Ryanair pax held for 3 hours in 50C heat, then evac by slide

[HundredPercentPlease]

Sadly, the thread here has been deleted, I hope not as a result of threats from the FR legal team.

So, rather than raise any allegations here that may be false, can we comment on a story published elsewhere?

Original in Spanish (http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2011/06/16/andalucia_sevilla/1308230431.html)

Another report in English (http://www.typicallyspanish.com/news/publish/article_30943.shtml)

The press report that the pax were held in a closed aircraft for 2-3 hours without any APU air conditioning, nor external conditioning air. The temperature in Seville was around 37C, and the aircraft reportedly reached around 50C. The Captain explained that the APU was inop.

No water was available, other than "3 or 4 bottles" which were given to children.

Eventually a pax took matters into his own hands and opened a door for air. The slide deployed and the pax decided to get out.

One child was hospitalised with dehydration (the ambulance went to the aircraft).

This sounds like a cautionary tale for Captains failing to think outside of the normal flow. No APU, long slot, hot day, missing ASU? The wrong decision may end up being very expensive, not just in terms of a blown slides and hospitalised pax but also plenty of negative publicity.

[BigFrank]

Having contributed a number of press reports from Spanish media last night I was disappointed to see it had been pulled this morning.

One very unclear element for me at least is that one of the press reports suggested that the plane was already heading back to the terminal at 14:50 when the chute was deployed. (The original timing was for 12:00 take off apparently.)

Strange ?

[ross_M]

If the APU was inoperative why was the Captain even worried about making his departure slot? Is a defunct APU on the MEL? Or was he planning on getting it repaired on tarmac and then take off?. :confused:

[McNulty]

You can go without the APU in accordance with the mel so long as you have two sources of electrical power (both engine driven generators).

[Lord Spandex Masher]

Is this possibly an example of the dilution of experience?

[wayupthere]

This is nothing to do with experience, it's called common sense, something sorely lacking in the industry these days :ugh:

According to the Spanish news the pilots didn't care as they "had air cond in the flight deck".
I must of missed the fcom section on how that works!

[HundredPercentPlease]

You open a DV window on one side, and a DV window on the other. The air blows through the flight deck and it feels OK (but paperwork can blow about a bit).

The cabin windows, though, are more tricky to open.

Why didn't the captain order the doors to be opened to at least have some air flowing through the aircraft?

Why wasn't the pottable water from taps served to passengers?


To be "ready" for a slot (ready message) you need the doors closed. Of course you can work round this with a little bit of thought, but that seems to be lacking here.

I have no idea why the (rather nasty) potable water wasn't offered.

[forget]

The potable water is not drinking water :p

Flower159. I'm genuinely curious. What did you think potable meant?

[KBPsen]

ross_M,

You really ought to test the water before jumping in head first, so to speak.

[jackx123]

had the same situation about 20 years ago in BKK.

easy handled.

position CC at exits and open without stairs. as we did, put a locked catering trolley across so no accidents would happen

order stairs, catering or whatever needed for pax. as far as i recall singha was the most preferred bev :D

this seems to be pi$$ poor decision making by pic

[grimmrad]

For exactly that reason (sitting around and not letting people go) the US made it I believe a federal law that airlines are to be fined. The DOT threatened fines as high as $27,500 per passenger against airlines that kept passengers stranded on runways for three hours or more. This was extended to any airline (also international) after a blizzard in NYC. One Cathay Pacific flight that originated in Hong Kong and was diverted to Toronto before landing in New York sat for more than 10 hours at the tarmac.

I would as a SLF in such circumstance - negligent crew and airline, heat, no supplies - call the police and report a hostage situation. And there is precedence for that... (If I remember correctly in that case a commuter plane had to divert and land due to weather in route, nobody available to service the gate, they had to sit overnight in the plane and were not allowed to leave it for security reasons. In this case the crew tried desperately to get the pax of and I believe a passenger called 911 which helped matters...)

[cjags]

position CC at exits and open without stairs. as we did, put a locked catering trolley across so no accidents would happen



Seems like an accident waiting to happen to me! I know this is 20 years ago, but an aircraft full of pax, slides dis-armed, exits blocked with catering trolleys? I'd rather take my chances in the 50 degree heat!

[gcal]

The crew must have been aware of what this pax intended. If they had disarmed the slide the problem would not have escalated to such an extent.
If I had been in the same situation I would have done what the pax did; there are limits as to what people should be expected to put up with.
However, I would have disarmed the door first!
Likewise in an emergency situation I do not think that I would wait around for any instruction to evacuate - it'd be a case of 'follow me folks' or a size 46 boot in the back of someone reluctant to move.

[BigFrank]

As reported online by Spanish news radio SER

www.cadenaser.com (http://www.cadenaser.com)

and then put Ryanair in search box

La compañía Ryanair ha remitido un comunicado en el que explican que el vuelo FR9342 que tenía previsto salir del aeropuerto de San Pablo ayer a las 12.50 horas con destino a Pisa, sufrió un retraso de 1 hora en debido a un problema técnico, que provocó la avería del sistema de aire acondicionado a bordo.
Explica la compañía que el capitán siguió las instrucciones de la torre de control para mover el avión a una posición diferente y esperar a la asistencia técnica.
Entonces, "un pasajero abrió la puerta de emergencia del avión y desplegó la rampa de evacuación, desde ese momento, todos los pasajeros fueron obligados a desembarcar por parte del capitán ya que ese avión ya no podía operar con un tobogán desplegado", aseguran. Ante esta situación, los responsables a bordo avisaron a la policía para que se hiciera cargo de los pasajeros "responsables de este trastorno", a los que califica en su nota de prensa de "insubordinados". Mientras, el resto del pasaje, continuó su viaje en un avión de reemplazo con un retraso de 4 horas.
Ryanair se disculpa en su comunicado por el retraso y las molestias causadas.

Technical problem...caused a/c failure....Captain followed orders from tower to move to another spot and await technical help....all down to the passenger who operated the chute....reported him to police...4 hour delay...passengers left on different plane...Ryanair very sorry for inconvenience caused.

Now that is very significantly different from the story reported overnight in the Spanish media. To concentrate on one of many issues, the insistence by airport company AENA that Ryanair had been responsible for an initial 45 minute delay due to a failure to ask the company involved to provide a tow-tug, mentioned in 4 seperate media reports yesterday is wholly absent from this version !

In addition the website claims that the local politicians in Andalucia seem to be finally noticing the problems their constituents face travelling with Ryanair. (I´ll post that later.)

No further mention however of the conundrum which I mentioned earlier; that the plane was apparently heading back to the terminal when the chute was deployed.

[BigFrank]

The previous SER website gives, on the Ryanair search box, a link to an audio interview broadcast on radio with the boss of the "UCE Andalucia" which is the official consumer protection body in the region.

To summarise:

He asserts that Ryanair failed to implement EU 261/ 2004 in this case

He expresses concern that this is far from the first time locally

He says that EU 261/ 2004 ignoral was only the tip of the iceberg yesterday

He wrings has hands with studied Andalucian politico-judicio-adminstrativo elegance.

[Nicholas49]

A couple of thoughts:

- was this captain more worried about cancelling the flight and messing up the schedule etc. at the expense of the well-being of her/his passengers? Is that why she/he kept them onboard for so long?

- did he/she leave the flight deck to see what the situation was in the back?

FWIW, I've had a couple of similar experiences, both well handled.

1) BA @ Naples. There was no air-conditioning in the cabin while we waited for clearance to push back and start engines (I don't remember why). The temperature was becoming unbearable. However, I do remember that the captain kept the passengers informed regularly and said that if we had to wait much longer, he would disembark us. That reassurance helped. Was any given here?

2) Ryanair @ Nimes in south of France. Awaiting clearance due to the ATC delays in France last year. We waited on the tarmac for ages. The 'mature' American captain left the front door open and kept coming back into the cabin to see how things were. From my brief conversation with him, he definitely did not strike me as as SOP-before-airmanship man. :) Same airline, probably different crew showing how it can be done properly.

[TURIN]

I have no idea why the (rather nasty) potable water wasn't offered.

The water system needs to be pressurised from an air source.

IF APU inop or bleed air problem then no air, probably. Not familiar with this particular type but it is common on many aircraft.

[sb_sfo]

May or may not be applicable in this case, but big Boeing iron have electric compressors to pressurize water systems when bleed air isn't available. Takes a few minutes to get pressure up, but it works almost well enough to stop the leaks at the taps:ugh:

[Mikehotel152]

It seems there are very few facts available on this thread by which to make a judgment on the actions of the operating crew; certainly not as many facts as were available to them.

[Dan Winterland]

I hope for Ryanair's sake the APU really was U/S. I mention this as last year I took a ''low cost'' flight in a 737 (not RYR) and while waiting for an hour on the ground in Rome in the middle of summer for our slot, there was no air flowing into the cabin, except for a very slight breeze from the open doors. The temp in the cabin got to about 45 by my estimate and I asked one of the cabin crew if the cpatain was going to do something about it. The immediate response - without any hesitation was ''airconditioning is broken''. However, I noticed we had no problems starting the engines during the pushback or pressurising in the climb.

Having spoken to someone else with a similar story, I suspect the ''low Cost'' philosophy doesn't allow using fuel for the APU for the passenger's comfort. If it turns out that in this case, the company hospitalised an infant to save a couple of hundred dollars, they are going to be in for a whole lot of trouble.

[EW73]

Couple of points about 737NG...

1/ yes they can pressurize the water system with a small electric compressor, but only if AC power is available.

2/ no, there is no way the aircon system can supply only the flight deck and not both flt deck and cabin. (but both flight deck side windows are openable!)

3/ if they were awaiting a time slot for departure, without an APU or ground power, just how was the navigation system going to be ready for departure? That would be around 10 minutes worth of delay, after AC power was available.

4/ how were they planning to start the first engine after they got the OK to depart, without an APU or GPU?

5/ that MEL regarding departing with no operating APU is good if both IDGs are operating, and the airplane battery(s) are fully charged, which would not have been the case if the pilots were operating on standby power to drive the VHF-1 radio (amongst other stuff) for ATC comms during this extended delay, with no AC power available.

All this doesn't make sense, as reported.

[no sponsor]

I previously worked for another LCC (i.e. not RYR), but general policy is to not use the APU for air conditioning while on the ground in a turnaround. The APU uses fuel, so of course it is cheaper to have it turned off. It sounds as though RYR policy is to only use the APU for engine start. Our airline allowed us to use the APU if things got too hot and cool the cabin; down to the crew to make the decision on the day. In my current airline, there is absolutely no problem in using the APU to cool the cabin.

If the aircraft you are on pushes back and starts its engines normally then it will have a working APU and consequently could have used that for cooling the aircraft. Normally if the aircraft starts its engines on the stand it is probably using an external air cart and the APU is inop. Most big airports will have air-conditioning systems on the stand and these can be plugged into the underside of the aircraft and cool air pumped into the cabin (which is better than the APU) but this is of course something which is charged to the airline.

So, it is all about money and looking after passenger comfort. Some care, others obviously do not.

[10 DME ARC]

Slot/Doors - Most places I've worked will not put a ready message in for you unless doors closed!

[Mikehotel152]

@EW73 + no sponsor

I've seen FR aircraft operating without an APU in accordance with the MEL; others using ground-source airconditioning when available; and many using the APU if the GPU is unreliable or when outside air temps are below 10 or in the twenties. The fuel burn is not an issue; it is normal practice in FR to use the APU in these circumstances. Waiting for a slot on battery power alone for more than a few minutes is contrary to policy and most unlikely for all the reasons you mention!

Let's wait for the facts. :ok:

[Dawdler]

Let's wait for the facts. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

But for how long? All the evidence is available, as is access to all participants and the airport itself will have some record of what happened. Is all we are waiting for is the airline to massage the facts into something less damaging for them?

[OFSO]

Gentlemen, gentlemen...this is RYANAIR for heaven's sake ! Says it all, no need to post criticism......

(Water, Ducks, Back).

[Runway101]

One Cathay Pacific flight that originated in Hong Kong and was diverted to Toronto before landing in New York sat for more than 10 hours at the tarmac.

I was stuck on a CX flight at the gate in Hong Kong for 7 hours in 1999, for a 1.5 hours flight to Taipei. Seems standard practice for CX. On the other hand, this happened just days before China Airlines flight 642 crashed in bad weather, so I am glad they didn't push it.

[Mikehotel152]

All the evidence is available

I suppose you read red tops, Hello magazine and watch soaps every night. It's in the newspaper and on TV so it must be true...

Tech problems that were or weren't being fixed, remote stands, gates, delay for tugs, a non-functioning APU, a slot, 37 degrees, 50 degrees, less than 2 hours, more than 3 hours on the tarmac....

We don't know any facts; just allegations.

[Nicholas49]

Mike - we do know from the airline's own statement, however, that a passenger felt the need to open the door himself.

You have to admit that for any reasonable person to do this: (a) it must have been getting pretty damn hot in that cabin; and (b) the impression was given that the situation was not being sufficiently well handled by the crew.

[BigFrank]

¿ Not even the NAME of the airline ?

OK we´re agreed on that.

After that, I reckon "200 hysterical Italians and Spaniards invented this "so-called" incident, the Spanish media in a fit of anti-Hibernian pique printed a series of unfounded allegations without making the slightest effort to check them in marked contrast to the renowned truthfulness of Fleet Street´s finest and the ACU, the Andalucian consumer agency which mentioned failure by Ryanair on this occasion to comply with transport law EU261/2004 and also commented that the company in question had a lot of form on this front was conjoined in a bout of collective hysteria with said 200 passengers."

Mark you that´s only speculation on my part.


There might for all I know have been a real incident, 200 passengers including a 14 month old baby might have been held on the runway at outer temperatures of 37C and inner temperatures around 50C for at least 2 hours.

But it is impossible to establish any of these 3 alleged facts because:

Nobody has any idea of the measured temperature at Seville Airport between 12:50 and 14: 40 on Thursday 16th June

Nobody has any objective experience of the likely increase (or "to be scientifically objective") decrease in temperature within a fully laden aircraft on the tarmac at the temperature that day; which latter fact is admittedly impossible to establish.


The fact that this particular company no longer has its operating data quoted on Flightstats, the most commonly consulted source of data for non-experts, means that nobody will ever know what the actual period under un sol de justicia was last Thursday.

So to summarise: Nobody will ever know.

My comment ?

How very convenient for some people. For whom ? Guess !

[Shack37]

So to summarise: Nobody will ever know.

My comment ?

How very convenient for some people. For whom ? Guess !

Doesn't anybody keep a log of aircraft movements? ATC, Pilots......or do they just play dodgems all day?

[fireflybob]

I suspect the ''low Cost'' philosophy doesn't allow using fuel for the APU for the passenger's comfort.

You suspect wrong, my friend!

[WetFeet]

One complaint, allegedly, from passengers is that despite the heat, water wasn't handed out, except to babies amd small children.

Given that the potable water is unlikely to be drinkable unless boiled, how much bottled water do FR carry. I can't imagine they sell much so I suspect they carry very little.

[TightSlot]

Given that the potable water is unlikely to be drinkable unless boiled

Potable Water is, by definition, water that is fit to be consumed by humans. If you wish to dispute this, for reasons that pass understanding, please contribute to THIS (http://www.pprune.org/cabin-crew/453645-potable-water.html) thread in the CC Forum - but not here.

[WetFeet]

OK, I'll ignore that part of my comment.

My main question is, how much BOTTLED water do FR carry. That is relevent to this thread.

[cwatters]

Not sure if this adds new info..

Ryanair passengers suffer dehydration after Sevilla delay | Olive Press Newspaper | News (http://www.theolivepress.es/spain-news/2011/06/17/ryanair-passengers-suffer-dehydration-after-sevilla-delay/)

"An 18 month old baby was treated for dehydration while several adults fainted following the delay, which occurred after a compressor failed."

[lowcostdolly]

This aircraft was hardly "ready" to leave if engineers were working on it and ATC would have been so advised.

Therefore the doors should have been disarmed if it was on stand and "tech". The front steps should have been lowered and also steps could have been positioned at the rear door as well.......at cost to FR.

To answer your question WetFeet a 737 will carry whatever bottled water it's current bar packing plan allows it to and is based on previous sales. It will not be enough for 200 people in a delay situation such as this.

However FR, as does any carrier, has a duty of care to it's pax and crew. The SCCM should have been on the Captain's case requesting a catering uplift of water to be distributed on the ground in this situation if potable water was not available.......also at cost to FR.

That is effective CRM and apparently lacking here. I have never worked for FR but assume CRM is taught and therefore practiced.

The decision to put forward anything relating to pax welfare to company Ops rests with the Captain.

Edited to correct rubbish grammar/spelling. My post assumes the press release quoted above is accurate.

[JimbosJet]

You can dispute the facts all you like, but a tube with little or no circulating air containing up to 189 pax each with a body temp of around 36C added to the ambient temperature and the additional solar heating would definitely be an uncomfortable place to be and 45C is not an unreasonable figure under such circumstances.

I'm surprised there wasn't a riot, I guess the pax are used to being given an uncomfortable experience by now.

[maggot738]

Actually FR policy is that the APU can be used for passenger comfort if the ambient temperature is warmer than +25 degrees celcius or colder than +5 degrees celcius.

Never let the facts get in the way of agood story.

[Teddy Robinson]

Lets wait for the facts then hey ? then again the CEO of the airline concerned never let the facts get in the way of anything. Been in similar situation an deplaned / replaned after discussion with ops .. it's called treating your clients with respect rather than contempt.

[BigFrank]

Or with some airlines:

"Never let the theory get in the way of reality ?"

Some airlines only, mark you !

[AnthonyGA]

To answer your question WetFeet a 737 will carry whatever bottled water it's current bar packing plan allows it to and is based on previous sales. It will not be enough for 200 people in a delay situation such as this.

Bottled water will not make much difference in a situation like this. At 45° or 50° C, passengers would have to be sitting in the middle of a windstorm in order to stay safely cooled by perspiration alone, and there was probably no air movement at all inside the cabin. Even with ventilation running, the air movement would be far too slow to help at all at these temperatures. At these temperatures, in fact, heatstroke is possible, and since heatstroke can cause brain damage in just a few minutes, this level of heat is a medical emergency rather than merely a comfort issue.

Since no one developed heatstroke, apparently, either the temperature was actually considerably lower, or they were extremely lucky. At 45° C, air conditioning is the only safe option.

[corsair]

Coincidentally I was on a Ryanair flight very recently about to start, APU whining away in the background, when it suddenly wound down and everything went black. I mean everything, not even the emergency lights. Most unusual. Glancing into the flight deck that too was dark. After a bit there was some lighting but no air. This was at a Spanish airport. It got very hot, very quickly, indeed the woman beside me commented that she felt she could hardly breathe such was density of the air. I felt the same and from the reaction of others around me there was a bit of disquiet. I turned to my wife and assured her that they would probably plug in an air cart and that duly happened, coolness was restored.

An Engineer appeared, entered the flight deck and started pushing buttons and soon whatever the problem was went away. The British Captain then came on and explained it was a 'serious technical issue' We left late but curiously arrived on time.:hmm:

But whatever, being left in the dark, with that heat, even with the doors open made quite an impression. So it's understandable that someone took things into his own hands after an extended period sitting there slowly broiling with minimum explanation from the flight deck.

At a minimum there does seem to be a failure on the part of the crew to keep the passengers reassured. But I also think it would be wrong to simply suggest it's just a Ryanair thing. It could easily happen in other airlines.

[Snow_Owl]

You'd have probably got arrested. Thats the way things seem to go down these days.

[cavortingcheetah]

Perhaps one might be excused for thinking that, from time to time, Ryanair has no Commanders or Captains in its aircraft, a role rather more often performed by the Ops clerk.

[cyflyer]

I would have been out of my seat and at the Flight Deck door demanding an explanation from the Commander as to what s/he was doing to rectify the situation.

So,... during flight if something appears awry, you would be thumping at the flight deck door to demand an explanation also ? , maybe you would like to take control and fly the plane yourself as you appear to know better than the crew ?

[Shack37]

So,... during flight if something appears awry, you would be thumping at the flight deck door to demand an explanation also ? , maybe you would like to take control and fly the plane yourself as you appear to know better than the crew ?


I believe this poster is referring to a situation on the ground. Had they been airborne then the situation described probably hadn't occurred. If the conditions were indeed as bad as mentioned just how long are pax expected to accept it before asking for an explanation?

[WHBM]

There has been a comparable (maybe worse) situation on the commuter railway in London in recent weeks, a rush hour train from St Pancras to Luton (which probably contained people heading for the airport) stuck in the tunnel for three hours, 18.00 to 21.00, with no air con or ventilation, emergency batery lights which ran down after an hour, no communication, many standing passengers packed in, etc.

St Albans passengers stranded on rush-hour train (From St Albans & Harpenden Review) (http://www.stalbansreview.co.uk/news/9052606.Passengers_stranded_on_rush_hour_train/)

In the end passengers forced the doors and got down onto the tracks, for which they were criticised, in an approach comparable to blowing the slides. It is only complete management incompetence and desperation of those involved who are left to their own devices which leads to this.

It seems that something which has happened in recent years is that transport operators of multiple types have lost the ability to handle operational failures. Such "management" as may be involved seem to be a handful 6 months out of college (this especially happens with issues outside 'normal' business hours).

[fireflybob]

It seems that something which has happened in recent years is that transport operators of multiple types have lost the ability to handle operational failures. Such "management" as may be involved seem to be a handful 6 months out of college (this especially happens with issues outside 'normal' business hours).

The mistake these companies make is to think they are in the "transportation" business whereas almost all businesses are in the "people" business - it's all about thinking what the people (whom the railway industry know refers to as "customers") really need/want and building up a good relationship with them by handling situations such as this well.

[WHBM]

Indeed. If we are not careful one day there's going to be a serious accident arising somewhere, not from operating collision or some sudden calamity, but from passengers being left in a desperately vulnerable position while the personnel are messing around complying with whatever some desk jockey or 'Elf & Saf'tey "expert" has said is the only way to do things.

[AirResearcher]

If , God forbid, someone were to have a heart attack and die in this kind of situation - whih is not impossible, would the responsibility and liability be thrown back on the Captain, or the Captains employers?
If its the employers, would it be it Ryanair (approx. 35% probability) or his external employment agency (approx. 65% probability)...or in the case of the contracted pilots, the mini-limited company that the Captain and his 2 'business associates' are 'encouraged' to set up?
I guess the same would apply for any fatal incident on Ryanair flights and is quite similar to the 'virtual airline' Manx2 denial of responsibility for the Cork crash currently under investigation?

Any thoughts anyone?

[BigFrank]

Having posted both here and on the Cork Accident thread, the question intrigues me.

I do not know the answer, as the definitive answer to complicated legal questions of this nature is only found both after they come to a head [which has happened for "Cork" but did not happen here] AND once they are brought before a court, which will inevitably happen in the fulness of time for "Cork".

Just a pity so many people paid such a high price in the latter case to give the lawyers their day in court.

It is also worrying to think that Ryanair´s employment practices might put it anywhere near the Manx2 "virtual" category. I hope you are wrong.

[L337]

If , God forbid, someone were to have a heart attack and die in this kind of situation - whih is not impossible, would the responsibility and liability be thrown back on the Captain, or the Captains employers?

I will repeat my earlier (moderator deleted) comment. A Captain has a three legged stool of responsibilities given to him by virtue of having a professional licence.

Firstly has a duty of care to his passengers. This is enshrined in common law.

Secondly he has a responsibility to the CAA or whoever issued his licence.

Finally he has a responsibility to his employee.

It would seem to me that he has failed in his primary responsibility, and that is he failed in his duty of care.

[TightSlot]

I will repeat my earlier (moderator deleted) comment. A Captain has a three legged stool of responsibilities given to him by virtue of having a professional licence.
I've checked back and can't find any deletions, mod or otherwise of any of your posts?


:confused:

[BigFrank]

Depends on the country, doesn´t it.

No common law in Spain for certain.

Not much in Ireland either I would guess.

[Justin Cyder-Belvoir]

1. The Captain's decision is final.
Repeat.

[L337]

The concept of "Duty of Care" is not just a British thing. It exists in the USA as well as Europe. It just so happens that in the UK it developed through common law.

The Duty of Care in Irish Tort Law (http://www.cpaireland.ie/UserFiles/File/students/Articles/2006LFmodified.pdf)

Duty of Care-Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_of_care)


The Captains decision might be final, but he still has to be able to justify his decisions. To the customer, the licence issuer, and his employee. He does not live in some God given bubble. As much as some would like to believe they do.

On the ground, with the doors open, the Captain's decisions are far from final.

@TS re- the deleted post. It was there, I posted, and then looked to check it had been posted. Well I thought I had. It' an age thing.

[GoingForward]

Depends on the country, doesn´t it.

No common law in Spain for certain.

Not much in Ireland either I would guess.

You're guessing wrong. The Republic of Ireland is most definitely a common law jurisdiction. In fact, it's one of the places where common-law grew up, as it's origins are in Anglo-Norman (English) law.

It has all of those concepts in law like duty of care etc etc.
It's also one of the most litigious countries in the world other than the United States.

Law suits of all types are very common.

I'm not sure whether this would fall into Ireland's juristiction though as the flight was operating between Spain and Italy, even if Ryanair are Irish-registered, you could find the contracts of sale are not.

[leisen]

Duty of care is also present in Spanish Criminal Law as a General Principle. In this way, probably the captain would be responsible in case of an eventual death of a passenger.

[Nicholas49]

Thought I would offer some perspective on the legal aspect of this incident and 'give something back'. Must make clear though I am no expert on either Spanish or Irish law so what I say comes with a heavy English law bias.

The fact that the airline is an Irish-registered company and this incident happened in Spain does not really complicate matters as a result of:

Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (full text here (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2001:012:0001:0023:EN:PDF))

In particular Article 5(3) copied below with my additions in square brackets:

"A person [the airline] domiciled in a Member State [Ireland] may, in another
Member State [Spain], be sued: in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict, in the courts for the place where the harmful event occurred [Lanzarote, Spain] or may occur;

Consequently, this European law would enable a Spanish (or any other EU national for that matter) passenger on this flight to sue the airline in Spanish courts for any tort committed. The most likely tort would be the tort of negligence committed by the commander and potentially also his employer, the airline, through employers' liability - as expained by L337), although this would obviously have to be proven in court.

The advert at the bottom of this page (no, not the one of an aircraft) is very distracting. ;)

[ExXB]

Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (full text here (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2001:012:0001:0023:EN:PDF))


That Regulation puts the Montreal Convention 1999 (MC99) into effect in all EU member states (not only to/from EU MSs, but in these countries as well) MC99 is the successor to the Warsaw convention.