrateful traitor, rather than the understated professional that he clearly is. He only suggested rather basic investigatory steps.

Mature airlines, the kind you seem to utterly despise, are much more cautious on safety matters than Ryanair. There is nothing to fear from an open and independent investigation, especially if your airline is run properly. There is even the prospect of learning something to your advantage.

But even more to the point, your silly and tendentious efforts to link a Supreme Court finding with the publication by Flight of its articles is a complete giveaway. You clearly just don’t get it. This is real. It is not about managing public perceptions or some mad plot by the enemies of Ryanair to do you down. Some people, a LOT of people, including a very large number of your employees are genuinely convinced that something is seriously awry. They may be convinced and wrong - but that is a different matter. Are your claims of
such blatant union ballyhoo intended as a reason or an excuse for this diversionary tactic? I am aware of lots events in Ryanair that should have seen the light of day and which occurred long before REPA and other Ryanair industrial problems surfaced.

What happened here is that a report by the Irish Accident Investigation Unit triggered the latest sequence of events. Anyone with a bit of objectivity can see that. Flight is making no accusations – it is, just as I am, marshalling the evidence and saying “maybe somebody should have a look at this rather interesting set of events?” and, even, the repeated evidence from your own pilots that all is not well. There is, quite simply, just TOO much of it to be written off as a plot by bad anti-Ryanair people.

There can be no such investigation in Ryanair because the Chief Executive will never permit it to take place. Why? Because he suspects that unpleasant truths might come out. These would be truths about his impact on all of these matters. He may not actually be the person who encourages an unsafe decision by a captain – who, of course, is personally responsible – but he is the person who creates the safety culture. (But.... that is the nub of what is at issue. Remember Zebrugge? ValueJet?).

I have the advantage of knowing many Ryanair pilots who have personally told me about their experiences. I think I know why Ryanair will fight this as a public relations matter and not as a safety matter. But, in the end, it won’t work Leo. It won’t work because there is an unpleasant logic to the situation in which Ryanair finds itself and, like the sea and gravity, it will not respond to public relations, orders, memoranda, vindictive acts or threats.

These matters can only be resolved by an independent, objective and comprehensive investigation by professionals. And you, despite your safety claims, will fight that tooth and nail.

In conclusion, and as a curtsy to your Latin predilections.: Quod erat demonstrandum est?

(Apologies to all about the length, but I think an effort should be made on this one occasion, given the seriousness of the subject. Congratulations to Stoic who managed to say the same thing in two sentences!).

[Leo Hairy-Camel]

The question mark was omitted because your sentence wasn’t quoted in its entirety. Your use of the words “what” and “if”, so helpfully highlighted in this most recent version, renders the question mark redundant, I would have thought, but thanks anyway, I suppose.

How about this one, quoted in its entirety?
It is highly probably that there is an underlying link between the corporate management style which was recently lambasted by an Irish high court judge and the repercussions that pilots could face without independent representation.

Not much room for guesswork here, and before you set out highlighting probably (sic) and could, I’ve done it for you in the interests of goodwill. I know how busy you must be.
Or what about this one?
Because there have been so many reports of unstabilised approaches
How many, exactly? So many, Mr. Fine? Context? Relevance? Purpose?

As for:_
leaves you with little, if any, credibility amongst your fellow colleagues and pilot brethren.
As determined by whom? You? Well, you’ve got me there, haven’t you! There’s no doubting you’re the biggest swingin’ dick in this coral, Hos, but since you’ve so obviously pinned your colours to the anti-Ryanair (with plausible denyablity) mast, you’ll forgive me if I take your comments under advisement.

Let me finish with something you’ve written that is quite beautiful in its simple honesty and cuts to the core of my purpose.
We have already stated on this and other threads that Ryanair is going to be spotlighted more than others if only for the fact that they are bigger and operate more sectors than all the other LoCo's. That is going to be a burden that they have to bear
Clearly, not the only burden. I mean to point out, where I can, that there are alternate points of view to those that are popularly held, and to question the reasons why such errant views attract such popularity. Seeking to demean me in the process does you no service and adds, in my view, to the growing clamour of those who would so gleefully relish the muzzling and demise of a growing giant. A giant who, by the way, continues to transform our industry and the regions it serves in a profoundly positive way, creating opportunities for thousands of young pilots who would otherwise remain within the surly bonds of earth.

[PPRuNe Towers]

Seeking to demean me in the process does you no service

An interesting concept in the light of Leo's quite remarkable and consistent style. Methinks Etc, Etc. Further insight if it were ever needed.

[inveritas]

The thred has lost all balance as has much of the reporting of this issue in Ryanair. As real pilots who fly actual commercial aircraft in mainline airlines know there are weekly issues - some serious and not so serious. But Ryanair sadly will be targeted not due to its size - but as "when you live by the sword you will die by the sword."

I asked a grumpy PB in STN on Friday about the rumour reported in the UK Times as a fact that "100 pilots had resigned in the last month". He laughed and shuffled a spreadsheet and said less than 10 Capts and a few more FOS were leaving in the next 12 weeks. I believe that.

The REPA people have run a brilliant campaign to discredit and spin to the UK and Irish media over the last 10 days with leaked memos and supposedly authoritative advice on FTL's and rosters.

I think we all fool ourselves on this. The public will still fly with Ryanair, the stockmarket will still support Ryanair, MOL will just have an even more entrenched view on pilots pay and the only people who will suffer in all this spin are the collective Ryanair pilot's reputations. I feel very bitter as as a Ryanair pilot that a small number of Aer Lingus Union Reps and their spin have caused me to get nasty questions and innuendo about me and my work at Ryanair during social functions over this past weekend.

[Aloue]

Inveritas can you advise me where to find the stuff - leaked by anybody - over the past 10 days about FTLs and rosters? I think you are talking nonsense and attempting to divert attention away from this discussion. Where do I find it? The memorandum (that may or may not have been leaked over the past 10 days) which you are referring to is presumably the one which was discussed in "The Times". It has been in possession of around 1,500 pilots for many months now. How could you possibly know a union leaked it? If they were going to leak it, why was that not done months ago when it was posted by them on the REPA website (along with other stuff that has not seen the light of day)? Your approach to this safety discussion has exactly the same diversionary anti-union characteristics as Leo has shown.

[757manipulator]

But Ryanair sadly will be targeted not due to its size - but as "when you live by the sword you will die by the sword."

Inveritas, sadly I think you are right, however, the situation still remains, and if this is played out in the court of public opinion, MOL will play dirty, he undoubtably will recieve a response in kind.

I have to say that Aloue sums up very accurately your other comments:hmm:

[snaga]

If a lot of people are suggesting there is a problem and Flight suggests an investigation why would Ryanair not just do it? Should the IAA not figure somewhere in all of this too? Why do the two of them not act, even if only to shut off all the constant complaints about both organisations? If both are confident of their position surely it would be a lot easier to bring in the experts and put the matter to bed once and for all?

[captainpaddy]

Inveritas,

Perhaps I misunderstand your post.

"The public will still fly with Ryanair, the stockmarket will still support Ryanair, MOL will just have an even more entrenched view on pilots pay and the only people who will suffer in all this spin are the collective Ryanair pilot's reputations."

Do you suggest we stop, stand by and see what happens? I understand your bitterness. If I were a hard working, law abiding Ryanair pilot (I accept that most, if not all, are) I would also be bitter about the fact that many see the problem as lying with the individual pilot. I agree that much of the discussion on this forum (not just this thread) is misguided and uneseccarily directed at the pilots themselves. But these things need to be highlighted, albeit with careful discussion. The misinformed will self righteously point the finger at one pilot and say 'I would never have done that. I am better than he' but my understanding of the basic direction of this thread and many others like it is that the truth is more complex than that and more deeply rooted in the style of the hand that governs. Perhaps with regard your companys statement on their website you will realise that the hand that governs is responsible for the 'inuendo' and 'nasty questions' that you refer to, rather than union reps.

It may be in the future we will be forced to agree through evidence or time or both that all was not as bad as we originally thought, but surely you must agree that it is better to seek an answer and resolution now than to 'tut tut' about missed opportunities later on.

Leo,

Your press releases and particularly your wonderful spiel on your website seem to indicate that there were just four rogue, unskilled and incompetent pilots who were responsible for the investigated incidents. I presume it was likely the same four who were responsible for the approaches into STN? How can you be so obtuse as to believe that your management team have no possibility of earning a portion of the blame? If your pilots have any adverse reaction to the recent events, at least they know where it came from.

To anyone who thinks that this is not about an attempt to have the public believe what is most useful, regardless of the accuracy or element of truth, I quote from Ryanairs website:

"Ryanair’s computerised inflight data monitoring system provides the airline with details of the speed and altitude of every aircraft during every flight. It is Ryanair’s unique ability to identify these errors which has given rise to these reports."

Hopefully, one day, other airlines may have Flight Data Monitoring too. :ugh:

This is a war of words. And Leo recognises the threat. Hence his presence here.

[snaga]

"Ryanair’s computerised inflight data monitoring system provides the airline with details of the speed and altitude of every aircraft during every flight. It is Ryanair’s unique ability to identify these errors which has given rise to these reports." I was not aware of this Ryanair statement. If this is real and I assume it must be, it is plainly a cynical and most dishonest claim. Is everything just "spin" to these people?

[caulfield]

The only low-cost airline that is worth anything is Southwest.35 years and going from strength to strength.Share price always strong.Pilots never resign.Polite cabin/check-in.Free peanuts.Happy hour.Refunds when they overbook.Actually help you when you miss a flight.Great safety record.Low cost but professional.
In Europe,we get lumbered with Ryanair and easyjet.How not to do it.The IAA wont ever do anything to hamper Ryanair's operation,theres too much money involved.Perhaps the CAA isnt so cosy and they can actually do something to take the smile off this clown's face.
As an aside,Vueling is pretty good.I use them now whenever I fly to Spain.Too new to evaluate them on safety but they've got someone on their team who knows a thing or two about customer service.

[the grim repa]

inveritas - pb has lied to you and you know it.the figures are 65 captains and 64 co-pilots leaving in the next 3 months.that is 10% of the pilot workforce.ask him to see the spreadsheet he has on his computer detailing who is leaving,the dates and the listed reasons why they are leaving.
you may be the one fooling yourself here.

shocked to hear that we ruined your social occasion,tell that to the co pilots who sleep in their cars and cannot afford to eat.

I am not a union rep and we are not a small number.
looks like LEO is getting a little sensitive and doesn't like to be demeaned.no problem ****ting on his colleagues though.such a boring loser.

[BBT]

Leo I think Grim may well be 100% correct. While I have not seen it I believe that there is a copy of a memo out there with exactly the figures Grim provides (I heard those very figures before reading them here).
But this is all a diversion, as has been said, from the fact that you Leo who claims to be a seasoned and experienced Ryanair line captain just does not understand aviation safety and how it is pursued.

That, I presume, is why you did not condemn the Ryanair Board for the disgraceful memo blaming pilots - in fact you probably support it. How come the rest of the aviation industry has got it wrong about "no blame" or "just" culture while Ryanair have got it right? When you look at the suggestive evidence such a point of view just comes across as plain nuts.

If Ryanair run true to form there will now be a legal threat insisting that this topic be deleted from PPRUNE.

[bacardi walla]

Leo The fact remains. Ryanair have been reported for several cases of aircraft being flown in an unstable manner.

Skavsta
Rome
Cork
Stansted
Knock

What is more shocking, the IAA appear to be not interested. The perception is that the IAA are sitting on the fence waiting for someone to push them off. I personally wish someone would make a real issue out of all this. For the sake of aviation, the passengers, and those who take flying seriously, they (Ryanair) need to be seriously investigated.
I know for a fact, 2 years ago or so, Ryanair actually wanted an aircraft to operate into a French airfield with ZERO qualified ATC cover. I stress, it didn't happen on the day, but the fact remains, they wanted it to in order to keep the show on the road.
You Leo need to wake up and get into the real world. An accident IS only a matter of time away (god forbid).

[Bearcat]

get rid of Derry...that was an Eirjet crew.

[bacardi walla]

bearcat was it :rolleyes:

[fmgc]

Isn't Flight Data Monitoring a legal requirement on all UK regiseterd aircraft anyway now?

Even if it isn't mandatory I can't think of any UK airline that doesnt have it.

"It is Ryanair’s unique ability to identify these errors which has given rise to these reports."

So is that why they went for so long being unreported to the IAA?

I think that Leo is trying to use smoke and mirrors to distract the journalists from what I am sure is about to be a massive media expose.

[captainpaddy]

BBT,

Surely you realise that Leo is actually the man himself? Our wonderfully charming Mullingar boss?

Bacardi,

Eirjet was indeed responsible for Derry and Ryanair shouldn't be blamed for it. The real list for the last two years is:

SKAVSTA
ROME
KNOCK
CORK
STANSTED
STANSTED
STANSTED
STANSTED

At least I would like to think the IAA made some attempt at treating the four STN violations as seperate events. No doubt, they agreed with Ryanairs spin that the STN notam was misleading and have decided all four flights were the result of this one problem. Not four crew with a poor understanding of requirements. Not a training department which has overlooked this area of LVP's which would then mean 1,500 pilots inadequately trained. Just four crew mislead by one notam.

[captainpaddy]

http://www.ryanair.com/site/EN/news.php?yr=07&month=feb&story=gen-en-090207-2

[captjns]

FDOM is not limited to FR. There are carriers in the US that use the FDOM program as well.

[captainpaddy]

Almost every large jet operator I can think of uses Flight Data Monitoring. It is in widespread use as it's benefits are many. Those that don't use are probably considering it.

This is why the RYR statement is incorrect. It is designed to deliberately mislead the public who do not know any better.

[sky9]

Isn't the whole idea of Flight Data Monitoring to have a pilot who has the confidence of his peers together with the Flight Safety Officer monitoring the data and having a quiet word with the individuals.

What is important is to ingrain safety into the pilot community. The threat of the sack is not the right way to do that, there really needs to be a top down review of the culture within the company.

[captainpaddy]

Just a thought that has crossed my mind:

If the IAA believe that the STN notam was misleading, then shouldn't they refer the problem back to the UK CAA to ensure that STN improve the information contained in future notams? Is this just more evidence of the IAA's incompetence and their desire to sweep it all under the carpet?

[Carmoisine]

Inveritas

Who published what where? Ryanair themselves now want to make their Pilots look like idiots and have now published operational memos on their Public website. Link (http://www.ryanair.com/site/EN/news.php?yr=07&month=feb&story=gen-en-090207-2)

Bacardi Walla If you had bothered to do even the smallest amount of research on this you would know that it was Eirjet who landed an Airbus A320 in an Air Force base close to the City of Derry airport.Link (http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/publications/bulletins/january_2007/airbus_a320__ei_dij.cfm)

[Airbus Girl]

If the STN NOTAM was misleading then how come all 4 violations were by Ryanair pilots?
How come all the other airlines diverted? Everyone received the same NOTAMs - or should have done. No doubt the info about the lighting was also on the ATIS?

[captainpaddy]

Sorry to do this everyone. Just wanted to show how simple a problem this is. My LVP training with two different companies placed quite an emphasis on this. A quick 20 minute scan of JAR OPS 1 shows 5 seperate entries thus: (there may be more)

JAR OPS 1.225 Aerodrome Operating Minima
(c) The minima for a specific type of approach and landing procedure are considered applicable if:
(1) The ground equipment shown on the respective chart required for the intended procedure is operative;

JAR OPS 1.430 Aerodrome Operating Minima – General
(b) In establishing the aerodrome operating minima which will apply to any particular operation, an operator must take full account of:
(4) The adequacy and performance of the available visual and non-visual ground aids; (See AMC OPS 1.430(b)(4).)

JAR OPS 1.455 Low Visibility Operations – Operating Procedures
(b) The commander shall satisfy himself that:
(1) The status of the visual and nonvisual facilities is sufficient prior to commencing a Low Visibility Take-Off or a Category II or III approach;

Appendix 1 to JAR OPS 1.450 Low Visibility Operation – Training and Qualifications
(c) Flight Simulator training and/or flight training
(1) An operator must ensure that Flight Simulator and/or flight training for Low Visibility Operations includes:
(i) Checks of satisfactory functioning of equipment, both on the ground and in flight;
(ii) Effect on minima caused by changes in the status of ground installations;

Appendix 1 to JAR-OPS 1.455 Low Visibility Operations – Operating Procedures
(2) An operator must specify the detailed operating procedures and instructions in the Operations Manual. The instructions must be compatible with the limitations and mandatory procedures contained in the Aeroplane Flight Manual and cover the following items in particular:
(ii) Effect on minima caused by changes in the status of the ground installations and airborne equipment;

I accept that some of the references may be referring to navigation aids specifically, nonetheless it is clear that lights will have an effect on minima. AMC OPS has plenty more.

With regard to time taken to report incidents, can Leo explain what the exceptional circumstances were?

JAR OPS 1.420 Occurrence Reporting
(3) Reports must be despatched within 72 hours of the time when the incident was identified unless exceptional circumstances prevent this.

[bacardi walla]

Carmoisine I've done my research thank you. Who said I was referring to the Eirjet incident :confused:

No need for me to elaborate. There are enough investigations ongoing as it is. What bothers me is that on the surface, nothing appears to be happening in terms of addressing these issues apart from Ryanair blaming someone else. They are accountable overall for their actions however good or bad.

I for one won't fly with them any more.

[Bearcat]

I think FR are getting sucked into this whole debacle by posting their dirty laundry on their web site.

[PAXboy]

Airbus Girl This is quoted from the owner of this board in a post yesterday 11th Feb (#145)
As I tried to point out in the thread that relates to the Minima busting approaches at STN last year, it was not only Ryanair that had a/c break the rules.

[captainpaddy]

Who were the other operators then? Who else was referred to the CAA? Who else was subsequently referred to their own authorities by the CAA?

As Danny was trying to point out in the post you have referred to, if indeed there are other companies involved, the RYR and Leo response is very telling. If many other operators made the same mistake, there is little, if any, defense needed.

Incidentally,

"No other airline was involved," said James Hotson of the CAA.

[Ryanairpilot]

wasn't there a dodgy orbit on finals followed by a go-around that nearly took out the control tower at beauvais not so long ago too?

[Faire d'income]

Sorry to go back to an earlier issue.

Ryanair are subject to the same rules, regulations and inspections as any Irish carrier RSS if I open a business driving golf balls off a cliff top or piercing cows ear I must ensure that it remains within the laws of the land. That applies to everyone and every business in the State.

When Ryanair state the above, as they frequently do, that is all they are saying.

However the impression they want to give the media and the general public is that all carriers operate to the same procedures and standards. That is not the case in Ireland nor is it the case globally. That is not to point the finger but just to highlight that it is inevitable there will be some variation in standards, therefore the statement is misleading.

For the attention of RSS and RYR-738-Jockey who wrote:"@ R.S.S.
You are wrong, your ops manual is the law, your policies and directions are rules and regulation and you had better adhere to them.
now back on topic...."
???? Are you for real? I believe you are just trying to make a point regarding the importance of adhering to your ops manual, but you have lost the plot if you regard it as being the law.
Rules, regulations, requirements, company policies. That is the order of it. Of course sticking to your ops manual will keep you out of trouble, but it does not by any means form the basis of other documentation.

This is just a couple of paragraphs from Statutory Instrument 140 of 1964 (http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/ZZSI140Y1964.html#ZZSI140Y1964A22):

(2) The operator shall provide for the use and guidance of the flight crew members and operations pesonnel a document which shall be known, and in this Order is referred to, as the Operations Manual, which may comprise one or more than one volume and shall contain the following particulars—

(a) in respect of scheduled airline services—

(i) such instructions as will clearly define the duties and responsibilities of each flight crew member and of every other person concerned with flight operations,


(v) the method by which aerodrome meteorological minima shall be determined in accordance with Article 24 of this Order,

The operator shall establish a system (which shall be known, and in this Order is referred to, as a flight check system) which shall be used by the flight crew prior to take-off, on take-off, in flight, on landing, and in case of emergency, for the purpose of ensuring that the operating procedures specified in the Operations Manual and in the flight manual or other documents acceptable to the Minister as equivalent to the flight manual are followed exactly.

While I realise that there will have been legislation since then, not least the introduction of JAR OPS that will affect the above, the fundamental that procedures and rules ( call them what you like ) contained in an Ops Manual are mandatory under Irish law still applies.

[chickenfeed]

Anyone know what was going on with RYR112G at LGW about 0900 this morning?

Tower couldn't raise them on a 3 mile final for 26L despite multiple calls. When they broke cloud around 700ft they were well north of C/L, more aligned with 26R/AN on which a queue of us were holding for departure. Strong southerly cross so doubt it was a drift illusion.

Approach continued with no apparent attempt to regain the LLZ even though visual. Eventually called 'going around' somewhere over the North Terminal...

[BEagle]

Well perhaps THAT got the attention of the Belgranists?

Going as public as Ryanair have on their website would lead one to ponder the old statement "There's no smoke without fire"!

[maxalt]

I think we all fool ourselves on this. The public will still fly with Ryanair, the stockmarket will still support Ryanair, MOL will just have an even more entrenched view on pilots pay and the only people who will suffer in all this spin are the collective Ryanair pilot's reputations. I feel very bitter as as a Ryanair pilot that a small number of Aer Lingus Union Reps and their spin have caused me to get nasty questions and innuendo about me and my work at Ryanair during social functions over this past weekend.
Ah well inveritas perhaps you should get used to your social life being disturbed by ungrateful friends giving you a good old Irish "slagging".
Many of us working for other companies have been getting it for years - usually it revolves around Ryanairs imminent world domination!
It is your very own boss - Leo Hairy Camel - who has (and will in future) exposed you to the backlash you are now receiving. He has blamed YOU and your colleagues for FR's recent 'difficulties', and you knew all along that come the day when (god forbid) one of your colleagues splashes an aircraft - the blame will be focused squarely on HIM (the dead pilot) and YOU and all your colleagues. Not on Leo, and NEVER on the organisation.
All I can do now is offer you the advise you and Leo often offer any pilot who dares raise a word against the 'unfairness' of the FR culture:
To Whit.....If you don't like it - why don't you just LEAVE.
Pride comes before a fall they say.
Enjoy the trip.

[RogerIrrelevant69]

Well I feel sorry for Leo. His smug spin on all things FR is starting to look a shade tired under duress. He may have fancied himself as some sort of spinmaster but right now it's all falling apart.

Attacking David Learmount and Danny Fyne appears to be the act of a desperate man. If Leo thinks this is useful in increasing his credibility, then I suggest he thinks again. It is not. I and many others have questioned his credibility many times in the past principally because he appears to occupy a parallel universe when it comes to defining what is success and what is failure when it comes to the Irish legal system. We've all raked through the growing number of cases that have had to be abandoned, re-tried or just plain lost by Ryanair, so let's not rake them up again. But fair to say each and every one is counted as a monumental victory by Leo.

We've also questioned his credibility when it comes to his McCarthyite zeal when it comes to unions. To some observers this entirely entrenched position defies reason. To others it may just be the views of man very badly hurt, perhaps in his childhood, by some union related activity. Whatever the reason for this fundamentalist outlook, it comes across as someone not exactly open to debate on the subject.

As an outsider looking in who happens to know a few FR pilots, I know there is more than one side to this story. By attacking everyone who does not agree with his version of all events FR related, Leo does himself no favours.

As my old Latin teacher used to say "alenda lux ubi orta libertas". I don't know why he said it, he just did...:)

[Hudson Bay]

Just been on the BBC that Balpa is calling for a UK led investigation into Ryanair on the way they treat there crews. Can't find anything else at the moment.

[Thomas coupling]

Why haven't the RyanAir crews gone on strike?

Why do they continue to fly for Leo even after he has done such a miserable job on here blaming everyone BUT himself for what is happening around him.
Egomaniac or what.

This airline is a slow burning fuze...a victim of its own masters' success.

[BEagle]

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/02/13/212020/balpa-calls-for-uk-probe-of-ryanair-after-series-of-mishandled-airport-approaches-by-its-pilots-in.html

[DFC]

Quite amusing that when Danny remarked in the other Ryanair bashing thred that he has evidence indicating other operators were involved in operating below minima at the same airport and the same time as Ryanair..........the thred drops like a hot potatoe.

Now, there is also evidence in the CAA's own occurrence reporting system that minima are busted at one (if not more) other UK airport and many of the reports are about established UK operators.

Perhaps Flight should do a little homework and ask the CAA just how many safety reports have been made of UK operators operating below minima at UK airports and what is being done about that?

When they are at it why not also ask why the UK CAA permits pilots not qualified to the minimum European or International ICAO standards to operate IFR in IMC in controlled airspace with frequent commercial passenger carrying flights in close proximity while not being able to comply with established ATC procedures and in many cases not flying aircraft that are appropriately equipped?

At least elsewhere in Europe when flying in a commercial passenger aircraft in cloud in controlled airspace, any happy Harry weekend flyer in the cloud with you will have demonstrated the minimum European or International standard required to be there and be safe. The same is not the case in the UK. Is the UK less safe?

The French Authorities have also reported some UK aircraft for flying below minima in France are they safe?

The problem with digging for sh1t is that everyone standing round the hole get's it up their nostrels not just the one standing with the shovel!

Perhaps some ATCOs from St Mawgan international could explain why they love making reports of pilots operating below minima?

No doubt that they would answer that they have done so in the interest of safety.

Perhaps the CAA, the operators, BALPA and comentators here do not see it in the same way because despite being published these reports regarding UK operators are simply never mentioned?

Those pilots have to be far more unsafe than Ryanair pilots. After all they would have been well rested, well looked after, with a nice happy clappy management system and of course no pressure to perform short turn rounds...........but they broke the law and put passengers at risk according to the reports! Why?

Regards,

DFC

[inveritas]

Checked on my way home tonight with Ryanair crew control in STN. Exactly 8 FR Captains and 19 FR First officers are resigned and leaving the company in the next 12 weeks - and that is compnay wide. That is from all 1500 pilots. So 2% in a quarter.

[delwy]

Why haven't the RyanAir crews gone on strike? I think that the change in FR pilot mood strongly suggests that the word "yet" should have been added to the end of that sentence!!
....exactly 8 FR Captains and 19 FR First officers are resigned and leaving the company in the next 12 weeks - and that is compnay wide. That is from all 1500 pilots. So 2% in a quarter. Inveritas, given that (i) you are clearly a management lackey, (ii) that MOL has repeatedly denied the figures are as large as you quote, (iii) that crew control do not have or give out such figures to us ordinary mortals, (iv) that we have pilots - who have already left Ryanair - on the roster with full lines of work, and (v) that information from real pilots on REPA contradict the consistent Ryanair spin ..... so, given all of that, why should anyone believe you?

More to the point is the question: why is Ryanair so very keen to ensure that this truth gets no traction? And by the way, this will not divert attention here from the key safety debate which is taking place on this thread - but it does emphasise the importance of "image/media management" which seems to dominate Ryanair's approach to most things, including safety issues.

[kick the tires]

DFC,
there was ONE easyjet who supposedly landed following a report of RVR's below minimums.
easyJet have since reviewed the ATC tapes and found that the RVR report was given AFTER the aircraft has passed the marker.

[captainpaddy]

DFC,

Sad little post really.

Perhaps the CAA, the operators, BALPA and comentators here do not see it in the same way because despite being published these reports regarding UK operators are simply never mentioned?

With typical RYR style your argument defending RYR is based on finger pointing in the opposite direction. Reminds me of school - "But teacher! He did it too!". Quite sad really. Rather than accept that there is even the slightest possibility that something could be wrong in RYR, you like so many before you will try to say it's OK because others have done it too. Remember this thread is not just about RVRs and STN. It is about many other incidents too and a publicly violent management style.

I suppose it is just a conspiracy between the airports, CAA, IAA, Flight International, BALPA, IALPA, the Queen, Tony Blair, Mary McAleese, Bertie Ahern and Dermot Mannion and whoever else you can think of? RYR are right and the rest of the world is wrong. Fair enough.

Once again I qoute James Hotson of the CAA discussing the STN incidents.

"No other airline was involved,"

[Aloue]

DFC you start your "defence by attack" post with the words Quite amusing that when Danny remarked in the other Ryanair bashing thred ... Suggesting that this is about Ryanair bashing is really just part and parcel of the "£100,000 a year for 18 hours work a week" approach to issues of fact.

The issue is not Ryanair bashing, even if some do indeed bash Ryanair from time to time. The issue is where or not there are real and verifiable safety issues which, for whatever reason, either do not see the light of day or, on the other hand, are exaggerated in an unfair way against Ryanair. I am definitely in the former camp - but my point is that using the media to spin, or using PPRuNe to counter-spin is really missing the point.

Flight has suggested that there are reasons to suspect that an independent investigation is merited. I think that such an investigation would put a lot of matters to bed once and for all. But you are talking tripe if you think that attacking others or suggesting that "everybody does it" is an adequate response to repeated reports coming from all areas of Ryanair about, shall we say, "strange goings on".

[the grim repa]

So inveritas,who is lying to you now,crew control,pb or me.pb bids at 10,crew control says 27,you will find that i am correct.not that it matters a hoot but 129 is the real number.ask to see the spreadsheet.by the way crew control can only see for the next 7 days in their system.keep searching,the truth is out there.

[Marvo]

Well said, Grim ! I am in to my last few weeks.. Inveritas, the numbers you came up with are so far off ! I know of 9 F/O's in STN alone that are on the way out. Now back to the subject of landing below the RVR limits....

[bacardi walla]

grim actually Crew Control can see beyond 7 days, they just can't change anything beyond 7 days :ugh:

[DFC]

captainpaddy and Aloue,

Perhaps you guys should check some simple facts properly before posting.

I am not in any way defending Ryanair.

If I was rising to the defence of Ryanair then I would hardly highlight a series of safety reports from a UK airport regarding operators breaching minima when one of those reports was regarding as Ryanair flight. Several others related to UK operators.

What I am doing is simply asking why when other UK operators have been reported to the CAA for breaches of minima is this matter put forward as simply a Ryanair matter or a situation caused by management style, pressure etc etc.

If you people were not so determined to attack Ryanair and take everyone who puts forward a differene view as being in defence of Ryanair you would have time to get your facts right.

Go read the CAA incident reports from the last while and then tell us it is a Ryanair issue.

Minima are busted in the UK on probably a more frequent basis than you would expect. Most times ATC don't notice and nothing gets reported. Is that safe? Is that Ryanair's fault?

Finally, we are talking safety here. Without centerline lights, CAT3 landings would be unsafe due to the lack of visual references in the rollout unless the RVR is 550+.....agreed?

Why then is it more safe for one operator to know that the RVR is less than 550m and land CAT3 and for another to do the exact same but be unsafe....simply because they received the information earlier. If landing in less than 550 CAT3 with no centerline lights is unsafe then everyone who did that regardless of when the RVR reading was received was unsafe. The only debating point is the technical issue of when with that information available the approach should be discontinued?

Regards,

DFC

[Pilot Pete]

Minima are busted in the UK on probably a more frequent basis than you would expect. And your evidence of this is?

Finally, we are talking safety here. Without centerline lights, CAT3 landings would be unsafe due to the lack of visual references in the rollout unless the RVR is 550+.....agreed?

AMC OPS 1.430(b) states that 300m RVR is the minimum for CATIIIB or CATIIIA without centreline lights during daylight and that neither are allowed at night.

Why then is it more safe for one operator to know that the RVR is less than 550m and land CAT3 and for another to do the exact same but be unsafe....simply because they received the information earlier. Who says it's safer? It's just the rules.

PP

[captainpaddy]

Quite amusing that when Danny remarked in the other Ryanair bashing thred

The problem with digging for sh1t is that everyone standing round the hole get's it up their nostrels not just the one standing with the shovel!

Can't think why we thought you were speaking in RYR's defence.

Finally, we are talking safety here. Without centerline lights, CAT3 landings would be unsafe due to the lack of visual references in the rollout unless the RVR is 550+.....agreed?

Yes, agreed.

Why then is it more safe for one operator to know that the RVR is less than 550m and land CAT3 and for another to do the exact same but be unsafe....simply because they received the information earlier. If landing in less than 550 CAT3 with no centerline lights is unsafe then everyone who did that regardless of when the RVR reading was received was unsafe.

It isn't safer for one operator to do it over another operator. But what has that got to do with it? Other operators at STN that night knew and didn't land. RYR landed anyway most likely because of their lack of understanding of what affects required RVR for a given approach. (see my previous quote of the CAA who said no other airline was involved.)

Perhaps you guys should check some simple facts properly before posting.

This whole discussion began as "Ryanair: Approach Incidents in the News". It has since become an attempt to analyse the larger scale problems within the company which may be further highlighted by the STN issues. Don't tell me to check my facts when you could not have read the other posts in this thread. The RVR thing is one of many problems that have come to light in RYR lately. Of course any other aircraft who bust minima are unsafe. That goes without saying. But this thread is about RYR. Not the other airlines. If you are not trying to say that if other operators do it then it isn't as bad that RYR do it, I have no idea what you're trying to say.

[captainpaddy]

Just wanted to add...

Perhaps you guys should check some simple facts properly before posting.


What facts did I get wrong?

[pineridge]

BBT and several other posters,
are you any good at anagrams? For example:

LEOHAIRYCAMEL
MICHAELOLEARY.


Get it?

[hetfield]

BBT and several other posters,
are you any good at anagrams? For example:

LEOHAIRYCAMEL
MICHAELOLEARY.


Get it?

Ooooops:D

[Danny]

Obviously there are too many Muppets who have problems dealing with facts. These same Muppets seem to have a habit of being unable to differentiate between reality and the unstinting bravado of some anonymous posters on this thread.

I will close this thread because this is not the Muppet show. Before I do so, I will point out a few facts, for what they're worth, in the vain hope that those Muppets get the reason that it is almost impossible to have a thread on here that mentions Ryanair without their (Muppets) ill informed and excitable contributions.

This thread was about the approaches by Ryanair aircraft that made the news over the last year or so where there were gross breaches of safety. They included those at Ciampino, Skavsta, Cork amongst others.

This thread was NOT about the numerous approaches made into Stansted last year during LVP's by many aircraft from four different airlines. There is a separate thread about those incidents.

Finally, there are a few very excitable types on this forum that do honestly believe that Leo Hairy Camel is indeed Michael O'Leary. Well, I know you don't want to hear this but prepare yourselves for a let down... it isn't him. It is just a Ryanair line captain who would love to be him and just loves it when the Muppets fall for his point of view and get all frothy thinking that they're actually debating with the real Michael O'Leary.

So with those few points above having been made, I will now close this thread so that the Muppet show can finally be laid to rest. :rolleyes: :ugh: