View Full Version : Ryanair and 900 hours a year limitation?

25th May 2002, 09:51
I was under the impression that there was a 900 hours per year restriction on the flight time of pilots under JAA. I have heard STRONG rumours that the pilots in Ryanair are being PERSUADED to overfly the 900 limit .

Is there any truth in this and is it indeed a limit or not??

25th May 2002, 10:00
They could always do what my last company did i.e. 'lose' the records!

Bally Heck
25th May 2002, 10:08
I think JAA have not yet negotiated a common FTL scheme. Each carrier has to (appear) to conform to national regs. CAP371/FAR121 or whatever. Don't know what the Irish reg are.

25th May 2002, 10:25
Difficult to lose the records when your log book is an official record of your hours.

IAA limit is 900 per year

Pvt. Godfrey
25th May 2002, 10:34
My sister Dolly tells me she is shocked at your suggestion longferterride. The gallant pilot force at Ryanair haven't been persuaded at all.

As she pointed out a few weeks ago the persuasion was applied to those lovely people at the Irish Aviation Authority. For the second time they have zeroed the pilots 900 hour cumulative records - so no problems coping with the summer program then!

Obviously the troops are joyful at being able to help out in any form of creative accounting. Dolly asks me to point out, rather grimly I thought, that the first time she offered this little tit bit of news not a single member of the usual cheerleading squad rebutted her.

Where's a flying irishman when you need an accurate putdown on a serious safety issue she asks?

Captain Stable
25th May 2002, 10:37
That's a very worrying and serious accusation.

What hope is there for any of us - crew, passengers, anyone - if the one body responsible for overseeing safety standards and the regulations (which are, let's face it, basically there for safety) quite blatantly flouts them itself?

Would anyone from the IAA care to comment on this allegation?

25th May 2002, 12:28
FR want to raise the yearly limits to 1300 hours.

25th May 2002, 15:58

Yes that is correct. The point being that the CAA (in the UK) only look at the company records. Our CAA Ops. Inspector was as useful as a chocolate teapot.

The choice was do it or look for another job. Some companies lose (note one 'o') records when it suits them.

Much the same way in which deliberate adding errors would be made to the loadsheet in order to reduce the weight below MTOW.

The company I refer too is no longer in business but these operators will always be with us.

25th May 2002, 18:35
If the IAA are NOT sanctioning this flexible accounting of hours and indeed still wish their pilots to abide by the 900 hours limit, where does it leave the poor unfortunate pilot on the day of an incident? Of course the company will stand behind the pilot and admit that they made him fly for fear of his job. I can hear the lawsuits now!!

What a terrible situation your job or your licence. Doesn't sound like Ryanair can even spell flight safy. :mad:

Bally Heck
25th May 2002, 19:03
On a brighter note. If there was an accident, god forbid, and if the company is flouting the law, then some of the directors could find themselves spending a very long time showering with their backs to the wall.;)

25th May 2002, 21:08
At Ryanair, the hours were originally worked to a rolling twelve month 900hr limit. This year the hours were zeroed on April 1st. Therefore, the new limitation is 900hrs from April 1st to March 31st every year.

Pitts S2B
25th May 2002, 22:00
If you fly for a living there are two things that you should never do

Anything that puts your life in jepoardy.

Anything that puts you licence in jepoardy.

You are better off unemployed than doing something that could put you out of a livelihood for ever.

If you get caught then you do bear some of the resposibility.

25th May 2002, 22:23
Pitts S2B

What a wonderfully pious statement.

25th May 2002, 23:01
Guy´s I know for a fact that Ryanair does take this 900 hrs per year very seriously. I know that it is a hard job to pu t the schedule together with regards to hrs. i know also that if accidents happen and they have and men go over 900 hrs per year they are put on a 1 months leave, and I know men who have done that. ( 1 hour is enough to do this) Ryanair is a professional company which does every thing by the book and doesn´t cut corners.

Pvt. Godfrey
25th May 2002, 23:06
My sister Dolly is immensely reassured by config's reply.

So, FR and the IAA were simply tidying things up - indeed they like things to be so tidy that it is the second time in less than 4 years that they've got the dusters out and zeroed the hours.

Dolly thinks it's really about time these progressive ideas caught on. So no messy individual rolling year anymore - it runs from April to March - a sort of administrative year.

That's it! Just like the administrative week that the UK CAA are presently banning because of the long and dishonourable history of roster abuse and fraud it created.

So in reality it's the CAA who are the dinosaurs for insisting on maintaining records of rolling hours for every statutory time limit.

Well done Dublin and trebles all round:eek: :eek: :eek:

Oh, who do you think you are kidding Mr...............

26th May 2002, 06:44
All very strange this zeroing of the hours since a gentleman at the IAA stated that Ryanair had only been allowed to zero the hours on the proviso that NO ONE went over the 900 hours in the process of doing it. Meaning that even though on paper the hours were zeroed as of April 1, no one was allowed to pass the 900 limit due to the zeroing. As he put it it was a paperwork exercise.

As for MINDTHEGAP yes prior to April 1 (a very apt date) the 900 was taken seriously, and will be again come next April Im sure. In the meantime I am aware of quite a few people who have pointed out the fact that they are going over the 900 hours and been told to put up or shut up as it were!!

26th May 2002, 08:51
Hello Uk. CAA wake up!! this is happening on your patch!! they,re not really an Irish Airline any more.Irish registery just allows them do as they wish.Hardly an even playing field for Uk registered operators and very worrying for the fare paying public travelling on what is an effectively unregulated "flag of convenience" carrier.

Captain Stable
26th May 2002, 10:24
It would be interesting to know the relative numbers of aircraft and pilots based @ DUB & STN.

I suspect that they are an Irish airline only in name and should be regulated by the CAA not the IAA.

26th May 2002, 14:44
Ryanair is as much an Irish airline as is Aer Lingus. The company HQ and flight ops are based in Dublin, all the aircraft are Irish registered so that makes them an Irish airline.

Just because they were clever enough to make full use of deregulation and base a part of their operations somewhere else does not make them a flag of convenience carrier!

26th May 2002, 14:51
Neither does it give them a right to flout regulations to their own ends!!!!

Safety's No Accident
26th May 2002, 16:25
Are we talking here of the RyanAir that seems to think that, on a flight ex-of Shannon, it's ok to start engine 2 as per normal - but to start engine 1 during the taxi to the holding point for takeoff ?!

Now whilst it may save a minute or so, one might reasonably level the accusation of 'rushing the push, start & departure' (and they did) - where of course a mind-set of excessive haste within an airliner cockpit is a dangerous thing, i.e. never forget that it's always better to be one minute late in this life, rather than years early in the next !

In that respect, and philosophising aside, the big problem they have is that their training department is either stretched to the limit and / or woefully lacking in standards (and / or unable to enforce them), and this situation is made all the worse by a lack of a 'proper' / 'strong' oversight from the Irish authorities.

It would therefore come as no surprise that RyanAir push both the letter and the spirit of the FTL's to the limit - in order to maximise their profits, by needing less crews - but that's business.

Ultimately however, what they've got is a rapidly growing airline but without the checks-and-balances that are necessary to override commercial interests in favour of those of safety. This is bad / dangerous.

…………Ah well, it's just IMHO.

26th May 2002, 17:56
Flying Irishman

The registration of the aircraft in not relevant in determining whether Ryanair is an Irish airline. The test under both EC legislation and the Chicago Convention is where an airline has it principal place of business. There is no accepted definition of principal place of business so far as I am aware. However I agree that the location of the company HQ and flt ops, together with significant services out of Ireland make it hard to argue that its principal place of business is not Ireland.


Captain Stable
26th May 2002, 21:26
The company HQ and flight ops are based in Dublin, all the aircraft are Irish registered so that makes them an Irish airline.So, if I were to start an airline, have the HQ and ops in Azerbaijan, all the aircraft on the Azerbaijan register, but every one of them based in France with French crew, would that make it an Azerbaijan company? Don't talk rot.

26th May 2002, 21:54
Within Europe, it does not matter where the company is based.

After all everyone is operating to JAR-OPS 1 requirements and with the exception of the UK using the same currency.

That is what an open market is all about.

Ryanair is an Irish run European Airline with bases in a number of countries. As long as the aircraft are registered in a European country, there is nothing anyone can say.

If the CAA can't talk to the IAA about any concerns then there is no point in UK operators crying.

FTL abuse is just as rife in the UK. Have a read of "Feedback" to see some of the reports.


Captain Stable
26th May 2002, 23:00
Wrong on several counts, DFC.

Firstly, nothing like everyone is operating to JAR's yet. Secondly, even if they were, there are numerous "differences" filed from one state to the next, so there is less of a common denominator than you might expect. Thirdly, it is still up to the individual regulator to ensure compliance from airlines registered in their respective states. So if one regulator is unwilling or unable to apply the regulations correctly or at all, there is a resultant commercial advantage for those airlines, at the expense of safety.

26th May 2002, 23:18
So let me get this straight.

The IAA, referred to in another thread as the downtown office of Aer Lingus, the same IAA which is 'owned' by the Dept. of Public Enterprise (until last week run by Mary O'Rourke, arch-enemy of MO'L) is dropping its pants and bending over to allow Ryanair to do as it wishes regardless of the spirit of the rules ? I would have thought they would have been looking for the slightest excuse to shaft Ryanair.

What am I missing ? :confused:

Send Clowns
26th May 2002, 23:34

Just a thought : if Ryan Air put pilots on leave if they approach or slightly overstep their 900 hours (the only reasonable response to this problem) then why are they changing to a common timing of the rollover? This would mean that towards the end of March all the pilots in the company that had come to this event (which if the pilots are worked as hard as rumour here has it must be quite a number) would be on leave. This would hit them with terrible rostering problems, and might tempt them into crew duty mishandlings similar to those of which AerLingus have been accused. Alternatively it would create huge cost burdens and terrible management dilemas (having to wet lease routes perhaps or cancel all other leave for this period) that will not be good for the airline.

Either way this seems a dangerous practice as has been suggested in previous posts.

26th May 2002, 23:45
Might it be that pilots are cheeper to hire in in the Winter than in the Summer.

Also it is a short term fix till the next year since this creative accounting ensures that all the pilots are in hours THIS summer. Next year is a way away and who knows the tricks to be employed then!!

Adverse Jaw
27th May 2002, 15:51
Some years ago, I wished to convert my UK licences to Irish CPL/IR and Instructor Rating. I was duly given flight tests, one after the other by a member of the IAA. (In fairness he did pass me) During the course of conversation, this gentleman revealed that the only licence he held was a PPL with less than 100hrs TT. He also went on to proudly proclaim that he was also the Irish representative on ICAO committees concerned with Airfields, Navigation, Licencing etc. for all of which he was equally unqualified. This level of expertise within the IAA in effect makes Aer Lingus self-regulating, I wonder whether their insurers realise the fact.
So, when one wonders at some of the absurdities being pushed out by the JAA, it should come as no surprise with so many little states punching above their weights.
And on a similar vein, an aquaintance strolled across the tarmac to visit a Ryanair 737 recently, to find the crew sleeping on the pax seats in the course of a 'split duty'. So here we have a foreign registered airline, but largely based in the UK, hammering the opposition, while enjoying a different set of rules, unfettered by the heavy hand of the CAA, overseen by ..... effectively, nobody.

Jambo Buana
27th May 2002, 16:13
SAFETY'S NO ACCIDENT - If your statement about a Ryanair a/c taxiing out and starting its second engine is true. What date and what flight number are we talking about?

I simply don't believe it!

Jambo Buana
27th May 2002, 16:29
...900hrs in ANY calendar year."

I believe this is the statement in the Statutory Instruments that Ryanair has decided to interpret as 01st April to 31st March. Would a lawyer be able to stand up in court and argue in favour of Ryanair's interpretation?

Don't a number of European states allow 1000hrs / year?

At the end of the day a guy will fly 900hrs maximum inside this specified 12 month period.

27th May 2002, 16:36
Jambo Buana,

I don't know about the 737, having never flown it, but 2 other twinjets I have flown had "Deferred Engine Start" procedures which allowed you to taxi out on one engine - nothing wrong with it as long as the procedures are observed. In fact the manufacturer even recommended the practise. The purpose was fuel saving rather than time saving which seemed to be implied in an earlier post.


Jambo Buana
27th May 2002, 17:03
It could be attempted in the 737, however, quite complicated in terms of set up and also quite attention demanding. The Ryanair SOP's certainly don't cover this kind of non-normal activity. That is why I don't believe it ever happened in the first place.

Possibly the crew had to taxy to a remote area for a crossbleed start. In which case a single engine taxy may have occured. Knowing the ramp at Shannon well however, I doubt this theory.

Every airline has a few plonkers, but I don't think an FO or Capt in Ryanair would do something like this purely to save time.

basil fawlty
27th May 2002, 19:26
Give them (FR) enough rope and they'll hang themselves eventually. Its the innocent people down the back that they will take with them when the time comes (and the way things are going IT WILL COME) that really upsets me.

27th May 2002, 20:17
Basil faulty

what kind of statement is that to come out with. If you are a pilot you should be ashamed of your self to wish that on anyone. If some incident did occur, would you sit back and wring your hands saying ' I told you'. what exactly do you have to say about the people that work for Ryanair.

basil fawlty
27th May 2002, 20:36
I suggest you reread my post I'm not wishing anything on anybody. I hope an "incident" does not occur, but under the current company culture I think one will, sooner or later. Standards and limits exist for a purpose, and to keep pushing the boundaries in this and other ways is good for nobody. Personally I would not fly for/on Ryanair if it were the last airline on earth. That is my personal opinion, and thats what 99% of these forums are...personal opinions. What you or others do is entirely up to you, but if you feel FR are above criticism or debate then I'm afraid we have a disagreement here.

Safety's No Accident
27th May 2002, 22:33
Jambo Buana - I personally wasn't on the flight in question, but my Chairman was - and let's just say that he's a chap who's more than a little familiar with aviation; i.e. not just as a pax.

Indeed, paraphrasing what he said (and in order to save a few blushes on either side), "One might give them a try just the once, but never, ever, again !"

28th May 2002, 15:53
Cant understand the anti-ryan tone of so many contributors.On the issue of 900hrs,this is applied in ryanair ops,runs fm 1 april to31march, and if anyone goes over 900 they are grounded for a full month. this applied to at least 4 of us in Stn last year.
What is totally offside is the stupid comments fm others re safety. I reckon ryan has been flying for 15 years now without incident, due in lerge measure to excellent pilots, great training, 20new 800's and 100 more on way. Criticise fares policies,mol all u like but not our safety standards & record. 15years, 12m pax p.a.,speaks for itself, and as Roy Keane might say -''f--k de begrudgers'.'

28th May 2002, 17:24

Thanks for actually providing facts. All these "safety concerns" people apparently know about don't refer to any facts. If Ryanair's operation was as dodgy as people claim, the IAA would have stepped in long ago. This hasn't happened and according to their spokesperson there is nothing to be concerned about regarding safety.

As you say, 15 years of safe operations and 12m passengers p.a. speaks for itself.

basil fawlty
28th May 2002, 19:25
FlyingIrishman, ILUV2FLY,

What happens in the next ten minutes is infinately more important than what has happened over the last 15 years of FR's history. I was refering to what might potentially happen in the future. With regards to the plentitude of "safety concern" chat that is going around right now, isn't there an old line that says "no smoke without fire"? I sincerely hope that the IAA actually do have the balls to act if and when they need to, hopefully they will not be out on a long lunch or something.


Blue Orion
29th May 2002, 11:31
Poms slagging off Ryanair becomes a bit tedious.

29th May 2002, 11:45
To basil f and any of the other anti-ryan mob, heres what will happen in the next 10hrs or so (ie today). I estimate that ryanair will operate over 300 flts on a/c that have all been thru rigorous overnight checks,with no c/fwd defects. These a/c are maintained to JAR145 and last audit was i believe in Mar and according to Dep. head of Eng. we got a clean bill of health. The a/c will be op by well trained pilots, all of whom op in full compliance with JAR OPs, each of whom will fly 4 or 6 sctrs as part of a 4 or 5 day roster with 3 or 2 days off as per a roster that was issued over 5 weeks ago and which doesnt change.
Compared to others (and sincere best wishes to all friends &colleagues in E.I.)we could be a lot worse. THe point basil f, is criticise policies, mol, etc, but please keep quiet about non-existant concerns abt safety,there are none. You only belittle professional colleagues here in ryan and at all other airlines.

Doctor Cruces
29th May 2002, 12:04
Is it FR SOPs to career off the runway onto the hi speed turnoff at LPL with the reverse buckets still deployed and decelarating madly all the way to the end? Please don't anyone say they can't have done that because I saw it happen, and not only once.

The number of other alledged incidents (not in the official meaning, obviously) previously reported in these pages leads one to assume then that FR have an SOP for every seemingly dodgy practice. That is if a recent post here is to be believed about rigid adherence to SOPs.

Not having been a 737 operator, the above may be perfectly acceptable, just looks very iffy to me.

Would welcome elucidation on this point from anyone in a position to do so.

Doc C.

Captain Stable
29th May 2002, 13:06
There seems to be a misconseption that an airline without safety-related incidents is a safe airline, and that an airline that has a significant number of safety-related incidents is not safe.

This is a dangerously sel-satisfied attitude, and far from the only attitude that matters where aviation safety is concerned, which is that of being proactive and professional.

To state that things at FR must be good because the IAA hasn't stamped on them is also a non sequitur. There are very significant concerns about the IAA's regulatory attitude at present.

There are many, many people out there who have witnessed countless instances of poor airmanship by FR pilots. (FR, however, it must be pointed out, are not the only employers of such pilots). So far, my conclusion is that FR have been lucky. I sincerely hope that they remain so. I prefer, however, to rely on things a little more tangible than luck.

29th May 2002, 13:19
with the reverse buckets still deployed and decelarating

Doctor C: I have ABSOLUTELY NO wish to become embroiled in any FR/safety/whatever issue.

I post this only for clarification for you since you have asked.

Acceptable Boeing 737 practice is to stow the 'buckets' when at taxy speed. Quote from an Ops manual - "At 60 kts, reduce reverse thrust to be at idle reverse when reaching taxi speed".

Use of reverse, therefore, on a slip is by no means wrong - as long as the Ops manual allows it. One would expect the 'buckets' to be stowed when at normal taxy speed.

Doctor Cruces
29th May 2002, 14:22
Thanks BOAC.

Doc C.

29th May 2002, 14:36
Capt stable, ur post is far beneath the standards one should expect of a moderator. Shame on u. So after 15 plus years, over 100,ooo flights p.a.,11m pax p.a., regular audits by IAA,Boeing, MAS teams from JAR, and the dutch authorities as part of their JAR OPS audit of IAA- we are just ''lucky''? This is a professional, well operated flt ops organisation whose record speaks for itself. Unlike the subjective baseless nonsense of prev 2 posts.
Can u pls revert to criticising ryan for all the rest of the worlds problems but get off safety where there is no - repeat no - case to answer.

29th May 2002, 14:48
Lets all be absolutely clear about the engine being started on taxiing. Both Airbus & Boeing along with McDonnel Douglas all
publish single engine taxi IN & OUT standard operating procedures.It can save bucket loads of fuel & time at large aerodromes with long taxyways, especially at light weights.
Whether you like it or not,and your company permit its use, is another matter.
As for the reverser buckets, no problem in my mind.

Captain Stable
29th May 2002, 15:52

Just in case you think I am merely an outsider with no knowledge of what goes on inside FR, think again. I have many years' experience in Flight Safety. I have many, many contacts. My points are, unfortunately, rather more than baseless, and very far from subjective. In order to protect the anonymity of several people, I shall not go into further details here.

I have no doubt that the vast majority of people within FR are very professional, competent and safety-conscious. There are, however, many exceptions. I have doubts about the corporate culture, about the management structure and about the financial pressures within the company. I also have significant doubts about the IAA.

I reiterate my point:- that to point at an accident-free past and make the claim, based solely upon that, that and airline is safe is not a valid deduction.

Jambo Buana
29th May 2002, 16:09
Safety is no accident -

I have reason to believe you may be right.

Like I say, EVERY airline has a few plonkers!!

Luckily they normally shoot themselves in the foot.

Let's see what happens.

29th May 2002, 17:50
I work for an Irish Company that courtesy of the IAA does its own thing. 14 hr days, reduced 'off duty' time ie 20 mins instead of 30 mins ( Adds up over our 6-2-6-3 outine ) Reporting with the CC 15 mins earlier but not counted, added to the above that is 25 mins a day on your duty. The management hate the pilots and the feeling is reciprocated. Lots waiting to get out and some are -at a rate of 10% a year, at one of the lowest times in aviation. Prior to that 50% exit rate. The management are mostly ex-Irish Air Corps with the rich avaition background that brings.

I've heard if you go sick - you are forced to undergo a demeaning medical by a GP that has to measure your ability and fitness to work for XX. Every year we have two medicals (old fart) carried out by an AME - so what. After the medical people get letters stating that their performance is being monitored . . . . .

FTDL are ROSTERED to the Max. Fatigue is emdemic. We even have to gather scraps from the PAX meal trays to be fed. This is no lie. We fly into the middle of London on double sector days after min rest etc etc etc.

Management think things are fine because they have lots of CVs 'In the bank' but things change rapidly in aviation. All that will happen is that they will continue to employ low time people or non-europeans with dubious work permits.

Hole in the ground waiting to happen - do they care? :mad:

29th May 2002, 17:58
Capt. Stable

More subjective nonsense. You doubt ryanair, doubt JARops, doubt the IAA, you must also doubt the whole jar ops process. god save us all from such self appointed ''experts''. Our 15 year record doesnt prove everything but it continues to confound all the knockers on pprune. Move on to something you might actually know something about- cos clearly u know zilch about flt ops or pilots in ryanair.

Captain Stable
29th May 2002, 18:17
No, ILUV, not subjective either, as there is plenty of evidence for all my assertions.

I have no doubts about JAA - just about the manner in which its rules are overseen and enforced by the IAA which has been shown, as I say, time and again to be toothless and ineffective.

As long as you and those like you continue to put your head in the sand, refusing to accept that people outside FR know a bit about what goes on there, you will have no credibility whatsoever.

The day that FR does have an accident there will be a queue miles long of people waiting to say "I told you so". It will be a very sad day for European aviation generally, not only because of the possible loss of life, but for jobs, for confidence in other airlines on the part of the paying public, and for all FR employees.

FR can be a major asset to European aviation. I value the competition they provide other airlines, and value the jobs they give people. They would be even more valuable if they could convince many of my colleagues in the Flight Safety community that they were safer than most people seem to think.

You seem to think I am alone in my conclusions. I am not. Furthermore, when it comes to my flight safety qualifications, I am not "self-appointed".

29th May 2002, 18:35
No Joke

Only one solution to ur problems. Leave and join Ryanair!

Normal duty day is 9hrs, but great fixed rosters of 5-2-4-3 or 9days in 14. No chance of taking scraps off pax meal trays, cos there are no mael trays, but i'm quite happy to take the extra sector pay in lieu of inedible crew meals. OK management dont love me but as long as pay increases keep coming , share options keep rising, and new 800's keep arriving (no. 21 this week)and promotions keep being made, I'll just learn to do without love.

By the way did i mention the best in business sector pay check which i get in my hot little paw each month? Over £2k last mth,and never a 14 hr day in sight. Must dash Ryan golf society tomorrow in the Hermitage -time sheet full of people just too fatigued to come out and watch events in Aer Lingus.

By the way no joke, i see fm a previous post dat u ''dont work for an irish company,but a good friend does''. Looks like de jokes on u. Just another ryan basher. Cant understand why u all bother! Get a job, get a dog, get a life.

29th May 2002, 18:48
Why is it that whenever a Ryanair thread pops us, the phrases "I've heard", "I've got friends at X Y and Z who say this", "I think", "According to so and so", "apparently" "I've heard rumours that"..........start being offered?

.......sorry, it just fails to convince the rest of us that you actually know what you're talking about!

There are a startling lack of FACTS in any of the Ryanair threads on pprune....just accusations. And when asked for facts, people retreat under the cloak of anonymity and not wanting to name names etc........all leads many to think a lot of these accusations are rather baseless.

Oh well!

29th May 2002, 19:18
Captain stable:

I really do think that you have exceeded your remit as a moderator.

How can you be a moderator (whatever that means) and slag off Ryanair constantly at the same time?

I cannot believe some of your recent comments. For example, it was BA that nearly demolished the Penta Hotel at Heathrow and nearly killed hundreds of people and not Ryanair. Are you going to tell us that they were "lucky" also and that everything was in order in their flight operations department?

Either come out from under your wonderful "title" and debate with the rest of us or stick to Latin American affairs please.

Personally, I think you should be ashamed of yourself!

Captain Stable
29th May 2002, 21:21
My intention was not to slag off RyanAir specifically. I apologise for having allowed myself to be drawn into such an idiotic argument. I know quite a bit about the internal workings of quite a few airlines. I am not fool enough to think that others are significantly different.

Every airline would prefer to keep a smooth image on the surface. To believe all their propaganda, you would think there are no arguments, no unfair pressures on any pilots to go with less fuel than they would like, no wrangles about whether such-and-such a route can be flown in 80 minutes with a 35-minute turnround, no hassles between them and handling agents, no pilots land up on the Fleet Manager's carpet with a phone book down the back of the trousers for this, that or the other infringement.

All I intended doing was pointing out the fallacy in the "We've had no accidents therefore we're safe" argument. I also pointed out that, where unprofessional airmanship is concerned, RyanAir hold no sort of monopoly. I also intended to highlight some very serious allegations that have been made in recent weeks and months about the effectiveness of the IAA. If people choose to ignore such allegations, that is up to them. As I said on a different thread, it is very worrying indeed if the safety regulators for an entire country's aviation industry are incapable of doing their job properly.

To put such allegations and rumours in the proper context, there have been many, many rude comments made over the years about the CAA. Some have alleged that they are, in effect, the regulatory arm of BA. I have never heard, however, that they refuse to enforce safety regulations.

29th May 2002, 22:29
Capt Stable,

Where did you hear these allegations about the IAA ?

If you know something about safety being compromised by Ryanair or the IAA then you MUST raise the issue officially.

If you do not, then you will share any responsibility for any accident that occurs. Saying "I told you so" after the event will not get you off the hook, it will incriminate you.

I live in Ireland and fly regularly. I may be a victim of your silence.

If, on the other hand, you are just slagging off Ryanair then you are a disgrace and have no right to consider yourself a professional.

Do you, or do you not, know something ? Have you reported it ?

If you have no evidence then you should not repeat damaging allegations on a public forum.

Captain Stable
29th May 2002, 23:12
FlyingV, since I have no official standing within any regulatory body, I am not kept fully updated on the state of relations between them and airlines.

All the items I have mentioned above have been brought to the awareness of organisations that are capable of addressing them.

30th May 2002, 07:57
Capt Stable - You suggest that you hold some standing in the flight safety community. If you are serious about your concerns then why dont you use your "many, many years experience" in flight safety and your "many, many contacts" to report them.

Its great to see another intelligent, informed and balanced debate about Ryanair.

30th May 2002, 09:19
Capt Stable:

"I apologise for having allowed myself to be drawn into such an idiotic argument".

That is precisely my point. I really do not think it is within the remit of moderators to get themselves so deeply involved in such matters nor is it in their remit to make contentious statements. You have lost a lot of my respect for so doing.

If you continue down this path the role of the moderator is going to be viewed as something akin to having Mr Al Fayeed put in charge of refereeing a Chelsea match!

I am also a bit worried about your description of this thread as an "idiotic" argument. I do not work for Ryanair but I suspect that most of their pilots are heartily sick of the puerile and largely ill-informed comments that we are constantly being bombarded with.

I have no doubt that the vast majority of the pilots who fly for Ryanair are every bit as professional as the rest of us and that they go in every morning and do a damned good job.

By the way, I seem to remember someone in the past banging on about how fast Ryanair pilots taxi. From my experience, the European leader in this field is Lufthansa.

Captain Stable
30th May 2002, 10:30
bravo.lima - read what I wrote:-All the items I have mentioned above have been brought to the awareness of organisations that are capable of addressing them.

JW - the loss of your respect is something that I am going to have to live with. As to a moderator's remit, we all have our own opinions. All speak them as they see fit, according to their qualification and experience. I am sure that FR pilots are tired of ill-informed comments. I make no attack on them. My main worry is with the corporate structure and management.

30th May 2002, 12:32
Capt Stable

Ur comments on this thread have been biased and idiotic.
If as you allege ''all the items mentioned have been brought to the awareness of organizations that are capable of addressing them''- if thats the case then I'm sure that they have been addressed, and in fact found to be complete rubbish. You dont work here, you know nothing about our safety procedures and practices so spare us any more of your baseless opinions.

Secondly your statement that you ''make no attack on ryanair pilots'' is an astounding lie. On a previous post you accused us of
''poor airmanship of FR pilots''. Such an unfounded and insulting statement is beneath contempt. Coming from a supposed 'safety moderator' shows that you are unfit to hold such a title. I believe you should apologise for such an unworthy slur, and then lets move on to more worthy subjects of comment, such as the awful situation facing professional colleagues in EI today.

Captain Stable
30th May 2002, 14:21
ILUV, please stop throwing toys out of the cot and read what I actually wrote. (Or, if you did read it, please stop misquoting me).

I stated quite clearly, and have reiterated the point, that Ryanair pilots are no less professional than anywhere else.

If you really want to believe I know nothing about FR, then please feel free to carry on doing so.

30th May 2002, 15:13
hey all you FR guys and girls.
lets ALL stop this petty bickering whilst your countrymen are under attack. the AL guys need your support - you are the only ones who can effectively support their cause.
please, don't try to make hay from the Aer Lingus strike or you may well be next.
time to put up folks.........stand firm BESIDE your AL colleagues and offer them some real and public support.

can you do this for them. will you?

30th May 2002, 16:00
I thought this thread was to be about Ryanair's method of calculating 900 hours. Instead it has become a slagging match about their alleged lack of standards. Let's keep to the point. I, for one, am fed up reading a thread and then finding it has been hijacked on to another topic.
Regarding the 900 hrs issue, FR management claim to have IAA approval for stopping and re-starting the clock on 1st April (appropriate date) every year from now on. According to a friend who works there, not one of them can produce a single scrap of paper to prove that this is the case. The concept of zeroing the hours is not new but has not been done in the British Isles before to my knowledge where the usual system is a rolling annual 900 hrs calculated at the end of each month as in CAP 371. If the company has IAA approval then show it to the pilots who only want to know where they stand. If they haven't got it then the IAA must do their job and tell both the pilots and the company. I believe that pilots who wrote to the IAA on this issue have not received a reply. I wonder why, or is the IAA also in MOL's pocket? Wouldnt surprise anyone.

30th May 2002, 17:05
Crossfeed Closed

You have a good point; either the 900hrs is a rolling maximum or there should be an exemption issued by the IAA.
If there isn't such an exemption I would have thought that the Company insurance policy could well be invalidated if pilots exceed the maximum. Of course it is not only the companies responsibility to ensure that their pilots don’t exceed the maximum FTL’s but also the responsibility of the individual.

For any airline to have a proper safety culture pilots must be able to say "No" without the fear of being sacked. A useful indication of the likely outcome is the recent case of wrongful dismissal that was settled out of court and the subsequent actions of the IAA....................

30th May 2002, 17:55

you all just keep on bickering over semantics whilst your aer lingus colleagues get screwed. it's time to stick together children i'm afraid and not squable in the playground.

if AL can get away with management by terror and sackings, then guess what - Mikey boy will be watching closely and getting ready for his turn.
if he does, then you only have yourselves to blame.

stop bickering , act like the professionals you claim to be and support your professional AL colleagues.

rant over!

30th May 2002, 22:47
Well would you believe Mikey was on Irish radio (Newstalk 106) this morning actually PRAISING the Aer Lingus management and their actions !!! What a first!!

Now why would he do that? FR boys watch out... :eek:

3rd Jun 2002, 21:26
It is you who's off the point. Of course the EI pilots deserve full support from all other professionals. Has IALPA asked the Ryanair, Cityjet and Aer Arann pilots for support? I dont think so. However, for your information Mikey O'Leary has already sacked two pilots in the last year. One was the IALPA chairman and the other was the Chief Pilots daughter. The RYANAIR pilots, including the chief pilot didnt stand up for their own two, so how can you expect help from that quarter. Funny, the chief pilot is also now gone - "retired". :mad:

3rd Jun 2002, 23:55
Duty hours and flying hours are different, we all know that. If we could fly 1200 hours a year I dont imagine there would be too many complaints if the duty hours didnt increase exponetially with the flying.
What it comes down to is more flying per duty; we have to look at the FH-DH ratio. I've done 1:4.5 / 5 and it sucks. Ive also done closer to 4 : 5 and it was terrific. More flying per duty and less messing around. Cant see much wrong with that!
1200 hours per year is only 25 hours a week. Even if you get 6 weeks off it only goes up to about 29 hours a week, or 5 - 6 flying hours per day.

4th Jun 2002, 08:11
Pauldegear up

I see in your profile you are retired.

So how much flying do you do in a day?

If you are not careful you will get the same reputation as other retired so called "experts" on this board.

4th Jun 2002, 17:03

Would love to help. However I work for another Irish Company that rules by terror. They REALLY do work us to the IAA FTLs Plus + + + + . I would like my colleges to join a union - any union, but they are scared or something ...... Any ideas?

8th Jun 2002, 21:59
Yes the issue is really the pilots and the IAA. Neither appears to have any backbone on this issue. I hear that the IAA are telling FR pilots one thing (that its a rolling 900 hrs) and yet have agreed stopping the clock with Ryanair. And yes, where would an individual pilot be if there was an accident? I bet MOL wouldn't be seen for dust. But then again he could afford the lawsuit with all he's got out of Ryanair over the years! But who would stand up for the unfortunate pilot? IALPA ? BALPA? Not very likely given their past history. Remember FR pilots - you'll be on your own.

9th Jun 2002, 17:19
When you are hanging around, having positioned from your home base to ABC and have a 2 or 3 hour wait before operating a couple or 4 short sectors which may give you 2hrs 40 mins flying in a 10 or 11 hour duty day you will have time to reflect on what is fatiguing;duty hours or flyng hours.

The whole issue is too complex to have one basic rule for all occasions and situations;the west coast to Europe long haul crews will have different needs to the east coast or far/middle east long haul crews. The high density multi sector, predominantly daytime, european operators will have different needs to the overnight freight or charter crews.

Perhaps it's about time each operator was able to agree with the authorities,unions and crews a workable FTL scheme which suits their operation.

14th Jul 2002, 06:07
thank you for pointing out some facts. here is a question for you. You say that when someone runs beyond the 900 hours in 12 months that they are off for a month - have you noticed anyone or know of anyone being out of hours for a month this year so far?

14th Jul 2002, 08:42
How on earth can 'not more than 900 hours in a year' be interpreted as anything other than 'In any 365 day period, no pilot shall fly more than 900 hours'?

Surely any half decent scheduling system software can keep an eye on rolling 365 day totals and slow down those approaching this limit so that they are not rostered for any duty likely to run up against it? Or am I being naiive in thinking that companies will not try to cheat the law for the very last pennies of revenue?

14th Jul 2002, 13:27

Stop being naive.

All companies would prefer either no rules at all or a fixed rule that cannot be abused. The problem comes when the Directors of Company A take a look at what Company B is operating and want the same.

You only have to see the continual rulings that the UK CAA have to make, where the fertile imagination of Crewing Officers and Management manage to make an interpretation of CAP371 that was never intended.

Mr Angry from Purley
14th Jul 2002, 21:22

I agree with your first comment, but not the second.
CAP371 is out of date, and open to interpretation. You get one answer from the Belgrano, and a different one from the FOI's and Inspecting Officers. The reason why "continual" rulings are having to be made is that if you compare CAP371 to Airlines within EU or Non EU they have non of the early / late / night rules that CAP371 has, no finish at 2100 b4 3 nights, they don't bother with level 1/2/3 variations (the usual subject of rulings) because they can do 14 hr days without really bothering about it. We al agree we're safer using CAP371, but the rest say well we've been doing it for the last 20 years so wots the problem!.You then refer to your first para.
:mad: :mad:

banana head
14th Jul 2002, 23:10
Well No Joke, you and I both work for the same company.
We get exactly what we deserve, no less and no more. Why ? well WE are the ones who accept 14 hr days, split duties and multiple changes to our fluid roster. WE are the ones who agree to pay well below industry averages, and who permitted new hires to start on half pay. We are the ones who often accept multiple B defects and continue to operate the aircraft for fear of repercussions should we err on the side of flight safety. WE remain quite while a fellow Captain is suspended for misinterpreting SOP's regarding use of the jumpseat, while he attempted to help by bringing stranded crew home.
We stood by while others were disiclipined/ suspended or removed from their posts for standing up to BT, GW or TR.
We are the ones who are so weak and scared, who are too busy defending our own little corner, and who always expect someone else to carry the can, that we don't speak up even when we have something important to say.
WE are the very ones who degrade and shame ourselves by loading bags on our aircraft in Dub in order to break our baggage handlers strike, and put them permanently out of work.
Management are not the problem, we are. The just take advantage of the fools that roll over with their paws in the air. If you want to see change I suggest you move on to a company that embraces their employees as an asset, rather than tolerating them as a liability. Remember, even the rats eventually leave a sinking ship.

Oh and before the pro ryan lobby start barking at me, I'm talking about the other shitty jet Irish company.

15th Jul 2002, 08:18
Good morning all.

Amazing discussions going on here. We follow it from a distance here and try to figure out what the real merits are. We think Banana Head is on the right track here.
Having said that, we got the Dutch newspaper "De Telegraaf" here this morning and it is reporting that a group of Ryanair pilots have published a report detailing what is wrong with their airline.
They ask for a full investigation by the EEC and have also asked the ECA for a full investigation.
The article quotes some topics from the report and they are so shocking and devastating that I don't dare to quote them here on this forum.
The newspaper asked Ryanair for their comment and they denied everything vehemently.

Our question is, do Ryanair pilots contributing on this forum, know that this report, written by their colleages exist ?
Both answers, yes and no, gives it an interesting twitch.

Best regards

Capt PPRuNe
15th Jul 2002, 08:56
Be warned that the 'report' you refer to is an anonymous report and because the content is extremely libelous if it isn't true, it cannot be published here. There have already been several attempts to post the report on PPRuNe and we have had to remove it each time.

Unless the person who wrote the report has the evidence and moral fibre to put their name to it then it is nothing but an attempt by someone too ignorant to realise that without verification or accountability it is useless. As for the 'De Telegraaf' posting the report then I am sure that Ryanairs legal department are going to have field day with this one.

15th Jul 2002, 09:15
a fair point Danny.

One wonders however, where the FR legal department finds time to deal with all these different issues!

It must be one of the biggest departments in the company.

15th Jul 2002, 09:29
Capt. PPRuNe,

I am with you, it was mentioned that the report was anonymus and yes, I could not believe what I was reading this morning.
But, you answered my question, the "report" is doing the rounds.
Forgot to mention that the article stated that the Scandinavian Pilot Organisation has verified the identity of the writers. So, maybe more to come.

Best regards

15th Jul 2002, 09:59
i would be interested in reading this report. I don't think it would be outwith the remit of this bulletin board if someone could advise me of a link to read this report. Thank you

Capt PPRuNe
15th Jul 2002, 10:25
Brownstar, forget it. Anyone requesting a link to the report on PPRuNe is in breach of the rules and will lose their posting rights on here.

You have been warned!

15th Jul 2002, 10:37
Capt PPrune

Point taken ! Didn't realise i'd breached the rules.

17th Jul 2002, 12:39
The Legal Department would appear to be on it. This report says that their lawyers have been instructed to issue legal proceedings against the Dutch newspaper.


Capt PPRuNe
17th Jul 2002, 13:44
Precisely why we will not allow the report to be published or linked to on here. Unless the person who wrote the report is prepared to put their name to it and provide evidence then it is useless. The fact that the Dutch newspaper felt it was worth publishing the details is irrelevant and they will have to deal with the consequences if Ryanair are successful with their suit.

The report contained many serious allegations but provided not one piece of evidence to back them up. The Irish newspaper reported: " ...we are aware of this anonymous report which we have evidence is the work of a disgruntled former pilot who was dismissed over a year ago. These allegations are entirely untrue and without foundation."

Ryanair said it had instructed its lawyers to issue legal proceedings against the Dutch newspaper.

17th Jul 2002, 15:51
Capt. PPrune aka. Danny Fyne

I'm confused!

Professional pilots RUMOUR network!
If you expect all allegations on this network to be confirmed before written as a post, how can this network call itself a rumour network ? The report in question was confirmed yesterday 16/7 by a former Ryanair pilot on swedish national news.
Even if this report hadn't been confirmed I would clearly classify it as a rumour and therefore eligable for postings on this network.

I've seen lots of posts recently being removed and the authors of the posts having their account disabled. In the rules when registering :

Although the administrators and moderators of PPRuNe Forums will attempt to keep all objectionable messages off this forum, it is impossible for us to review all messages. All messages express the views of the author, and neither the owners of PPRuNe Forums or Jelsoft Enterprises Limited (developers of vBulletin) will be held responsible for the content of any message.

By clicking the Agree button, you warrant that you will not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-orientated, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violative of any laws.

The owners of PPRuNe Forums have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic for any reason.

- If any rules have been violated here it is the freedom of speech, and that violation is not made by the authors of the posts.
The actions taken by the moderators or "senior PPruners" is a total lack of judgement and in my mind directly childish. I would say that if a newspaper publish a report with a commercial intent, that is one thing, but to refer to or copy the report in ones post with the intention of making an argument or in an attempt to start a discussion, now that's a totally different thing. If the moderators are here for the purpose of protecting the forum against abuse in the manner described in the rules when registering, that is ok. But to disable accounts and removing posts that are hot subjects in the airline industry today, because of fear of legal prosecution, then I would call it cowardness, and abuse of power.

My account is not removed yet. But if it wasn't for your post I'm sure it would have been. But before taking that step I would suggest you clearify the rules on this network and take the consequences of it i.e. This forum would lose interest in a hartbeat.

Sorry, but this behaviour towards your members seeking a discussion of hot topics is inexcusable!!:mad:

17th Jul 2002, 16:00

Simply by posting disclaimers, such as the one you quote, website managers cannot exempt themselves from the libel laws. Website managers are involved in the publication of material submitted to bulletin boards or discussion forums such as PPRuNe. Consequently, they may be held liable for the contents.

However, whether simply posting a link to a report on another site can be construed as participating in its publication - that's not at all clear. This is something that the courts would need to establish. But do you want to see PPRuNe financially ruined trying to find out???

P.S. In response to your next post - in theory a website operator could be held responsible for opinions expressed by others in the same way that a newspaper editor could be held responsible for opinions expressed on its letters page. Why? Because both are involved in the publication of the material.

17th Jul 2002, 16:41

Of course not. This network has been up to now one of my most visited sites for exchanging opinions about subjects related to my/our profession, but the freedom of speech right goes far, far beyond any webservers. As I said in my previous post, the report in question was confirmed, however my main reaction was to the behaviour of moderators towards those posting the messages in this case as the rules of the board does not say anything about the content of this report, and is very vague on what is allowed or not. And the fact that moderators may remove and disable accounts on own discretion is just totally out of place on a network meant for rumours.

Even though I'm no legal expert I question your statement that the owners of an internet domain is responsible for it's content in text of opinions of others (being a rumour network, for exhanging and discussing rumours etc.).

Capt PPRuNe
17th Jul 2002, 17:17
Since some of you are intent on dragging yet another topic off course, I will post an example of why it is irresponsible to post something that is anonymous which may contain libelous statements and therefore we do have the right to remove or edit posts.

Fokker-Jock emailed me this information:My real name is Bernhardt Johannsen and I am a pilot with Royal Norwegian. While I am not pleased about the way you run your forums I intend to publish the fact that Royal Norwegian are continually forcing pilots like myself, a junior first officer, to break the rules on flying limits. I have been told that if I do not carry out my work, even though I am fatigued, I will be suspended for breach of employment regulations. If I call in sick I will have my pay docked.

Also the captains are forced to fly the aircraft with as many as 20 or 30 defects and if they try to write new ones in the tech log they are called in to see a manager and they are threatened with punishmnet. So, we often fly aircraft that should be grounded.

I was also warned that if I continued visit certain bars I would face disciplinary action. My managers had seen me coming out of one place and because of that they have been picking on me because of my sexuality.The email goes on in much more detail but I think I may have proven my point here and I wouldn't want to embarrass Fokker-Jock any more.

Further discussion on this topic can be made in the Non-Air Transport Issues Forum. This thread should remain focussed on the title.

As far as I am aware the Dutch newspaper didn't actually publish the report but 'reported' its existence and repeated some of the allegations. I don't know how far the Ryanair legal team will get with a law suit in that case but if they can prove that the report contains lies and untruths, designed to damage the reputation of the company and the newspaper didn't try very hard to verify the information then I wouldn't want to be responsible for the purse strings there.

Inthe case of PPRuNe, it is not some large organisation with a huge budget and hundreds of staff. It is run by me and some friends with the help of over 60 moderators. Large, litigous companies will not get rich from us if they tried to sue us but they could force us to close down just by starting proceedings. So, Fokker-Jock, unless you are willing to fund any future action that may be forced upon us, and have the funds necessary then we retain the right to do what we want on this board. In over seven years we have managed to do the right thing even though I receive at least one threat of legal action every month.

You can discuss the fact that there is a report out there but you cannot disclose the content if there is a chance it is deliberatly false. Most other people realise that discussion about the behaviour of a company and its management is allowed but when there is a good chance that the discussion is malicious and possibly false then we at PPRuNe will retain our rights to edit as necessary. No preaching to me about free-speech because this website doesn't grow on a tree. Try having your say with a newspaper like this. Do you think it is as easy to get your opinions published to a large audience?

PPRuNe is not responsible if anything in the above statements and Fokker-Jock is not really called Bernhardt Johannsen and there is no airline called Royal Norwegian. If by fluke Fokker-Jock is really called Bernhardt Johannsen and/or there is an airline called Royal Norwegian then please send all solicitors threats to Nils Rassmussenson, Oslo, Norway. Tel: 0334 22 43 54 or email [email protected]

17th Jul 2002, 18:05
Wasn´t that a cruel way of getting back at Fokker-Jock for disagreeing. For me there´s a big difference between an individual and an organisation. You´ve made your point. Friendly atmosphere to follow I´m sure...

Capt PPRuNe
17th Jul 2002, 18:18
Sorry, it was meant to be a harsh but also humourous example and you may have missed the small print at the end of the post. Unfortunately my lack of eloquence and poor grammar may not have conveyed the intended humour. Apologies if that is the case but a re-read may be necessary.

17th Jul 2002, 18:34
My mistake. Sorry! I thought it was a bit too much to be coming from you. Will read the smallprints from here on.

I must admit that I made it even more funny with my reply...

:D :D :D :D

Regards// Preflight

17th Jul 2002, 22:33
Did Danney just destroy Focker Jocks career?

17th Jul 2002, 22:45
How the he.. did you get your hands on that E-mail ? :D

Now, yes you have made your point, but the way I read it, you totally missed mine. As I wrote: The allegations made in this, let's call it; "report", fake or not, was in fact confirmed by a former Ryanair pilot who was not very anonymous when appearing on swedish news yesterday. Now that in itself should be more than enough grounds for a discussion here at PPrune. My point is this: If this topic is too libelous to discuss openly here then most of us is guilty of having broken the rules of this forum at one time or another and consequently should be banned. Another thing is that if it's ok to discuss the content of the "report" then it must ok to publish it as well. Wouldn't be much point in discussing something, if just a few had a chance to read it ? It must be allowed to judge, swear at or make allegations against companies for the way they treat employees or at least for the sake of getting confirmation to rumours heard around. As Preflight wrote: There is infact a difference in making allegations against a company, organisation than towards an individual. (Didn't take your "allegations" very personal though :D)

If you don't agree that's allright. It's afterall exactly that, that makes us have a discussion and to exchange opinions. But if a group of people here, at own discreation removes accounts or edits post that make sane arguments and even referring to "reports" or other rumours, then at least clearify the rules in more detail, so that one can stear clear of any grey-zones. The fact that this "report" was referred to and published here, wasn't even close to being as libelous compared to some of the other posts made to that forum. (What does libelous mean anyway, never heard the word before :p)

But ok, I have put forward my opinion, and I agree on yours not to continue the arguments in this thread. So let's leave it at that.
Just though I should have the final word, since you revealed my sexuality and other personal information :p

hehe,, Peace!

18th Jul 2002, 07:16
Yet again another pathetic anti-Ryanair post. A disgruntled ex-employee runs to the press whinging about this and that and of course many PPRuNers jump up and down foaming at the mouth asking for MOL's head.

I've said this before time and time again on this forum that if FR were abusing the sytem, either with regards to maintenance shortcuts or abuse of FTL's then believe me the busybodys at the IAA would be on them like a fly on s**t. Anyone who has to deal with the people at Hawkins street like myself and knows the culture that exists there knows full well that there are people in there who are just waiting to pounce on MOL and they will attempt to find any excuse to do it. The IAA are mostly ex AL and Aer Corps people, now they're typical civil servants. To anyone not familiar with the scene here, Ryanair are at war with the Government, in particular the governments inefficient airport operator Aer Rianta. Government officials and civil servants despise a company like Ryanair. Privately owned and run and highly successful, no government handouts needed here thank you! It's a cultural war between Nationalisation and privatisation.

The success of a company like Ryanair is undigestable to many, super efficient with a low cost base, an anethema to those who live in the comfort zone, those who are used to easy street, working 10 to 4 with 2 hour lunches.
Airlines don't regulate themselves, it's not like Enron or Worldcom, constant audits on maintenance and operations are carried out on airlines and as I said here, any anomoly found in FR procedures would be pounced on by IAA officials and paraded about for all to see.

To many of you out there, get the facts annd if you can't find any then change the record. It's getting awfully repetitive around here.

18th Jul 2002, 10:05
"I was also warned that if I continued visit certain bars I would face disciplinary action. My managers had seen me coming out of one place and because of that they have been picking on me because of my sexuality."

I can see the point in the safety allegations, but what's wrong with the above statement?


Captain Stable
18th Jul 2002, 10:14
This is off-topic, but, Capt. KAOS, you think an airline can discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation? You think that revelations such as this should not be aired? You would want to work for such an airline? Or is it only allegations of safety breaches which can be announced here?

18th Jul 2002, 12:20
Dear Captain,

"You think an airline can discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation? "
Of course not! Some of my best friends are gay and are highly qualified for their jobs. And damn funny too!

"You think that revelations such as this should not be aired?"
Hell no! I see no relevance in referring to revelation which makes no sense?

"You would want to work for such an airline?"
Cetainly not! I'm a great advocate of personal freedom, as long as it doesn't clash with the profession. They're all great pursers.

"Or is it only allegations of safety breaches which can be announced here?"
Again no! I'm a great advocate of freedom of speach! But was has visiting bars to do with safety?

That brings me to the question: the management saw the capt. coming out of these bars.....were they there to spy on him?...... or were leaving the bar as well and spotted the capt. by accident, in other words.....calling the kettle black?



Captain Stable
18th Jul 2002, 13:01
Visiting bars has nothing to do with safety, unless consumption of alcohol outside the legal limts before flying is involved. The (hypothetical) email suggests that they are gay bars and the pilot concerned is gay, and being victimised for that by his airline.

You mention pursers in your company. This is only one of several assumptions you seem to have made in two posts. I suspect that you probably also have gay pilots. Ever wondered why they may not be "out"?

Why does the revelation not make sense? An accusation against an airline of discrimination on the grounds of sexuality is a serious matter. In the hypothetical email suggested by Danny, it would be one more nail in the coffin of "Royal Norwegian" who appear to have a very poor safety culture as well, and more grounds for possible libel suits. Hence Danny's comments.

Can we now return to the theme of the thread, which is the allegations against Ryanair?

18th Jul 2002, 13:41
Well Capt. Stable let's give it a try. I am sure that a lot of airlines these days are doing their upmost to walk the thin line and trying to squeeze the optimum / efficient hours ( read maximum) out of us overpaid, self centered and spoiled brads (read pilots). It does make you wonder if there is a future sometimes. Something like retire at 60 and 10 ft deep at 62. Maybe this is a pessimistic outlook, or may be not.

I heard that JAR FTL has a newly written draft ready for discussion, there should have been a meeting in Brussels early July about this topic. Can anyone confirm this and if so what will happen from now on??

Capt PPRuNe
18th Jul 2002, 14:29
Unless this thread gets back on track by the next post I'm closing it. Democratically decided by me and my casting vote! :rolleyes:

18th Jul 2002, 14:33
Excuse me but isn't Royal Norwegian just a pseudonym for Ryanair?

18th Jul 2002, 15:44
Oh Captain, my captain.......

Excuse me sir, are you actually reading my message or are you only looking at it?

I wasn't the one who made up that silly e-mail, just wanted to show that it didn't made any sense and I'm sure it has fooled more than one member.

And I wasn't the one who made this OT questions, being even more silly than the email itself. Silly questions, silly answers.

I agree with the democratic moddy and hope we can go back to the actual RyanAir Weight Watchers topic: "What's the fuel load this morning "?

As always, sincerely,


18th Jul 2002, 16:15
Dear Gulfpilot,

I heard the same rumour. But I shan't be holding my breath for it to be ratified. The way the existing JAR's are going at present, all the states will file differences, it will be four years (at least) before they are ratified, and then it will still be years before each company changes its FTL scheme in line with the new rules.

One does wonder, though, what is involved in "zeroing" or "resetting" 900-hour limits. As BEagle says, 900 hours per year can only mean a maximum of 900 hours on duty in any period of 365 consecutive days.

18th Jul 2002, 18:33

No rumour, the draft can be found at: http://www.europarl.eu.int/meetdocs/committees/rett/20020617/465304en.pdf . According to the newsletter of the European Parliament's RETT Committee newsletter -
http://www.europarl.eu.int/comparl/rett/newsletter/rettnews150702.pdf - the Committee approved the draft last week. The draft is an amendment to a legislative proposal to adapt JAR-OPS into EC law which is subject to the co-decison procedure (I can go into boring detail if you're interested). The next step is for the proposal to considered by a plenary session of Parliament. If endorsed by parliament it will also need to be approved by the EC Council (ie the govts of the member states). If adopted the legislation would become directly applicable in the member states with no option of differences. I think that the current proposed timescale that the legislation would take effect within 6 months of publication of the legislation.

Unfortuantely there appears to problems over the cabin crew training provisions in the draft regulation which may prevent it from being adopted.

18th Jul 2002, 18:44
900 hours a year duty time.? I think it's 900 hours a year chock to chock, not including the other duties!

You seem to be defending the ryans like they are the best thing since sliced bread. On paper they seem very successful, that can't be denied. I suspect that there is more to this than meets the eye. the real question of 900 hours in 12 months affects the whole industry because if they can fly more than 900 hours a year what hope is there for the rest of us. I would suspect that flying this amount is too much, everyone knows that 600 - 800 hours in 12 months is not unreasonable but where is the balance if you are flying every waking hour! how long can that be sustained.?

could you work 900 hours a year and more ?

18th Jul 2002, 19:39

Thanks for the EU webpages. At first sight it really doesn't look that bad to me, but it needs extensive reading to sink in. The 900 hrs. is possible but you need a computer the size of a building to get that out of a pilot, luckely. Let's see how the low fare operaters and (even worse) the Italian charters react to this.
Catzo, I canotte may ke nomore profito with all the piloti lazing aboute. :D

1000 hrs
20th Jul 2002, 04:00
Just chilled out , me and my colleages did make 1000+ for more than a decade. Those who're on the regional route couldn't reach that limit but they're had less than 8 days off a month and there're hardly found the 2+consecutive days off on their schedules. My 12 months logged was 1150 hrs.

21st Jul 2002, 15:26
1000 hrs

you don't work for Royal Norwegian do you ?

23rd Jul 2002, 22:41
ryanair pilots are doing more than 900hrs a year i know five who have done 1030 in ten months. even if you zero all the hours you will still have done 900hrs plus in the last 12 months which the fci put out by fr does not say

24th Jul 2002, 18:43

I'm afraid you're not correct in saying only 900 hrs in 365 days. That does not happen even in UK's CAP 371. It's max 900 hrs in any 12 month period and if you read 371 you'll see it refers to a pilot not being allowed to operate if he or she is over 900 hrs at the end of the previous MONTH.

That means that the operator has to calculate the pilots hours only at the end of each month and not at the end of each day. So, theoretically at least, it is possible to be over 900 hrs in a rolling 365 day period even under UK rules and still be legal. I know that this is not the spirit of CAP 371 but when did the airlines ever care about the spirit? Dont hold you breath about JAA FTDT regs. Even if they surface they'll be overtaken by the new EASA and that will put the issue back by another 3 or 4 years.

Maybe I'm just cynical but I can see no EU-wide agreement on FTDT for years and years. And if something is miraculously agreed some operator will take an issue to the EU court and you know how long that takes. Dont hold your breath - you'll probably be retired by the time anything worthwhile actually is put in place.

24th Jul 2002, 21:03
So basically then, if you have flown 900 hrs in 9 months then you must have the next 3 months off, end of story .
You then fly month 13 14 & 15 ( 300 hrs ) and then must have another 3 months off, coz you have still reached your 900 hr point in 12 months again.
Does this continue ad-infiniteum or untill the management wise up ? :confused: :confused: :confused:

After your first year of hell, then 3 months on, 3 months off sounds like a fine plan, who needs leave with all that time off !
:D :D :D

27th Jul 2002, 11:39

What operator will give there pilots 3 months off because of a 900 hours limit. If they zero the hours then at some point all that hard work that you have done in the previous months will count for nothing, and you'll start the slog all over again. It all sounds like an excuse to work pilots to breaking point.
Maybe i've got it wrong.....have I ?

27th Jul 2002, 14:21
Brownstar, try reading the threads before posting. Where did I mention the Ryans ? I never discussed the Ryan family, what have they got to do with this discussion? The CEO is Michael O'Leary, he has the responsibility of running the company.

You also question their sucess? Do you know something that we don't, have their accounts been falsely inflated??? C'mon Brownstar spill the beans.
Of course you have no beans to spill, do you? just another guess and baseless accusation by a guy hiding behind a computer screen. It just gets more pathetic here day by day....

27th Jul 2002, 16:22

Please explain your logic. The 900 hours is a rolling total, so when month 13 arrives you deduct the hours from the corresponding month the previous year. Are you MOL or just a rostering clerk who works for him?

28th Jul 2002, 11:23
OneWorld 22

Sorry your right, you never mentioned the ryans. The term i should have used was ryanair. As for your mentioning the IAA as being ready to pounce on ryanair if they they can ( sorry if i didn't quote you word for word ) well, anyone who has any dealings with the IAA would be able to comment on this. Is this the case?
i would have thought that the fact there is so much discussion on this subject would warrant an investigation of the facts by a regulatory body, or at least a dismisal of the rumour

Are pilots at ryanair flying more than 900 hours a year?

Is it legal?

if it is will it be adopted by other Authorities?

can anyone answer these questions

4th Aug 2002, 07:40

Ryanair pilots are doing more than 900 hours 'in any 12 calendar month period'

Ryanair pilots are doing more than 900 hours 'in any 365 day period'

Ryanair pilots are doing more than 900 hours a year however you want to measure it.

It is true that before 1st April anyone who went over the 900 hours 'at the end of the previous month' was given the next month off.

This rule has been ignored since 1st April 2002, when they 'zeroed the clock' and only applied the 100 hours in 28 days rule.

If you decide you are not prepared to go over 900 hours and point this out to Management you are asked if you are refusing to fly. If the answer is yes, this goes on your record. 3 refusals and your fired. You can take them to Court for unfair dismissal, but to date no-one has had the balls to, because the law isn't exactly clear on the pilots responsibility verses that of the Operator. And no fired pilot, who will probably now never be able to fly professionally again, has the resources to fight Ryanair over a point of Avaition Law, to prove unfair dismissal.

JAR Ops hasn't exactly been forward in clarifying it. Ryanair's excuse to the IAA has always been that it has not been administratively practical or realistic to monitor any individual pilots hours 'in any 12 calendar month period', although in this day and age of computer technology, this is just a convenient excuse, and last year allowed Ryanair to roster over 900 hours mid month.

Thus the IAA have accepted the Operators responsibility of ONLY monitoring an individual pilots hours at the END OF THE PREVIOUS MONTH. Thus it is feasible for a pilot to GO OVER the 900 hours mid month and the Operator (Ryanair) have exempt themselves from prosecution from the IAA. IE the pilot is illegal, but the Operator isn't. Stinks of double standards, doesn't it?

This has now worsened since 1st April, as now pilots have gone over 900 hours at the end of the previous month, and not been given the next month off. This, arguably, is a breach of the Operators responsibility, but the IAA have STILL DONE NOTHING.

The IAA as VERY aware of the situation. They have had countless phone calls from petrified Ryanair pilots. All the IAA tell them is that they cannot fly more than 900 hours in any 12 calendar month period. However when told they are being forced to, the IAA HAVE DONE NOTHING TO STOP RYANAIR DOING IT.

Since April, 3 pilots have now resigned, in the main, over this issue.

It will be interesting to see what happens in Feb/March 2003, but I suspect they will, by then, be ignoring the 900 hour rule completely and keep rostering flights, based on the 100 hour in 28 days limitation only. Roll on 1200 hours a year....

I want to know what the IAA are going to do about it.

This issue is extremely political. It is worth $$millions to the likes of Ryanair, and MOL, and is worth him going to Court over.

The IAA also know this, so if they actually do do anything, it is going to end up in Court.


As I know every Ryanair pilot will tell you... It is difficult to know what to do, when you are placed between a rock and a hard place, and in this case the rock is the IAA, and the hard place is Ryanair. There will only be one looser...

4th Aug 2002, 09:26
'tis time for some of you to prove this, I would suggest...

So how about some Ryans posting their total hours for the period 1 Jul 01 - 30 Jun 02 on this thread - anonymously, of course!

There again, perhaps a few customer letters to MoL stating that, due to allegations made about RyanAir's flagrant disregard of JAR-OPS fatigue requirements, you will NEVER fly with them until you receive categoric assurance that the crews operating his aeroplanes will not have exceeded 900 hours flight time (chocks away to chocks under) in the previous 365 days - as you don't want to risk your neck flying in an aircraft operated by fatigued pilots!

9th Aug 2002, 09:36
952 hours :(

9th Aug 2002, 10:09

I suppose it depends on how you interpret the rules.
Looks like MOL interprets them how he likes. :( :(

Son Of Piltdown
22nd Aug 2002, 07:40
From the Times 22 August:


22nd Aug 2002, 10:12
Interesting that the IAA suggest contacting the police...........

22nd Aug 2002, 10:56
As regards these allegations, is there anyone who thinks the UK CAA does not have a responsability to investergate the UK side of Ryanair's operations?

22nd Aug 2002, 13:17
Ryanair Management posted this statement on the pilot notice boards today;

Ryanair said today (22nd August 2002) that the headline in this mornings London Times newspaper which claims that "Ryanair demands pilots work past limit" is incorrect and factually untrue.

Ryanair operates to an approved flight time limitation system, whereby no Ryanair pilot can fly more than 900 hours in any year. Any Ryanair pilot who reaches 900 hours is not allowed to fly until the commencement of the following year. The year runs from 01 April to 31 March inclusive, to co-incide with Ryanair's holiday year. Additionally Ryanair's pilots are also subject to individual monthly limits of 100 flight hours.

This sysytem is further enhanced by Ryanair's stable rosters, all of which are issued 28 days in advance, with a gauranteed minimum of 5 days off in every 14 day period, with pilots operating from their home bases and no night-time flying.

By comparison, the flight limitation system in Germany permits pilots to fly up to 1000 hours in the period of the calendar year.

Over ther lasty year to the 31 March 2002, no Ryanair pilot either reached or exceeded this 900 hour limit, and the average flight hours for each Ryanair pilot was 809 hours.

22nd August 2002

22nd Aug 2002, 15:03
more wrong info re ryanair!
alloy- caa regularly inspects fr a/c and hours) at stn,pik&ltn.
lba recently did my a/c in hahn. no probs.
sapco2- e.u. have already confirmed they have received no
complaint from e.c.a. and r not conducting any investig.
sorry if the facts dont support the rumour- as usual where fr is concerned on this site.:p

22nd Aug 2002, 17:39
So the question is:
Is the IAA 900hr limit an annuual limit from April 1 to March 31, or is it a monthly maximum of 900hrs as per the UK CAA maximum:
"During the period of 12 months, expiring at the end of the previous month exceeds 900hrs"

If it is the later the Ryanair notice admits that it is guilty of breaching the 900hr limit.

23rd Aug 2002, 06:45
From Irish Independant 23rd August

A RYANAIR pilot has officially complained to the Irish Aviation Authority that he has been forced to fly more than the legally permitted 900 hours a year.

If it is proved Ryanair has forced a pilot to exceed permitted flying limits it would prompt huge concerns about safety.

The pilot's complaint came in the last week, and coincides with damning coverage in a British newspaper yesterday claiming that the low-cost airline forces its pilots to exceed the flying limits.

Ryanair denied the allegation and said its rostering for its pilots was measured by the month and limits are not broken.

In a statement the low-cost carrier said: "Over the last year to March 31, 2002, no Ryanair pilot either reached or exceeded this 900-hour limit and the average flight hours for each Ryanair pilot was 809 hours."

However, a spokesperson for the Irish Aviation Authority confirmed yesterday that a Ryanair pilot has alleged in the last week that he has been forced to exceed the flying limits.

"The allegation was being treated as a priority and was definitely being followed up," the spokesperson said.

But she said the watchdog for Irish airlines had found no evidence to support claims in the London 'Times' that in general Ryanair made it pilots fly more than the 900 hours a year recommended by the Irish Aviation Authority and Europen safety regulators.

Ryanair insisted last night that it did not compromise on safety. Any of its pilots who reach 900 hours are not allowed to fly until the beginning of the following year.

"This system is further enhanced by Ryanair's stable rosters, all of which are issued 28 days in advance, with a guaranteed minimum of five days off in every 14-day period, with pilots operating from their home bases and no night-time flying."

Ryanair is registered in Dublin and comes under the control of the Irish Aviation Authority even though its biggest base is at Stansted, near London.

The British Airline Pilots Association (BALPA), which represents pilots in the UK, said yesterday it had received "several" complaints from Ryanair staff concerned about flying hours.

Airline sources at Dublin airport said Ryanair was in the habit of pushing its pilots up to the limit of the permitted flight hours.

Last night the Irish Aviation Authority denied claims it had in any way weakened its rules on flying times to suit the Michael O'Leary-run airline. "These are international regulations that have been laid down. We have not changed the rules for Ryanair," the spokesperson said.

Charlie Weston

23rd Aug 2002, 09:39
I was thrilled and delighted to read the accurate and true article in the Times yesterday.

We all know the biggest threat to passenger safety isn't from terrorism, pilot ability, design or engineering issues or other areas - it's tiredness and fatigue. ( that applies to pilots and maintenance engineers!)

A tired pilot is worse than a drunk pilot.
The sooner the "bully boy" tactics from Ryanair management are understoood by every passenger - the better.

Freak On A Leash
23rd Aug 2002, 11:00
I`m a bit confused here masterplanner...at the top of the article it says that 900 hours is the maximum legally permitted, but further on down it says that the 900 hours is a recommendation by the IAA and European safety inspectors...
I`m pretty sure it is inteded to mean "legally permitted", but can you clarify this for me?To me it kinda sounds like "max demonstrated crosswind" - which is not a limitation, but how smart are you to exceed it?

The pilot was "forced" to fly more than the permitted/recommended 900 hours?why didn`t the pilot notify the company that he/she was approaching the 900 hours and possibly would exceed this?Not trying to enforce either of the parties here, but as a pilot you do have a certain responsibility when it comes to maximum tolerances.HAs to do with safety.

Knows, I totally agree with you on what is dangerous.I`d like to add to your list with "a stupid pilot".But I guess that`s a prerequisite to get on your list

:D :D :p :D

23rd Aug 2002, 13:06
In the Uk it is quite legal to exceed the 900hrs in the middle of the month, the requirement is from the 1st of each month only. The calculation is also very easy; keep a ruunning total of hours, at the end of each month add 900 and that is what you cannot exceed for the next year.
I cannot understand how any rostering department cannot calculate that; unless the don't want to.

23rd Aug 2002, 16:50
The following memo was posted on Ryanair Pilot Notice Boards today;

To all pilots

Following a meeting between the IAA and Ryanair today (Friday 23rd August 2002), it was confirmed by both parties that neither Ryanair nor its pilots have breached current approved flight time limitations. Ryanair have agreed to build in further safeguards for new recruits, or pilots on long-term illness, to further ensure that current approved FTL's will be respected.

Ryanair and the IAA have agreed to review the current approved FTL's in order to clarify the working of the present scheme.

Chief Pilot

23rd Aug 2002, 17:28
I smell a rat.

How much can you determine of something of this nature in a meeting? If the CAA received allegations of this type there'd be an audit of all the FTL records, checks on pilots' own records, etc. THis would take several days.

If BALPA has received "several" complaints, I would have thought that it would take time to examine these.

Instead, they hold a meeting which agrees that "neither Ryanair nor its pilots have breached current approved flight time limitations."

Further, if there is no problem, why have Ryanair had to build in extra safeguards, and why do these only apply for new recruits? And why does someone on long-term illness need FTL protection if they're not working? WTHIH?? :confused:

Mach Buffet
24th Aug 2002, 00:33
The IAA is the absolute kick-to-touch organisation.

Previously they went along with FR's assertion that Block time did not include push back time
"since the aircraft was not under its own power".

They backtracked after the issue went public.

Many moons ago they published their 'brief' guidelines to crew duty hours and rest. It was quite liberal by any standard. Since then they have amended it several times to facilitate the objections of a few operators. They have relaxed a relaxed document.

Synonyms for IAA:

In the pocket
Downtown Office
The Chief Pilots Office

Little wonder that the Ireland is to aviation what Panama is to merchant shipping:

a flag of convenience.

As for anyone in the IAA having enough balls to tackle a problem - did you not realise you must be a eunuch to work for them?

24th Aug 2002, 09:50

The IAA received the pilot's complaint last week (according to the press report) so they may well have been carrying out an audit of FTL records in the run up to the reported meeting.

While BALPA may have received several complaints no where in the report does it says that these have been passed to the IAA or Ryanair. I don't know whether BALPA has passed the information but if they had I would have expected that to be mentioned in the BALPA statement. The IAA cannot investigate information they don't have.

The statement that no pilots have exceeded limits does not necessarily mean that there are no weaknesses in the scheme. The IAA may well have identified some in an review following the complaint. With regards to new recruits and pilots on sick leave they may well only be flying for the airline for say last nine months of the set year and have a theoretical limit of 900 hours in that period.

24th Aug 2002, 12:18
I appreciate this topic is focused on IAA attitudes, but SKY9 made a comment that it's OK to bust 900pa as it only applies on the 1st of the month. Hm?

I was always confused by this reasoning. It had always been told to me that a roster was a rolling affair. You could fly 990 hours in 365 days. Simple.

Further, I could fly 100 in 28 days. Imagine my surprise to receive a roster where on the morning of day 28 I had accumulated 95 hours and had a 10hr flight ahead of me that would land on day 28. I was assured by my rosterers that it was legal as I was below 100hrs at take off and it was a single sector. (however if I diverted en-route, I'd be stuck?) I then had a days rest down route and in a rolling 28 period was now back to 97 hrs with a 9hr flight to get back home and land with 106hrs in 28 days.
Amazingly BALPA said they had questioned this with CAA and been told it was OK. BALPA didn't agree but has not, to my knowledge, tried to oppose this abuse.
It says 900 per year and 100 per 28. That to me is simple, it needs to be. It can not be a grey area otherwise the abuses will be rife and the lawyers and insurasnce boys will have a field day after the crash.
Add to this the calculation of allowed duty when called from SBY. That is a whole other can of worms that even the crewing dept's can't work out, and that brings in the whole matter of accepting illegal duties. It's that or head master's study the next morning.

I hear stories that there are schemes where a roster week starts on Mondays. Thus the calculations pertaining to a week are no longer 7 days but Monday-Sunday. Somehow or other you are supposed to be bright eyed and bushey tailed at 0600 on a Monday ready for a fresh weeks work, having just be at it for a few days already. Can't be the idea at all, can it? or am I missing something.

Why o' why is it necessary to make an easy job difficult. Is that last drop of sweat so important to the bean counters?

24th Aug 2002, 13:09
I am quoting the UK CAA definition


A person shall not act as a member of the flight crew of an aircraft if at the beginning of the flight the aggregate of all previous flight times:
(a) during the period of 28 consecutive days expiring at the end of the day on which the flight begins exceeds 100hrs; or
(b) during the period of 12 months, expiring at the end of the previous month exceeds 900hrs.

It follows therefore that you start a flight (not a series of flights) if you have exceeded 100hr within the last 28 days and the 900hrs is not a rolling year but a calendar 12 months.

Interestingly there is nothing to say that the 900hrs is wiped clean if you join a new employer so when you take up new employment you should really give your new employer a copy of your logbook to enable them to comply (if the 900hrs is critical).

25th Aug 2002, 08:40
IAA doing their bit???

IAA to probe flying hours records of Ryanair pilots

By Eamon Quinn
Dublin, Ireland, 25 August, 2002

The Irish Aviation Authority (IAA) has appealed to Ryanair pilots to contact the authority if they feel they are in danger of exceeding the limit of permitted work hours.

The confusion over hours stems from the introduction of a new roster by the low-cost airline.

The airline industry regulator now plans to re-examine the documentation of all Ryanair pilots to determine if the switch to a new roster last April inadvertently meant pilots were working longer hours in any single rolling 12-month period.

Michael O'Leary, chief executive of Ryanair, has denied that any of the company's pilots have flown more than the regulated hours due to the switch to the new roster, which was introduced with the pilots' agreement.

The IAA said it was concerned about British newspaper reports which cited worries over flying hours among some Ryanair pilots on the new roster.

"You can take it that we will be looking at all 360 pilots in Ryanair, just in case there have been breaches," said Denis Hegarty, the IAA's corporate policy director. "We certainly want to clarify with the company what the position is."

The IAA polices regulations prohibiting its 2,000 Irish-registered pilots from flying more than 900 hours in any 12-month period. The IAA was contacted last week by one Ryanair pilot who was concerned he would soon breach his 900-hour annual working limit.

The IAA said its rules stipulating the hours a pilot can work in rolling 12-month and 28-day periods and what constitutes a pilot's duty are identical to those of its British counterpart, the Civil Aviation Authority.


25th Aug 2002, 11:41
I know of a ryanair driver who had done 1200 hrs for the year.
He was taken off line but the following day was told that because they were short of crews he would have to pitch up and work.

The 900 hr a year rule was devised when the airlines were flying long haul. I do 700 hrs a year short haul a year, doing 900 a year or more would be just unsafe.

I wouldn't like to fly on a ryan with a pilot on his 5th or 6th sector of the day when the weather is bad and it has all been going wrong.

Airbus Girl
25th Aug 2002, 13:10
It is true that some companies weeks begin on a Monday morning. So the 55 duty hours per week, 60 hours with delays, absolute maximum only applies if its from Monday to Sunday.

One would think that this rule was to ensure avoidance of fatigue and that the point was that if you work more than 55 (or 60) hours in a week you will be bloody knackered.

Working for a typical charter operator I usually get days off mid week yet our week officially starts on Monday. Last week my working week started on the previous Friday. By the end of Tuesday I had managed 52 hours, and then had a nice 11 hours of night duty to complete (having been woken at 0530 the previous morning being called out - got home at around 8pm that night after yet another change part way through the duty). So I managed 63 hours by the start of the 7th day. But of course, I wasn't tired because my week had started on a Friday!!!!

So I am looking forward to "only" doing the 53 hours I have rostered for this week (subject to any changes of course).

Admittedly there were changes, I got called out from a couple of standbys, one of which was caused by an ongoing rostering problem and the other caused by technical problems. I think I now have 103 flying hours rostered for this month (that is what you could call good pilot utilisation).

I suspect FTLs will continue to be pushed to the limits by the airlines until a major accident is caused by fatigue.

I think the attitude is that there hasn't been a major accident yet therefore we should be working our crews more, a sort of reverse logic if you get my point.

Captain Stable
25th Aug 2002, 14:19
AG, the reason for the "Administrative Week" beginning at a specified time, specified day each week was to reduce the workload of companies in calculating the 7-day totals.

The CAA some time ago stated that, with the advent of computerised systems in most companies nowadays and therefore no calculation problem for large roster establishments, they were no longer prepared to accept "Administrative Weeks" and intended that all companies should change to a rolling 7-day total. They hoped that this could be done voluntarily, but that should there be any evidence that their approach to the rules be misused by companies, they would enforce the change.

There should, therefore, be a change to your company's Ops Manual in the offing with a change to a rolling 7-day calculation. If not, you may care to consider a CHIRP report.

25th Aug 2002, 16:42
Airbus girl

Can I draw your attention to this example of fatigue:


The commander and the first officer had expressed their reservations about carrying out a flight at a late report time with no opportunity for adequate rest. At the time of report it would have been difficult for the crew to estimate how their performance would be affected later in the night.
Time since sleep is a recognised factor contributing to fatigue in air crew. Both the commander and the first officer had awakened early on the morning of the 18 July. The time of circadian trough falls between 0300 and 0500 hrs local time, 0200 to 0400 UTC for this crew. Most human functioning is affected by circadian rhythms, including heart rate, brain activity, vigilance and performance. The crew must therefore have been experiencing a reduced level of alertness at the time of the accident.

Nothing changes.

25th Aug 2002, 19:43

You suggest that only a major accident will awaken the CAA's of this world to the plight. In the USA the FAA seem to be opposing the feudal attitudes of management, but only in so much as they are not going to allow rosters of more than 16hours. AGH! IS that progress??
However, you may remember the B737 freighter crash at Coventry some years ago. The ARB sighted fatigue as a likely cause, yet the crew had performed less than allowed under CAP 371. But then it was freighter and it was N. African, so nothing happened and things have got worse, despite that opinion. Seems it will have to be a new shiny jet of UK reg' with lots of Brits onboard to make any change. I sincerely hope it'll never happen and other means will be found to enforce common sense.
Is that not a union is for, national standards, but that is on
another thread already.

What scares me is that the employers are trying to extend the FTL's of JAA to match the performance of the a/c so that they don't need heavy crews. If they get away with that it will the death of the profession.

Don't let your children in the cockpit captain Worthington.

Interesting that one about the CAA attitudes to rolling 7 day/week rostering. I heard that it is a new introduction at some outfits. If I'm correctly informed, what is a Flight Ops inspector for??

It would seem that each pilot is their own guardian, or worst enemy; and I appreciate the plight of those under the cosh by management. I did challenge the crewers and rosters and ops managment to stay in their spaceous air conditioned TV'd canteened offices, but work my roster for a couple of weeks. It was declined in derision.

Keep the nose in the blue bit and you'll be OK;)

Flap 5
26th Aug 2002, 18:43
I have to say I am absolutely appalled at the attitude of some of the posts on this thread which clearly back Ryanair's positon. It is not possible that they are from Ryanair pilots and their tone suggests that they are from management. Even Capt Prune is in fear of these people!

As a 737 pilot and a prospective passenger with Ryanair I am very worried that these allegations are not taken seriously by these people, who appear to be in positions within Ryanair where they have some say.

On the other hand maybe this is one possible means of communicating with the company. When you book with them on line there is no phone number and you can not email them with queries. They only provide you with an address in Dublin to write to and we have already heard in the latest revue of airlines attitude towards passengers that Ryanair do not reply to their letters (or cooperate with the organisation which conducted that revue)!

27th Aug 2002, 09:37
where do people like flap 5 come from?

i'm a ryanair pilot. these allegations are untrue.
i do not fly over 900 hours, nor did any of the guys and gals.
our rosters are issued 28 days in advance, they are fixed thereafter, dont change, we get 5 days off every 2 weeks guaranteed, and enjoy the best rostering i hav ever experienced. i can tell you my roster for any day for next 2,4,6 months. can flap 2?
while i'm at it, we got 3% in april, and more share options,with 15 more new a/c coming this winter, so i guess promotions for abt 75 new capts, and jobs for abt 80 or 90 new f/o's. i note that mighty b.a. are offering 1% and easy guys hav turned down 2% on their smaller packages- now gee why did we turn down balpa last year? why are ppruners who dont work here and clearly havent a clue abt our rosters - or our 18 year- yup, 18 year safety record so quick to criticise? oh yeah, i forgot i must be fr mgt- doh!!!!!!

27th Aug 2002, 13:31
If your roster is only published 28 days ahead, how come you know what you're doing up to 6 months ahead? Or if rosters are that stable, why do they bother publishing them at all?

If nobody in RyanAir ever exceeded their hours, why was the IAA concerned enough to ask for extra safeguards to be put in place? How come there have been several allegations made to various bodies?

How do you know that "none of the guys and gals" flew over 900 hours? Did you ask them all? Or are you, perhaps, in a position to know? Or perhaps you're just wanting to bulls**t us into the standard FR spin position?

What relevance do you think your pay rise or your share options (for what they're worth) have to the discussion?

How do you think your figures for crewing 15 new aircraft work out? You think 75 new captains from the existing FO's? And only 80-90 new FO's to replace those? Something doesn't quite add up there.

If you think that 18 years without an accident is good, then you don't understand anything about Safety Management. Perhaps you ARE in FR management?

If you are so proud of having turned down BALPA, why do you think FR management was so neurotic and paranoid about BALPA moving in? Why the artificial increase in numbers of STN-based pilots? Why the warnings to people not to vote "yes"?

I know quite a few pilots in FR personally. At least one was an instructor of mine many years ago. I drink with them, I talk to them, we exchange information. With one exception, I have the greatest respect for them as pilots, as professionals. Sorry, but IMHO you have an awful company to work for, and an awful boss.

27th Aug 2002, 17:19
Hugmonster, you really don't have a clue, it's quite scary. You've been banging your "nail Ryanair" drum for so long now on PPRuNe, it's getting boring. A while ago you promised a TV program was coming that was going to expose Ryanair, where is it??

Having a few pints with the lads does not make you an expert on the internal workings of the company. Like all the other fairy tales about Ryanair, this will pass by and the public will keep on buying. Don't kid yourself Huggy, that's just the way it is.

Well done ILUV2FLY for having the balls to come in and answer this complete bulls**t.

27th Aug 2002, 17:28
All I've done is point out a few inconsistencies in the story, and ask a few questions.

ILUV2FLY posted a load of codswallop that simply does not hang together and does not answer the points already raised. If you can't see that, then I suggest it is not I who doesn't have a clue! I was giving him the opportunity to explain further, or correct misunderstandings, that's all.

Merely stating that the allegations are untrue might have done it. However, ILUV made the mistake of over-egging it, and in his enthusiasm he managed to raise a whole load of contradictions that rather suggest, much though he may deny it, that he was posting from within a few feet of the boardroom! :D

The simple answer is - don't merely tell people they're talking nonsense. Answer the allegations! How about answers to some of the questions I raise? Or are you, too, so far into your hero-worship of MO'L that you can see no more than him the difference between fact and fiction?

27th Aug 2002, 17:34
Sorry to disapoint you Huggy, but I certainly do not hero worship MO'L (now Tony Ryan is anonther matter!!) I think he can be boorish, arrogant and goes over the top on occasions, but one thing he is, is an outstanding CEO of Ryanair. You can't argue with the financial results that he's achieved at the helm.

I'll say it again, I have nothing to do with Ryanair, never worked for them and I never will. I just call it like I see it. And my experience in the business helps me recognise a good thing when I see it.

27th Aug 2002, 17:43
Sure - nobody would argue that the man has a talent for making money. So did Jeffrey Archer and Robert Maxwell.

So what?

(My personal opinion is that not only is he boorish and arrogant and over the top, but also a liar, a bully, and a cheat.)

If money is all that matters to you, then I feel sorry for you. What matters more to me is treating people well, being honest, providing a service (especially the service advertised), trying not to bully one's employees, seeing human beings as human beings rather than merely business assets, and so on.

Furthermore, it sounds as if I have rather more contact with the inner workings of FR than you do, my contacts actually going beyond "having a few pints with the lads". I won't detail more - people's jobs are at risk. Yet you maintain I know nothing and you know everything? Interesting.

27th Aug 2002, 18:09

I can't answer your questions but can offer comments on some.

"If nobody in RyanAir ever exceeded their hours, why was the IAA concerned enough to ask for extra safeguards to be put in place?" Perhaps in reviewing the FTL arrangements in the light of recent complaint the IAA has identified some weakness. The fact that they are closing stable door doesn't mean that the horse has bolted.

"How come there have been several allegations made to various bodies?" I can think of various reasons. It is interesting to note that only one of the allegations appears to have been made the the IAA, Ryanair's regulator. It hardly suggest systematic abuse of the system.

"If you think that 18 years without an accident is good, then you don't understand anything about Safety Management. Perhaps you ARE in FR management?" It certainly doesn't prove that they are unsafe though.

I don't work for Ryanair, I don't work for the IAA, I couldn't hero worship someone who wears jeans nor am I in any other way involved in the a conspiracy.

I'm not saying your wrong, but some of your arguements are a bit shakey.

If as you suggest, you have evidence of safety breaches you could send it to DfT: [email protected]

27th Aug 2002, 19:09
I don't want to prejudge things however it would seem that Ryanair have already apparently admitted their guilt in the Ryanair Management notice copied from Six.Sigma on the 27th August.

"Ryanair operates to an approved flight time limitation system, whereby no Ryanair pilot can fly more than 900 hours in any year. Any Ryanair pilot who reaches 900 hours is not allowed to fly until the commencement of the following year. The year runs from 01 April to 31 March inclusive, to co-incide with Ryanair's holiday year. Additionally Ryanair's pilots are also subject to individual monthly limits of 100 flight hours".

The limit as I understand it from month end to month end so it would appear that Ryanair are not complying for 11 months out of 12 because they are not monitoring it.
Which poses the question what have the IAA been doing up until the Times highlighted the problem?
As "I cannot remember who" was previously alledged to say "we will ignore that legislation" or similar.

28th Aug 2002, 13:27
sorry hug-m havnt had chance to check the latest loonie posts from the ryan bashing brigade, altho i knew u and a few others could be relied upon for more fiction masquerading as fact.

so u dont work here, but r an fr expert cos u drink with 'the lads'.
better still ur 'contacts' go way beyond drinks with lads- to what?
maybe drinks with 'the girls'? possibly lunch with mol? maybe u are even one of the ryans come back to this world as a prof pilot?

let me say again as an fr pilot- your prev posts were rubbish. typical of bar talk which is as close to 'fact' as u come.heres ur answers (since 'the lads' havnt given u any)

rosters r published 28 days in adv to allow for reqs,leave,s/bys,training,etc. things that prof pilots hav to do, but presumably u and the lads dont. other than this i can plot my earlies-off-lates-off for the next 2,4,6, months as i wish. ask ur impecable sources among the lads its v simple to follow.

nobody exceeded the ftls cos c. pilot confirmed in writing with agree of iaa on friday to this effect.to quote 'both parties confirmed that neither fr nor its pilots hav breached curr ftls'.
i admit i dont know abt 'further saefguards' but above line is good enough for me, and nails u 'experts' claim to contrary.

pay rise and share options and a1 rosters are v relevant in responding to the bizarre anti-ryan bias of this and many other posts on pprune. theyre called facts hug-m. u should try some.

on recruitment i know fm h.o.t that fr policy is to recruit and train slightly more fo/so's to allow for small no of fo/so's who dont meet our standard. adds up to me, check with 'the lads'

if u think 18 years without an accident isnt good try 18 years with one. a lot of rubbish passes thru pprune on subject of fr and low fares airlines safety, yet their record in europe is excellent and southwest is outstanding- or maybe hug-m and the lads think were just lucky.

im not proud of turnin down balpa but our lads did a better deal with the devil incarnate (thats mol hug-m) than anything done by balpa with b.a or easy. ill happily sign for balpa when they can show they do better. what i dont like is balpa jumpin on the anti ryan bandwagon just cos we said no- its called democracy,hugm.

ryan is a great airline to work for. good pay great rosters, new a/c and great bunch of people on the line. i wouldnt swop with any. admitedly not all perfect, recent handling in stn was a mess but seems to hav been fixed, atc delays r a joke, and yes i agree that mol causes too much trouble with his big gob, but as long as my planes and my pockets r full i'll live with him rather than any other. b.a,branson,bmi etc have all dumped people in recent months while mol (yes hug-m bealzebub himself) is recruiting.
its generally believed that he stuffed boeing for 100 new a/c over the next 10 years or so,(hoe many did your lot buy?). so hug-m we're ok for moment and as long as it stays that way 'the lads' will be able to buy u plenty of pints as well as spin u loads and loads of fairy stories.

28th Aug 2002, 15:53

could you send me your email adress? I have some questions
concerning Ryanair. It seems like ig I´m going to write them down here I won´t get a serious answer.... :-C

[email protected]

28th Aug 2002, 18:21
Huggy, a few of us would like to welcome you down from your ivory tower....

The overiding goal of any business is to maximise profits.

Any you're right, I fu**ing love money!!!!!!!!
But I'm certainly not humble enough or derserving of your pious sympathy or jugements. All opinions are welcome on PPRuNe I believe, capatalist or communist.

29th Aug 2002, 10:17

i can only assume one of two things; you are either a new pilot with Ryanair in which case you need to wake up and smell the coffee , or you are a manager in which case you should stop your propaganda. Everyone knows that people are flying more than 900 hours a year and the IAA won't do anything about it. It is ALL down to money. Ryanair would have to employ more pilots and pay them salaries if everyone was out of hours, as they are and this wouldn't fit with the perfect economic model of MOL. He's laughing about this whole affair, he thrives on stuff like this.
The real trouble is that the IAA are not prepared to do anything about this situation. Untill they do nothing will change. Sector cheques will remain the same as they were years ago , the only difference is that you are having to work 20 or 30 % more for the same money - great Deal !!

29th Aug 2002, 11:31
ILUV, brownstar says most of it. And I suggest you check your sums. Something in there might not quite add up...? :rolleyes:

1W22 - If money is all you want, then that's all you'll get. If you feel that caring about human beings, that not screwing them for all the dosh you can get out of them, that wanting to provide a service for a reasonable profit rather than making all the money you can is something to sneer at as being "pious" then I feel more sorry for you than I can say.

29th Aug 2002, 12:51
I am confused. On your profile you say that you are a civil engineer. On this thread you say you work for FR. Which is it? Either update your profile, or stop telling "porkies".

29th Aug 2002, 19:32
Sorry for not replying earlier Huggy, I was eating a meal while sitting on a servants back with my feet resting on another,

Ah, the good life!!!!

Flap 5
31st Aug 2002, 07:50

I come from the real world, if you must know. So come down from your ivory tower and smell the coffee, as many others posts have mentioned. You're on your own on this one mate.

As sapco2 has pointed out this is a serious business. I reiterate I am apalled at your attitude to what is a very serious business. Stop your sarcastic coments and make a serious case for Ryanair if you genuinely believe in what is happening there!

11th Sep 2002, 14:16
All interested in the regulator's stance - please be advised that - startling new evidence has come to my attention.

There is a letter in existence signed by the IAA approving the FR methodology and addressed to FR. Strangely, FR has not yet made this letter public. It vindicates the FR approach and makes recent IAA comments rather silly. Why no resignation? Admission on the IAA's part?

Is MOL keeping this letter up his sleeve? Are the IAA sweating because he might yet furnish the letter?

Answers on a postage stamp - but - the letter exists. I assure you. Does anyone else know of it's contents and existence?

11th Sep 2002, 17:55
From the BALPA website:

"10 September, 2002


Pilots working for Ryanair are receiving conflicting advice about how many hours they should fly and today the British Air Line Pilots' Association (BALPA) wrote to the Chief Pilot at Ryanair demanding clarification.

Graham Fowler, Deputy General Secretary of BALPA said pilots faced uncertainty, and uncertainty does not make for a safe situation.

He said: 'Ryanair has told its pilots that the Irish Aviation Authority has agreed with the company on a change in the way flying hours are counted (to a fixed year, April 1 to March 31, in effect disregarding all hours flown up to and including March 31).

'However, the Irish Aviation Authority has told Ryanair pilots that there is no such agreement with the airline and pilots should continue counting flying hours on a rolling 12 month period.

'The Irish Aviation Authority has confirmed this to BALPA.

'We are asking the Chief Pilot at Ryanair to clarify the situation. There is a danger that by switching to a fixed year period pilots would be scheduled by the airline to fly more than the 900 hours a year limit. 'The limit is a vital element of the rules which govern pilot hours to ensure they are properly rested and fit to fly

'Ryanair must do as the Irish Aviation Authority has ruled. If it does not, it stands in danger of having its licence to fly withdrawn.'

Mach Buffet
12th Sep 2002, 07:57
In the past the IAA have given FR concessions and subsequently denied them.

Whats new?

12th Sep 2002, 08:28
What's new? A sined letter from the IAA. That's new. That's clear proof of skullduggery and dirty tricks. It will emerge - I assure you.

It is pretty black & white in terms of the regulator's stance.

I have a copy of the letter and was gobsmacked - mainly because FR did not take any legal action. Why?

Why have certain IAA individuals not tendered their resignation?

They may yet...

Or at the very least admit that they are "anti-Ryanair" in this matter having already given confirmation and assurance by signed letter explicitly detailing the terms and agreeing to the new practice.

Quite simply - when the books open up and the actualities of these situations emerge, litigation, litigation, litigation...

I know who my money's on...

It's hard to contradict incontravertible proof. Am I allowed to attach a .pdf copy of the letter to my post?

Upon reflection, it may damage any future litigation.

Slander and libel are terrible things, if you know of anyone involved in this practice, please contact the Gardai - immediately - in the interests of safety, industrial espionage and coporate thuggery. (Careful though - if they are a semi-state body!).

12th Sep 2002, 09:38
There is a letter from the IAA - its on an unreadable tiny photocopy on the crewroom wall! Why so shy ?

Some of the guys have seen the real version and it does appear that paxman is right. It seems like one or two of the IAA inspectors got carried away by their green shamrockery past and have put the IAA in a bit of a spot.

Whatever happens - I hope we don't move to CAP371 (sorry to all the Brits but i prefer FR rosters to what the orange people are doing).

Heaven help us though if MOL discovers that the Germans can do 1300 hours in twelve months.140 hours a month - argh ( but at £30 per hour sector pay .. maybe ... no I couldn't...

Oh .. I wonder if BALPA going to take on the Germans or do you non leprechawns only do that when the Americans are around.

Auf Wiedersehen

12th Sep 2002, 11:09
Come on PaxmanwithInfo!

Come on Nassauman!!

What does the IAA letter say??

It is in the public domain now...

The suspense is killing!!


13th Sep 2002, 09:42
Quick quote from the Times the other day:-

'Ryanair warned

Ryanair may be banned from flying if it keeps ignoring rules on maximum flying hours for pilots, the British Airline Pilots’ Association said. Pilots working for the budget airline had gone beyond the annual 900-hour limit but feared dismissal if they refused to fly. Ryanair has been asked to explain.'

13th Sep 2002, 10:28
Hey Fokker Jock

Thanks for that inside information. No way I'm flying Royal Norwegian ever again.

:eek: :cool:

17th Sep 2002, 11:51
does anyone know if there has been any relpy to BALPA from Ryanair. If so could you post a link