Low Cost Carriers "CuttingCorners"!! [Archive]

Secret Squirrel

17th Jun 2002, 22:59

Look, I'm not a low cost employee and some of you may know I'm not a big fan of one in particular (no names, nay even hints needed, right).

I just want to say to all those who are going to start spurting rubbish that we can't have it both ways guys: you can't spit on the graves of journalists and then leap in to attack fellow workers on their spurious evidence. As always, there are probably one or two pilots out of a whole score of them (and probably all from the same company) who cause the rest of them to be tarnished with the same brush.

I would be interested to know where Times got it's gen from and also to hear from a few ATC'ers. If their gen (The Times') is bona fide, then they should be prepared to name names; if not, then it's just scaremongering and unnecessary at that.

So, fellow genuine ppruners, let's not fall into the same old trap (as I myself have done in the past, I hasten to add) and use this to low cost bash; it's counterproductive and unfair on those that work for them and are just as professional as we all like to think we are.

SS

Horatio

17th Jun 2002, 23:06

How can anyone comment on anything until they know what is up for comment?

The logic escapes me, or am I a minority of one?

LTN man

18th Jun 2002, 05:19

Budget airline pilots accused of putting safety at risk
By Ben Webster, Transport Correspondent. The Times

PILOTS working for some low-cost airlines are disobeying air traffic control instructions because they are under extreme pressure to meet tight schedules, according to a confidential safety report.
They allegedly try to save time by approaching airports too fast and are sometimes forced to abandon a landing because they come too close to the aircraft in front. An air traffic controller filed the safety report because of his concern that the growing number of incidents involving budget airlines could result in a crash.

The report, received by the industry’s Confidential Human Factors Incident Reporting Programme (Chirp), says that pilots are working under “extreme pressure on the flight deck to achieve programmed sector flight times”, and claims that as a result they are cutting corners.

Among the incidents reported are “failure to comply with assigned intermediate and final approach speeds . . . resulting in a go-around”. Pilots are also said to be ignoring longer flight paths designed to reduce noise disturbance, and as a result are flying too low or passing directly over villages.

The report says that controllers are receiving “overly aggressive responses”, with pilots repeatedly challenging information on visibility and on whether the aircraft in front has safely cleared the runway.

Some pilots are also using their radios to complain that they are not being given priority. One crew complained that another aircraft had been allowed to land first because they were not UK nationals.

“It is occurring with increasing frequency and, in my judgment, is due in part to the aggressively commercial ethos that exists within some airline companies,” the controller says.

He urges Chirp’s directors to intervene “before it reaches a level with the potential to compromise safety”.

The report is understood to refer principally to Ryanair and its base at Stansted in Essex. Ryanair, in common with airlines such as easyJet and Go, uses its aircraft more intensively than traditional airlines and leaves a gap of just 25 minutes between arriving and departing. Budget airline aircraft do four return journeys to Europe in a day, double the number of a typical British Airways jet.

David Learmount, safety editor of Flight International, said that the Chirp report indicated that pilots were under pressure to cut corners to achieve punctuality targets. “If this is a symptom of unacceptable pressure then it is only a matter of time before the pilots make a mistake that matters,” he said.

Ryanair was criticised yesterday by its arch-rival, easyJet, over the age of its fleet. The Irish-registered airline, which announced a record profit of £111 million last week, operates some of the oldest aircraft in Britain, with 20 Boeing 737-200s dating back to the start of the 1980s. They are not due to be retired until 2006. Stelios Haji-Ioannou, easyJet’s chairman, said: “Combine a low-cost airline with old aircraft and the odds of your reputation surviving an accident are against you.”

He cited the fate of ValuJet, an American low-cost airline which lost half its business and was forced to change its name after a crash in 1996.

EasyJet has a policy of buying only new aircraft. Half of Ryanair’s fleet is made up of second-hand aircraft retired by Lufthansa and other airlines. According to figures from Boeing, the 737-200 operated by Ryanair is more than twice as likely to develop a fault which prevents it from taking off as the more modern 737-300 operated by easyJet.

The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), Britain’s safety regulator, has no control over Ryanair because it is registered in Dublin and regulated by the Irish Aviation Authority (IAA). While both regulators peform spot checks on their airlines, the IAA has only 60 staff in its safety division compared to more than 800 employed by the CAA.

Common safety standards apply across Europe on issues such as the maximum number of flying hours for pilots. Ryanair’s operating costs are less than half those of British Airways partly because its pilots spend up to 50 per cent longer in the air each year, completing an average of 840 hours compared with the legal maximum of 900.

Tim Jeans, Ryanair’s marketing director, said: “We don’t cut corners while the aircraft is airborne. Turnaround times are tighter but safety and security are an absolute priority and there is nothing we would do to compromise that.There is no more pressure on our pilots to depart on time than there is on British Airways.” EasyJet and Go said safety was paramount and they would take a dim viedw of any pilots unnecessarily challenging instructions.

Bally Heck

18th Jun 2002, 05:28

Don't shoot the messenger Seret Squirrel.

BBC News (http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid_2050000/2050777.stm)

Orca strait

18th Jun 2002, 05:35

Confidential Human Factors Incident Reporting Programme (Chirp),

Confidential: 1. told in confidence; imparted in secret 2. of or showing trust in another; confiding 3. entrusted with private or seceret matters

Two major breeches of the CHIRP reporting system in as many weeks. If this keeps up we will manage to set the international flight safety programmes back ten years...

NigelOnDraft

18th Jun 2002, 05:53

Orca Strait...

The system is confindential as for as the reporters identity is concerned... but since the CHIRP magazine is then published and sent to all (?) ATPL (?), CPL (?) pilots the chances of keeping anything out of the press are zero! I get one sent to me everytime...

Personally, having received the CHIRP magazine with this article in it some weeks ago, I am only surprised it has taken this long to get into the press (albeit the article has some extras, such as a guess as to which airline it refers to, and the aging aircraft issue)

NoD

BEagle

18th Jun 2002, 05:59

Whilst the report made might have been confidential, the matter was reported openly in the most recent CHIRP feedback circulated to professional licence holders. That is NOT confidential.

But someone in the media has decided to allege that the report refers to RyanAir - which is quite probably libellous. Quite why this allegation should have been made, I do not know - there was nothing in the CHIRP feedback which made any reference to a specific operator or aerodrome.

Hugh Jorgen

18th Jun 2002, 07:03

Still, it will keep pressure off the railways, won't it Tony Darling:rolleyes:

C Montgomery Burns

18th Jun 2002, 07:16

Sorry, I've lost the plot on this one. Allegedly, pilots of LCAs are disregarding speed limits set by ATC (who of course work purely by intuition and telepathy - these stories of radars maintaining a vigilant watch are pure fairy stories, especially at Swanwick ;) ) and because they don't maintain separation then they end up having to execute a go-around ... which of course takes considerably longer than the 15 seconds or so they would have saved by not maintaining separation!

What a load of complete and utter b0ll0x! If you upset ATC by disregarding them or ignoring their instructions, you can expect to find yourserf in the Biggin or Ockham hold for a very, very long time - and if you do it on approach you can expect tea and biccies with the CP pronto.

Sure, the LCAs have a habit of high speed taxis, but I have to admit that from what I have seen recently Michael Schumacher seems to have left his day job with Ryanair.

The CAA is responsible for the safety of ALL aircraft in UK airspace. Obviously, this journo has never heard of ramp checks!

As for Stelios' attack on the age of the aircraft operated by Ryanair, he should know better: mechanical and structural reliability is dependent on proper maintenance and no one has ever accused MO'L of skimping on that. In any case, the last crash in the UK of a B737 was that of a brand new aircraft at Kegworth, so give me older, more reliable technology rather than this computer driven stuff! And don't get me started on the B737's rudder actuators either...

Wig Wag

18th Jun 2002, 07:26

The Chirp report is public information. The transport editors of newspapers are probably not on the mailing list and so they had to wait until someone forward the report directly to them.

The concern about pilots being under pressure, from management, over time keeping is valid and relevant to the culture in some UK airlines.

It is the responsibility of all airline Captains to despatch the flight when it is fully safe to do so and not just to achieve an on time target. It is the duty of the airline management to support the Captain.

The problem is . . . Airline management will not always support the pilot in this matter.

What matters is the perceived pressure on the pilot. Bear in mind that the Captain has to be totally objective about safety at all times.

It is a very good thing that this story has broken. The ATC controller who submitted the report is a wise man and really is speaking for pilots who cannot speak publicly because:

A. The airline would sack them.
B. Other UK airlines would not employ them.

I wonder if the CAA will comment publicly?

TC_LTN

18th Jun 2002, 08:42

Wig Wag has hit the nail on the head. The original report to CHIRP appeared to be attacking the culture of the low cost operation rather than a specific operator. Certainly, one the incidents quoted did not involve RYR and I think it is unfortunate that a newspaper naming a specific operator may detract from a very valuable debate.

newswatcher

18th Jun 2002, 08:43

What exactly is the CHIRP procedure? If only one controller reports a problem, does that make it worthy of a follow-up? Supposing said controller has a grudge. Or does system prevent "repeat" reporting so that if one report is made, any other similar ones are "tagged" onto this, preventing several different reports for same problem? This could represent the views of several controllers, although apparently looking like only one. Hope that makes sense!

Jaywalker

18th Jun 2002, 09:09

I wonder,seeing as the Low Cost Airlines are mentioned,if this is not a "cheap" publicity trick by a Major Airline to try and "scare" lost passengers into returning to them?:D

SPEEDBIRD5FP

18th Jun 2002, 09:12

I wonder if this has anything to do with one of the orange lca taking off without a clearance and getting MOR'ed for it?????????

Fluke Skywalker

18th Jun 2002, 09:21

From this week's Flight International on the subject of the French 35 hour working week and its implications on a new Ryanair base in France:

with O'Leary saying: "We'll break the laws in France if that's what needs to be done."

Well what can you say to that? I think that just about sums up MOL's attitude: he'll stop at nothing to get what he wants. How can you possibly trust Ryanair now?

If they're openly prepared to break the law in this case where does it stop? Who knows what laws and regulations they're breaking? :( :( :(

WeatherJinx

18th Jun 2002, 09:24

What worries me is that now that the journos have got hold of CHIRP, the website and the whole (admirable) project risks being devalued and abused and its confidentiality undermined.

WxJx:mad:

MPH

18th Jun 2002, 09:34

Any pilot who has disobeyed ATC instructions should be sanctioned. Not only the professional pilots from the low cost or 'high' cost airlines, but any pilot. I doubt that any airline pilot or any other type of comercial or private pilot, would out righly go against instructions given by ATC, tower or ground control. This report must be looked into by BALPA and the other unions, so as to clarify and set the records straight!

GearUp CheerUp

18th Jun 2002, 09:47

"Some pilots are also using their radios to complain that they are not being given priority. One crew complained that another aircraft had been allowed to land first because they were not UK nationals. "

In my experience the UK is the only place in Europe where aircraft departing or even landing are handled on a 'first come first served' basis (disregarding tight slots). Ive lost count of the number of times I've experienced such as; been told to give way to the Air France who still had about half a mile to taxi at CDG been told to slow to Vapp when still at 15 miles in Ireland because there was a Ryanair taxiing out to the holding point.

Fluke Skywalker

18th Jun 2002, 10:03

WxJX

I don't think this is the first time the journos have used CHIRP - I remember last year there was a big story on the telly and in the papers re flight planned fuel all based on an article in CHIRP.

CHIRP is an anonymous system. However in this case the editor(s) of Feedback thought it important and relevant to include the phrase "low cost airline operators" in the published report. In addition their summary/comment stated:

Most, if not all, major UK airports hold regular liaison meetings at which problems ... can be discussed between Air Traffic Services and airline representatives. However, the effectiveness of these depends on regular participation by local operators.

They also forwarded a copy of the report to the CAA Safety Regulation Group.

Clearly the editor(s) of Feedback feel this case warrants further attention and that normal channels of communication aren't as effective as they should be. Their intention is to raise awareness at an early stage to prevent this happenning. The fact that it has made headline news only goes to show that many people are sceptical of the LCAs and their committment to Safety vs Profit.

With MOL seemingly happy to break the law when it suits him (see my post above) who's to say that the LCAs don't deserve a bit more scrutiny? :)

Peter Skellan

18th Jun 2002, 10:21

1) Everyone knows the whole thing is about Ryanair.

2) Ezy and Go pilots have no on time bonuses or performance related incentives - do Ryanair?

3) If you are not on time in Go or Ezy nobody ever asks why. Do they in FRA?

4) I was always under the impression that the low costs know that the first one to have a serious accident will be the first one to go bust.

5) The speed of heat until 4 miles saves a fraction of a minute at best which is nearly always lost waiting for the stand/tug/clearance/pax so experienced crew just don't bother.

6) Go and Ezy have aircraft monitoring equipment which generates reports for things such as high speed taxiing.

7) Its a shame Chirp or the filer chose to hide behind the phrase Low Cost Airlines when they actually meant Ryanair.

Captain Stable

18th Jun 2002, 10:26

CHIRP does not identify airlines, airports, or even countries. There is no slur that I can see on "all low-cost operators". If they had said "A foreign flag-carrier", do you suppose that Lufthansa would be up in arms about the slur on them for what was, obviously, about Air France?

Furthermore, I'm not sure where you get the idea that it is tax-payers' money. Their website says "Welcome to The CHIRP Charitable Trust Home Page" (My emphasis).

If you throw it straight in the bin, then more fool you. Most people find it a source of excellent food for thought, a means of learning from the mistakes of others without having to make them yourself. Unless, of course, you don't want to learn, or have already learnt it all?

HEATHROW DIRECTOR

18th Jun 2002, 10:28

C Montgomery Burns wrote: "If you upset ATC by disregarding them or ignoring their instructions, you can expect to find yourserf in the Biggin or Ockham hold for a very, very long time..."

I thought the stuff in the newspapers was bad enough, but this is absolutely bilge. As a Heathrow controller with 30+ years experience I have NEVER known any controller do such a thing. Dear God, we are really getting an awful lot of cretins in aviation nowadays...

stopp the climb

18th Jun 2002, 10:35

It's fair to say that in all walks of aviation as in life there are a percentage of a*****les, even in ATC!

A pilot who ignores specific speed instructions and then goes around soon learns the error of his ways.

Dr Faustus

18th Jun 2002, 11:12

Recently, I have been questioning the instructions of ATCO's, on the approach into STN, because very often their controlling would leave me high and fast. In the best interests of Flight Safety and passenger comfort, I am not interested in descending with gear and speedbreak to capture the glide from above, which is not uncommon at STN.

The problem seems to be with fitting the rest of us in with high speed approaches carried out by Ryanair.

outofsynch

18th Jun 2002, 11:18

Captain Stable,

yes you are right about the Chirp publication. I have always read it with interest, as you say to learn from others mistakes/experiences. But to publish such, that it can get the treatment given by media today, insinuating that Low Cost means Low Safety, is highly irresponsible, and has undermined the whole principle if Chirp to me.

Some issues I think are better invstigated without publication of details into the public arena.

What would have been wrong with Chirp not mentioning the 'Low cost' issue?

Son Of Piltdown

18th Jun 2002, 11:19

So will this report make any difference to flight safety? How would a pilot, feeling under pressure from management to get away on time, now make his decision?

Balancing tech problems/weather/slots/re-fueling/handling etc can be a real juggling act on a really bad day. Add into this a natural fear of 'Sticking your head above the parapet' and it is possible for some more compliant characters to feel like 'helping the company out'.

It is complete rot for any airline to allow (or engender) a time versus safety culture but it does happen.

It is difficult for the CAA to pick this up on Ops inspections too.

I fear that when the hubub from this dies down some people will still push and one day the unsuspecting public will suffer.

So, 'Ladies and Gentlemen' next time the Captain speaking says the flight is delayed 30 minutes, for any reason, just say thank you.

Far better to be late in this world than early in the next.

skid

18th Jun 2002, 12:34

this is the siily season for the press, theres no interesting news so someone with an interest in aviation has spotted this chirp report, put a slant on it and sold the story. Ignore it and it will all go away in a few days. A more relavent story is the increase in the safety reports being generated by swanwick.

Viscount Sussex

18th Jun 2002, 12:41

LTN man
Please why don't you read Capt PPRuNe's **Warning** posting. See what you make of it?, then read your posting regarding The Times.
:mad:

Pirate

18th Jun 2002, 13:05

I agree wholeheartedly with Dr Faustus. The high speed arrivals becoming the norm at STN are a recipe for disaster. I assume they are in response to pressure from Ryanair but they are being instigated by controllers who should know better. Food for thought, perhaps, for the ATCO who submitted the original Chirp report - I do hope he doesn't work at Stansted.

skeet surfer

18th Jun 2002, 14:31

I have just read the 'Q & A' page relating to this 'story' on the BBC website. It is worth a read as David Learmount appears to be blaming pilots for these pressure induced problems rather than the operators........

FlyingIrishman

18th Jun 2002, 14:56

Why is everybody always so quick slagging off Ryanair???

It is a well known fact that the first LCA to have a crash will be the first to go bust. So why should there be a serious breach of safety issues of which the benefit is so little (i.e. a couple of seconds rather than a go around)??

As I have said before, there is nothing wrong with Ryanair's operation and if there was, why doesn't the IAA pick up on it and close the operation down??

The answer is simple: because there is no cause for concern. Pilots are well trained and aircraft are maintained properly.

As far as Stellios goes, indeed he should know better. All the -200's are well maintained and as such are very reliable. Thanks for quoting the British Midland crash as a good example.

When will people stop blaming Ryanair for all the World's evils just because the airline happens to be successful and is Irish?!

brimstone

18th Jun 2002, 16:00

I have just revisited the Reporting Points thread on this subject entitled "Punctuality before safety: CHIRP reports on a low cost airline" started on the 8th May and there are plenty of guesses as to which airline the report refers.

As this site is widely available to all and sundry, perhaps we Ppruners bear some responsibility for the linkage to Ryanair in today`s Times report.

Capt PPRuNe

18th Jun 2002, 16:46

I am almost certain that this 'news' report was developed after the thread about it first appeared here on Reporting Points back in early May. Read the thread again and see how this is actually 'old news' but has probably been through the medias 'manufacturing process' and then scrutinised by their lawyers which is why it has taken them so long to get it out.

The original thread can be reached by clicking on this link: http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=52133&highlight=Punctuality+before+safety

Once again, you can see why the red writing at the bottom of every page is there and this is precisely the result.

As these are anonymous forums the origins of the contributions may be opposite to what may be apparent. In fact the press may use it, or the unscrupulous, to elicit certain reactions.

So, to those of you who are only interested in having a go at one airline or another, which bit of: "In fact the press may use it, or the unscrupulous, to elicit certain reactions" don't you understand? As far as I am aware, because a tiny minority of less enlightened pilots from 'any' airline may have had a paranoia induced, 'throwing of toys out of the pram' go at ATC, the vast majority of pilots in all airlines, including all the LCA's are tarnished with the same brush by the usual sensationalising media luvvies. Remember, they can and will use everything you write, whether in context or not, to produce a 'package' that will get its three minutes of air time or three column inches on the prime pages of their rag.

To those of you who just love to have a go at one airline or another, take note of this and try to use a bit on intellect and realise that we are all pilots and do the same basic job to the best of our ability and training with safety foremost. Once safety has been taken care of we can then apply punctuality and customer service. At the end of the day, and I am amazed that the media are not able to fathom this, we are going to be the first to arrive at the scene of any accident and our careers are dependant on us being the ultimate professionals with so much responsibility. A tiny minority can tarnish the vast majority with their ill thought out comments.

Do not blame the individual who submitted the report to CHIRP as he or she was being totally responsible by highlighting what was, to them, an apparent trend. We have all seen the threads on here where one person criticises a pilot for something they overheard them saying to ATC because of a percieved bias. At the end of the day, most of us know that all the high speed approaches or whatever are negated by the inevitable congestion once on the ground at most busy airports. It is the culture of pressure to compete for good placement in published delay league tables that causes non technical management to try and pressure the technical management and ultimately the pilots AND our colleagues in air traffic control into doing whatever is necessary to achieve the results.

It is not just LCA's management that try to link punctuality to pilots income. The media are not able to put this across in a three minute 'package' so we end up with a dumbed down, sensationalist story over a month after it was first 'aired' on here

fmgc

18th Jun 2002, 17:20

Danny, I think that you are probably correct.

These issues MUST be discussed in CHIRP, if others read it and feel that they have experienced similar issues they might be promted to make a CHIRP report and then we can see a trend (or not) forming, then further action can be taken.

CHIRP is brilliant, long may it live.

As for the press, they should wait to see if there is any substance in the report. If there is, then they should go to print as it is definitely in the ."public interest", if there isn't then they shouldn't report it at all.

But we know that this is not how the press works

TC_LTN

18th Jun 2002, 17:43

Peter Skellan,

I am SURE the reporter wasn't just talking about RYR!

Expeditedescent

18th Jun 2002, 18:05

As a controller in the London TMA I have a few observations:

1. LCA's are not the only airlines who fly their own speeds or break SLP's............big shock.
However I must admit that a larger percentage of aircraft I have been controlling who do go fast through SLP's or who change speed while under ATC speed control are LCA's.
That is my operational experience and not a comment on LCA's or their philosophy.

2. I am always amazed when a pilot gets to 1 mile from the SLP and asks me if there is any speed control......If I advise standard speed, how does the pilot comply. One one occassion I asked a pilot (A LCA) what his speed was as he approached about 2 miles from a SLP for EGSS......he replied 330kts. How does an aircraft reduce from that to 250kts in 2 miles?
This happens with alarming regularity.

3. On occassions I have been sequencing traffic for LOREL, and advised exact speeds to be flown, only for my nicely arranged line to be spoiled by an aircraft who has either reduced to 250kts after being given,say 280, or by an aircraft given 250kts and has not bothered to slow down. Yet again the vast majority from my experience are LCAs.
I have seen separation compromised by an LCA when having been given 290kts by ATC, decided of their own valition to reduce to 250kts, without telling a soul. A pilot would never take themselves off a radar heading, why do some feel that speed control can be disregarded with such ease?

Please can I remind these pilots:

Standard speed at the SLP unless otherwise advised by ATC.

When given a speed to fly by ATC.......fly it until you are de-restricted.

A word about Stansted and Luton...........On my watch each and every aircraft is given 250kts by BPK and 220kts by BKY.......this should not result in high/fast approaches. Similarly to deflect criticsism in some part from the Essex chaps and chapesses, they really do have a pathetically small amount of room in which to vector you, and are not helped by some rather high bases of airspace......If they had a bit more airspace to the North then extended downwinds, and much better sequencing would alleviate most if not all the problems. Ask any Essex controller what would make their lives easier, and they would all say more airspace. A lot of the time they do the best they can within their limited resources.

To conclude, I feel that the only way it seems some pilots will learn to obey SLP's and ATC speed control is to MOR them when they break it........That seems a pretty sad state of affairs.
I thought we were all pulling in the same direction.

t'aint natural

18th Jun 2002, 18:52

Hmm. It's not just the yellow press - the BBC has just informed me that the final arbiters of safety are air traffic controllers.

Fly-by-night

18th Jun 2002, 19:44

Quite often, lately, I've been asked by ATC to maintain 180kts until 4DME. An instruction I'm not happy with and can't comply with - and I fly for a LCA. Come on ATC - Don't rush me!

MarkD

18th Jun 2002, 20:11

on Irish TV [RTE 1800] said pilots are getting more and more "stroppy".

Jaun Huw Nose

18th Jun 2002, 21:02

For those pilots who haven't done it, may I suggest the tour of West Drayton and your local Tower will show why we have the speed limits and the pressures ATC are under....you even get a go at the ATC sim so you can see how easy it is( or not!)
I'ts a pity one or two spoil things by their attitude

j17

18th Jun 2002, 21:07

Fly by night

all you have to do is utter 4 little words

" sorry no can do"

Fuzzy112

18th Jun 2002, 22:09

Jaun Huw Nose

You are quite correct, I am sure for many of us a tour of ATC would be well worthwhile, but, many controllers nowadays have a woefully inadequate knowledge of aircraft capabilities and operational performance. Remember that with TCAS we have a much bigger picture than before. I have the utmost respect for the role of an Air Traffic Controller. Let us just remember though that the safety of an aircraft and it's passengers rests with the pilot, period. I regret to have to inform you that one or two controllers also spoil things 'by their attitude'. That is a fact of life, there are bad eggs in every basket. I would love to see someone from ATC in a simulator with bells ringing and everything else that we have do deal with. You can't say that any one party is to blame. IMHO the blame lies firmly with a fare paying public who want something for nothing and then complain when it doesn't work out. One day, hopefully in the not too distant future and without loss of life, they will find out that you can't have everything in life !

fireflybob

18th Jun 2002, 22:16

Everybody is entitled to their opinion (including the press!!) but surely what counts are the FACTS!!

How often are the SLPs etc being busted and by whom and WHY?

Hysterical media reports do little to further the cause of flight safety - remember they never let the facts get in the way of a good story!

I haven't read a newspaper for four months now neither have I watched the news or listened to a radio news bulletin. Don't worry - if we get invaded the police will come knocking at the door!

BTB

18th Jun 2002, 23:09

expediteDescent;- yours was one of the most lucid and sensible responses I have seen on this site! What a shame lst year put an end to liaison flights where ATC personnel could sit with us in the flt deck and iron out differences. Unfortunately most of us drivers are now so worked to the limit (especially in the lca`s) that going to LATCC or the tower is no longer an option.

As for the "story", I find tarring all LCA`s with the "Hurry, Hurry" brush as offensive as saying all street crime is done by xxxxx`s, yyyyy`s have slitty eyes, and all scandinavian women go like bunnies. The majority of incidents in the LTN and STN patterns being attributed to LCA`s might perhaps be down to the fact that they are in the vast majority in the airspace!

I find the standard check in by MANY pilots of any airline "xyz 111 FLxx to yyy any speed control?" squirmingly embarrassing every time I hear it, and try to educate the guys I fly with accordingly. And I fly with an LCO out of LTN, with a very safety concious company. Speed cameras on the taxiways on a random basis may find the true culprits! ( and I wonder how much the newspaper got paid by the flag carriers for placing the story??!!);)

WalkingChequebook

18th Jun 2002, 23:16

Pre September 11th, I spent many sectors on FRA jumpseats. All the approaches into Dublin were at 300kts, down to 12DME(11 if the hushkits were fitted). The crew were always professionals and nobody had to go around. Seemed very efficient too. What is wrong with reducing speed from 300+kts, to threshold speed, in the shortest possible distance? Think of the fuel savings!

Could it be that this kind of flying is a little too demanding for the average, non-LCA pilot!?

Old Pilot

19th Jun 2002, 00:19

Tw@t,

If you think that 300 kts is the most economical speed in the pattern perhaps you should take a quick look in the books. Sounds like the Essex girl’s excuse for speeding, “ I had to go quick so I could get there before I ran out of petrol!”

Rananim

19th Jun 2002, 00:27

"we are all pilots and do the same basic job to the best of our ability and training with safety foremost. Once safety has been taken care of we can then apply punctuality and customer service. "

This report seems to cast a giant shadow over this notion.As it comes from a controller and was addressed to a highly reputable authority,I see no reason to doubt it.I've been in aviation 30 years and have seen a whole lot of changes.Most of them bad.In truth,despite all the technological advances that have been made,the golden age of flying has well and truly gone now.It disturbs me when I hear of pilots questioning or even disregarding a controller.The pilot-controller relationship is at the very core of flight safety.Its sacrosanct.Cut-throat tactics in the boardroom is one thing but when it filters down to the flt deck,disaster is just around the corner.Valujet discovered this when it was too late.And its not only low-cost carriers.SIA has a reputation for putting its pilots in an impossible corner.They paid the price in Taiwan a couple of years back.They survived because they're big.
Low-cost carriers can work;SWA is the prime example.Why?Because the low-cost mentality is carefully applied to only those departments which are exclusively economically-driven.Flight operations is not,and as such no attempt is made to instill such a lethal ethos.I see that Jet Blue is turning out to be a pretty good blueprint.
When you hear about pilots scrambling for a jumpseat to deadhead for a flight,it makes you wonder.NO.You book the pilot and his crew the required number of seats.That way you have a happy and relaxed crew.And a relaxed crew is a safe crew.You throw in a row with a ticket agent two hours before the guy takes a flight up,and you've got trouble.
When you hear of pilots too afraid to ring the CP and say "We've got a typhoon here,I'm not happy with things,I'm delaying the flight until I am happy",you realise that somewhere along the line somebody lost the plot.

QNH1013

19th Jun 2002, 04:43

expediteDescent,
As a Pilot I understand your concerns. I agree that being a 330kts 2NM before a SLP wont make you be exactly at 250KTS by that point. In most cases, The aircraft autopilot will still be bugging down the speed at or after the SLP but at least the aircraft is decellerating. Same goes if the pilot was manually controlling speed. He'd bug down either AT or slightly before SLP to be decelerating. Asking if theare is any speed control is just trying his luck to maintain high speed approach subject to traffic. I'm not trying to make any excuses and I understand that it's not exactly precision flying but shouldn't it be Ok if there is a little bit of a buffer at SLP's?

Another thing is controllers seem to ask for speed based on what they want for aircraft Ground Speed. But aircraft would be flying to Indicated airspeed at best. But if all aircraft were flying IAS proportonately then it shouldn't be a problem.
Cheers.
(sorry about spelling)

Ignition Override

19th Jun 2002, 05:02

Any media or attorney could find that a crew flew at .79 Mach instead of an assigned or standard .76 (above FL290) and determine that the crew "disregarded ATC instructions" (or failed [forgot] to notify), whether the flying pilot noticed the airspeed indicator increase or was slow to double check an extra time or two.

Often, when we tell US ATC that we are cruising fast due to delays, they don't care anyway.

Is the British press really so desperate for a caption to grab your attention? Are events in Afghanistan and mass murder in Israel just cliche by now?

Seriph

19th Jun 2002, 07:25

There is unfortunately a trend amongst all operators to fly high speed approaches. The request 'any speed control' must grate with many controllers, the question should be 'what speed would you like' Ignition C, no media in the world matches the USA on sheer banality.

Capt Pit Bull

19th Jun 2002, 08:19

There was discussion of speed control on ATC issues a few months back.

Standard Speeds (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=50223)

CPB

Amazon man

19th Jun 2002, 08:21

BTB

You make some sensible remarks and then go and make yourself look stupid with your last sentence.

Full service airlines are not trying to destroy LCA's just trying to compete, that business. The idea they would have a hand in this report is just plain dumb.

BTB

19th Jun 2002, 09:51

In that case I take it back. This is an old non-story dug up fom a months-old Chirp. I acknowledge that under no circumstances would any traditional airline try to discredit the LCOs.

Line up and go

19th Jun 2002, 10:07

It's probably all been said before, I've been 30 years in ATC and I think it has.....
I work at a LTMA airfield and I've never seen any evidence to provoke me into thinking that LCAs operate in any way differently to other carriers, different pilots on different days will operate differently! Different ATCOs on different days will operate differently. For many different resons, I'm not going to spell those reasons out, you are all intelligent beings. (It says here)
Because someone submits a CHIRP report doesn't mean there is necessarily any trend in LCA operations, it's only one report from an individual.
However were there to be a number of such reports then obviously more credence would have to be given to the issue.

I do have a concern however and the issue is much broader and more general...if every time a new manager is appointed to an aviation organisation and his remit is to save money ( albeit without jeopardising safety) is it inevitable that more pressure is brought to bear on those people for safety.
There may not be a direct link between cost cutting and operational safety but does this continuous drive for "efficiency" not inevitably lead to pressures upon safety in an indirect manner.
Just my own hobbyhorse..........
:confused:

acm

19th Jun 2002, 10:44

expeditedescent

your comment about speed control were very interesting. However you should keep in mind that the 737 (the LCA workhorse) at 250 kts, iddle power, speedbrakes deploy is not descending very fast. In LTN and STN, if we are high and then given a shortcut, the only way to come back on our profile and be stabilised when intercepting the glide (from below if possible) is to expedite the descent by increasing speed and then slowing down at the platform altitude.
In the other way, if we are kept high because of traffic or airspace restriction, we have to slow down to typically 210 Kts in order to have the capability to expedite our descent by increasing speed to 250 Kts and once again to come back to our profile,which is paramount to achieve a stabilised approach.

I do believe that pilots are more or less completly ignorant of your constraint. Are ATC aware about the limited manoeuverability of a big jet ?
Finally I find LTN a very challenging place to go (not because of the ground handling only !) but we never know what we gonna get in term of vector. (short base, all the way via Lorel ?...)
You guys do a great job, but maybe we need a little more communication.

frazhm

19th Jun 2002, 11:04

Now lets get this right an ATCO, who presumably is on the receiving end of frequent argie-bargie with LCA's, amongst others, decides that about the only thing he can do, if it isn't "MORable" is to speak his/her mind via CHIRP.

OK, since being available on-line everyone and his gran will have access but at least the point is powerfully made in an open forum. Now if as a result of all of this hullabaloo there are internal memos/emails sent within certain airlines reminding flight deck crew of their responsibilities/obligations with regard to ATC instructions, or pressures removed regading time keeping- then job done - ATCO's are then returned to their (fonts permitting) semi-normal happy, contented state and well done CHIRPS

so WHAT IS THE PROBLEM????

After all, some iffy press regarding safety procedures is better than an assortment of B737 components spread all over several adjaceent fields in the Home Counties.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Charlie32

19th Jun 2002, 12:01

I operate out of a regional "international" airport. In the past two months or so I have witnessed several angry exchanges initiated by pilots.

Querying why "sunday flyers" are alowed to get in the way, asking after ATCO intitated go around "who is going to pay my fuel bill?" and arguing about ATCO decision to allow another carrier to use opposite runway in calm conditions "If you can't use two runways efficiently you shouldn't try".

This degree of dissent gives concern for the state of mind of the individuals concerned and is bad airmanship and could lead to more important transmissions being delayed.

The examples above were not related by any means soley to low cost operators. Perhaps a study is needed to quantify the problem and a strategy needed to deal with the phenomenon of "air rage".

Perhaps more emphasis needs to be placed on this aspect of communication in CRM.

Expeditedescent

19th Jun 2002, 14:37

To all the pilots who have responded to my comments, thank you.

I am a little concerned by a few things:

1: From QNH1013

"I agree that being a 330kts 2NM before a SLP wont make you be exactly at 250KTS by that point. In most cases, The aircraft autopilot will still be bugging down the speed at or after the SLP but at least the aircraft is decellerating. Same goes if the pilot was manually controlling speed. He'd bug down either AT or slightly before SLP to be decelerating. Asking if theare is any speed control is just trying his luck to maintain high speed approach subject to traffic. I'm not trying to make any excuses and I understand that it's not exactly precision flying but shouldn't it be Ok if there is a little bit of a buffer at SLP's?"

I am surprised by this attitude that SLP's do not seem to matter.
SLP's are in place for a number of reasons, one of the main ones that gets overlooked is to slow traffic down when entering a complex and busy traffic situation. By bombing through CLIPY at 300+kts you are compunding the NW Deps controllers problems and workload.
The whole point of the SLP is that you CROSS it at the stated speed, not gradually wind down after you have passed it.
I am astonished that pilots seem to treat SLP's with complete disdain.........Would you say be given a descent clearance to FL150 L by CLIPY snd then waffle past CLIPY at 190 in a gentle descent?
No........so why SLP's?
It is simple compliance with the rules of the STAR. And I hate to say it is non-negotaible.....unless you have been so advised by ATC.
The carefree attitude that SLP's can be ignored and treated as an incovenience worries me.......what is next?

2: "Another thing is controllers seem to ask for speed based on what they want for aircraft Ground Speed. But aircraft would be flying to Indicated airspeed at best. But if all aircraft were flying IAS proportonately then it shouldn't be a problem. "

I have never in my operational experience come across this. I have never heard any controller make any reference to groundspeed.
We do have groundspeed displayed on our radar in TC, and it is obvious to us when a pilot is telling porkies about their speed.
Example from not long ago:
2 a/c inbound to EGSS........number 1 given 280+ with a groundspeed of about 315kts.....the second aircraft given 250kts showing a groundspeed of 310kts...............???????

To acm:

1: "However you should keep in mind that the 737 (the LCA workhorse) at 250 kts, iddle power, speedbrakes deploy is not descending very fast. In LTN and STN, if we are high and then given a shortcut, the only way to come back on our profile and be stabilised when intercepting the glide (from below if possible) is to expedite the descent by increasing speed and then slowing down at the platform altitude."

I have to say in this case refuse the shortcut........ :)

Speed control is only ever applied for a reason....the main one is separation. If you wish to compromise on that, there is little I can do.

2: "In the other way, if we are kept high because of traffic or airspace restriction, we have to slow down to typically 210 Kts in order to have the capability to expedite our descent by increasing speed to 250 Kts and once again to come back to our profile,which is paramount to achieve a stabilised approach. "

If you cannot fly the speed requested by ATC please advise us, then we can do someting about it.......what I have a problem with is pilots in a sequence who decide to apply their own speed control whilst not telling anyone, and having the plane 5 miles behind him hoovering up.

3: "I do believe that pilots are more or less completly ignorant of your constraint. Are ATC aware about the limited manoeuverability of a big jet ? "

No not really, we all know aircraft cannot go down and slow down.....however as I stated earlier speed control is applied for a reason, not simply to cause you problems.
I have also found almost any jet seems to be very manouverable when offered a direct routeing or a base leg :)

"Finally I find LTN a very challenging place to go (not because of the ground handling only !) but we never know what we gonna get in term of vector. (short base, all the way via Lorel ?...) "

All pilots should expect to fly the full LOREL procedure.
If a shortcut is offered, you have the absolute right to refuse it, if you feel that your aircraft's approach/safety will be compromised. Shortcuts are a bonus and should not be expected as the norm.
We are very sympathetic that the procedures into GW and SS are less than ideal, but sadly we all have to work with them.....trust me they cause us a lot of problems. If anyone can give us some more airspace to the North of EGSS, it will be gratefully accepted !!

In all, I must admit to being stunned at some who believe that speed control and speed limit points are open to thier own interpretation. There is never any question of pilots adopting their own headings or levels, and restrictions are complied with religously......so why is speed not given the same treatment?

I agree with other contributors that this kind of debate is exactly what is needed....hopefully it will open eyes on both sides.

Expeditedescent

19th Jun 2002, 14:44

Drat !

Forgot to mention......

Just taking CLIPY as an example...........

The turn from CLIPY to BKY is quite a sharp one.
If you make the turn at 250kts, you are going to be established inbound BKY nice and quickly.

If you cross it at 330kts and make a steaming great wide turn..........

You get very adjacent to the BNN hold, and if there is traffic in the hold at FL150 (very common between 7-8am), things start to look a bit nasty.

This is just one example of many as to why the SLP is where it is and how important it is to cross it at the speed stated.
Not obvious in isolation, however it is the bigger picture where it becomes important.

Just a point to consider......ignore SLP's at your peril. In the flightdeck you are not lucky enough to have the overall picture of what is happening, by taking the rules into your own hands, you are IMHO playing an extremely dangerous game.

Retreats humbly :)

HugMonster

19th Jun 2002, 15:21

Selcted quotes:-Micheal O'Leary, Ryanair's Chief Executive, described the report as nonsense and said that the respected whistle-blowing body which published it was "an internet chat room".

...

[MOL] ... described the controller who filed the report as a "loony".

...

[MOL] described CHIRP as "the equivalent of the PPrune chatroom", referring to the Professional Pilots Rumour Network website on which pilots are encouraged to exchange gossip about the industry under the protection of anonymity.

...

David Learmount, safety editor of Flight International, said "Mr O'Leary's comments are very unfair and unwise. The CAA endorses CHIRP because it has brought many safety issues to light. It exposes the tips of icebergs and its value is demonstrated in exactly this kind of case when action is needed to prevent a problem from developing and resulting in a mistake that matters."
Mr. O'Leary said the incidents could never have happened as the controller described them in the report. "The report from one single air traffic controller is subjective nonsense with no basis in fact or evidence," he said. "The controller is duty bound by procedures to file a report to the Civil Aviation Authority. He's broken the law is he hasn't filed this concern with the CAA."

...

Mr O'Leary denied that Ryanair pilots were under any more pressure than those employed by full service airlines such as British Airways. "You can't fly any faster or slower even if you wanted to because there is a two minute separation between planes going into landing.
"Our pilots are under less pressure because we don't operate to the busiest airports like Heathrow, Charles de Gaulle or Frankfurt. I don't even know how we would put our pilots under pressure. What do you do? Call him up as he's coming in to land?"

...

(from another article)

Passengers who later complained to the Air Transport Users' Council found no help there either - Ryanair has refused to speak to the council for 18 months, describing it as "a bunch of halfwits".

...

Ryanair, an airline that flew 11 million people last year, employs only four people in its customer service department. Getting through to complain in the first place is a major achievement.

...

The number of complaints to the ATUC about low-cost airlines is on the increase, with Simon Evans, the chief executive, saying that Ryanair is "by far the worst violator".

Secret Squirrel

19th Jun 2002, 15:23

No real comment on the issue at hand. I've had my queries answered and anyone's post which I've found banal - namely Montgomery's, and WCB - have all been suitably answered by others.

A word to Danny, though:

And what is it that you expect, exactly? If you seek the level of conversation reserved for the armchair room in an Oxford College, then you should have called it the Professional Oxford Don Pilot's rumour network. What utopian dream did you have when you started this website? Are you to add personal opinions unless backed up by written confirmed evidence signed in triplicate by the source, two lawyers and a notary to the edict that we can't discuss politics or religion?????

Because that's the best way to go about it isn't it, Danny: it's the British way; If you don't air grievances and express opinions in public then the problems will go away.

I think maybe you'd have made a good recruitment officer for BA as they seem to want clones piloting their aircraft as well. You obviously don't or won't realise that different personalities are what makes life interesting. Perhaps, and it's only a suggestion, you could have a screening process based on psychometric testing to see if we all have the right temperament to post on your website.

You and David Blunkett should have cream teas together every Friday afternoon; you could learn a lot from each other.

Findo

19th Jun 2002, 15:36

Interesting that a post on the ATC forum on the same subject has generated almost no response and this one has managed over 65 replies.

To save me re-typing can I just point you towards the ATC thread to see if it puts the original report in perspective.

Lying pilots (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=56890)

P.S. CHIRP is not a "safety" report as stated in the newspaper article. If it is dangerous or even potentially so, ATC must file a Mandatory Occurrence Report. CHIRP is just an opinion.

Capt Byrd de Styrke

19th Jun 2002, 16:32

Let's not kid ourselves on the basic issue, delay minimisation and avoidance is a pressure here and may help to explain why reports of this kind are filed.

Within the US, the same issues have cropped up for low cost carriers and are certainley ringing a few bells with people from the NTSB if not in the air on the ground as well !!!

Fast taxiway speeds....rushed pre flight checks
High landing/runway speeds.....see Burbank for details
Gate approaches....

WalkingChequebook

19th Jun 2002, 19:31

Oh dear! Such seriousness from SS et al...

Remember the warning at the foot of every page?

Honestly girls !:D

Son Of Piltdown

19th Jun 2002, 21:19

This is from the public pages of the BALPA website:

Commenting on The Times story today (‘Budget airline pilots accused of putting safety at risk’) Carolyn Evans, Technical Secretary of the British Air Line Pilots Association (BALPA) said:

‘The recent report from an air traffic controller to the industry’s Confidential Human Factors Incident Reporting Programme (CHIRP) we believe to be aimed at one particular ‘no frills’ airline, ‘Ryanair – an Irish regulated airline with which BALPA has no formal arrangements.

‘Where we do have formal arrangements in place, and that is in virtually all UK airlines, including the ‘no frills’ carriers EasyJet, Go and Buzz, we find the report unfounded.

‘Most if not all major UK airports hold regular liaison meetings at which problems such as those described in the report can be discussed between Air Traffic Services and airline representatives and appropriate action taken.

‘The report states such occurrences to be the exception rather than the rule and raising awareness at such an early stage will ensure that any problems that have been identified as occurring in UK airspace will be immediately addressed and rectified.’

Not sure what to make of this one; comments anyone?

foo fighting

19th Jun 2002, 22:20

to add another London Tma atco comment.

Thoroughly agree with expedite descent on all points - thanks for doing all that typing.

Hopefully the outcome of all this debate will be the eradication of ANY unhelpful comments to us from the cockpit.

It is exceptionally rare, I have had two arsey comments in 6 years but, I feel that now it is up to us to 1261 anything like this, stamping out any possible development of this 'problem'. The campaign against level busts by atc reporting all instances seems to has had the positive effect desired in markedly reducing the number of times it occurs.

With v.v.v.v.v. little exception the crews in and out of the Ltma are totally professional, even when we can tell in your voices that you think we are talking crap you still do it - blind loyalty !

A last point - if you can PLEASE make the effort to visit the centres, every single pilot who comes in will find out answers to all those " I've always wondered why you...." questions. Considering how vital our roles are to each other it is incredible how little face to face contact there is.

The Real Slim Shady

19th Jun 2002, 22:43

Sorry have skimmed through but JEEZ but what a lot of discussion about nothing!

Speed is not the problem.

Look beyond that, safety is the issue.

How many accidents have the LCA's had? The Europeans ones please, as they are the topic under discussion.

If you actually examine quite critically the crew ratios of the LCA's to the Full service / charter carriers you may find that they have crews who are better rested, less fatigued and working, perhaps longer flying hours(more productive) than duty hours. This is simply Stelios bowing out with a flourish.

Bump up the share with spin nad then when the corportae ionvestors trash you drag it back down with spin.

Danny, summed it up quite nicely, so why dont we drop it before the real skeletons appear?

Wee Weasley Welshman

19th Jun 2002, 23:14

Its annoying to watch the BBC (as I type) broadcast people such as Gwyneth Dunwoody talking about CHIRP and Piloting matters with the scantest grasp of the issues. On the same day as the public watch sensationalist reports on national and local tv about the delays and 'misery' caused be continental strikes.

I fear the industry is in danger of witnessing a lazy public re-perception that air travel is not worth the bother.

A gloomy development for us all. :(

Time for some upbeat PA's methinks.

WWW

HugMonster

20th Jun 2002, 00:26

Uh oh - I can imagine what WWW's "upbeat" PA's are like! :D :p

Wheelybin

20th Jun 2002, 03:16

A sobering thought for all of you who are having a go (no insinua tion intended) at the low costs.

1. Have you ever queried your position in traffic.

2. have you ever queried a speed restriction.

3 have you ever queried a holding instruction.

4 have you ever received an ATC instruction and taken it as being " in your own time".

5 have you ever questioned your slot.

6 have you ever asked for push without a ground crew.

7 have you asked for a ready message whilst still loading passengers.

8 have you ever asked for an early QSY because you believe it will lead to a shorter routing.

Our RADAR's are pretty good these days chaps, the information available to us show's us just what track/speed your flying and it has become just as much our job to React to that, as control it, so dont bull**** us that its just the low costs who are pushing the boundaries. I have yet to meet a pilot who has not said "When you say "that "we take it as meaning "this".
I have never had an easier day than today , no questions, no comments....perhaps we ought to put these reports out more often.

akerosid

20th Jun 2002, 04:33

Not so long ago (within the last two weeks), I read a quote from MO'L where he said that one of the things that could wreck its growth was a major accident and yet he dismisses CHIRP as "an internet chatroom". Not terribly encouraging.

While looking into CRM issues recently for an article I'm writing (not in connection with FR), I was introduced to a model used by a major airline in its CRM: Prof. James Reason's Swiss Cheese model. Basically, this involves a study of the factors contributing to accidents on various levels from management right down. Each "cheese" involves a different level and theory goes that every accident can be traced to failures at each of the five levels - holes in the Swiss cheese, if you will. (This model, incidentally, is used among others by Australian air accident investigators).

Just reading what Prof. Reason said about the different cultures required to avoid accidents - an informed culture, a REPORTING culture (my emphasis), a just culture and a learning culture (to name just some). Looking at Prof. R's article in the FR context, it appears that a lot of these factors simply do not appear to be in place at FR. Would that be fair? Does anyone in FR wish to comment on Ryanair's CRM culture and how it works in practice? How tightly is it monitored by the IAA in practice (if at all?)

I'm more than ready to agree that Lo-cos are quite safe and personally, I have no problem flying with them, but it does concern me that there should be such a contemptuous attitude towards safety from the very top and what appears (from what I have read) to be a culture of fear among pilots, as far as reporting safety issues is concerned.

BOAC

20th Jun 2002, 07:54

Wheely - I suspect there is no-one THAT perfect!

The point is, however, that it is from your profession that the observation on all this originated. The usual rabble are just joining in on the bandwagon as usual.

<perhaps we ought to put these reports out more often.>

I think you should.

Wig Wag

20th Jun 2002, 09:45

The FT have made a direct quote from PPRUNE:

http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1024484357198&p=1012571727307

brabazon

20th Jun 2002, 10:43

Has M O'L opened his mouth just too far on this one? To berate the CHIRP system in such vitriolic terms does him no favours at all. Such confidential reporting systems are a key component of a the current safety management process for the industry as a whole. For M O'L to attack this in such a way will potentially damage Ryanair's reputation. Alongside the 1 millionth passenger ruling where his "hostile and aggressive" attitude were commented on by the judge - how long will Ryanair's shareholders back him or will he be forced to tone down his comments?

C Montgomery Burns

20th Jun 2002, 12:32

From FT.com:

The issue has led to some lively online debate between pilots on one of the industry's leading gossip websites, where most postings are anonymous. The consensus is that the problem is limited and may not be restricted to low-cost airlines.

"As far as I am aware, because a tiny minority of less enlightened pilots from 'any' airline may have had a paranoia-induced 'throwing of toys out of the pram' go at ATC [air traffic control], the vast majority of pilots in all airlines, including all the LCAs [low-cost airlines] are tarnished with the same brush by the usual sensationalising media luvvies," writes Danny Fyne, founder of the Professional Pilots Rumour Network.

How to make friends and influence people! :rolleyes:

Seriph

20th Jun 2002, 12:59

I wondered how long it would be before the CRM trendies joined in. Akerosid, swiss cheese the problem heh, drivel, no particular operator is guilty here, no pilots are fearful of making or filing reports it is simply a case of everyone wanting to save time and costs. Maybe in 1% of occasions someone upsets ATC, well thats life, this whole thing is getting completely out of hand especially when politicians and our favourite FLIGHT commentator get in on the act.

akerosid

20th Jun 2002, 14:34

We'll see.

It just looks to me, from what I've seen that the slices are lining up. This doesn't automatically result in an accident and hopefully it never will; what it does mean is that IF there is an accident, all those factors will usually be present.

Despite what MO'L said in his most recent BBC interview, there does not appear to be a culture which encourages safety related objections. I'd just like to see this issue addressed before an appalling accident occurs.

Seriph

20th Jun 2002, 15:09

Lots of 'ifs' 'maybes' 'possibles', as usual hedging the bets in case you can say ‘I told you so’. RA is no different to all the other operators, just the current whipping boy. The CRM business is getting completely out of hand, another fad.

Manel

20th Jun 2002, 16:36

I've read this discussion and the articles in the press about this with great interest. However, not being an expert, I don't understand everything that's being discussed here. I'd be very interested in talking to anyone who may want to talk to me. This would of course be on a completely confidential basis. Feel free to e-mail me.
Thanks,
Jon

NigelOnDraft

20th Jun 2002, 16:39

Contrary to one posting, ATC liaison visits on Flt Deck are still on - I've just done a 3 day tour with 2 ATCO students coming on the js - and all well worthwhile...

NoD

Carruthers

20th Jun 2002, 18:20

If we hav'nt got enough armchair / keyboard experts , we now have solicitors preaching on CRM and accident prevention. How's about we stay out of your office if you stay out of ours?

halo

20th Jun 2002, 19:44

And you had the pleasure of my company on your jumpseat as well NigelOnDraft!

There should be more jumpseat rides for controllers, they are the only way to get valuable feedback!

160to4DME

20th Jun 2002, 21:46

Dear Mr O'Leary

You seem to speak your mind, so here's mine:

You can stuff your opinions where the sun don't shine.

We work damned hard for all carriers and go the extra bit whether it's for a full cost carrier, a 3rd world carrier or even a low cost operator.

People take the pi$$, which no doubt is the trigger for the Chirp report. I, as a muddled, confused, subjective ATCO agree totally with the colleague who had the balls to voice his/her genuine fears to Chirp.

How dare you denegrate a publication as esteemed as Chirp. Mind you, anything which gets in the way of your self opinionated self adoration seems to suffer the same diatribe and treatment.

You have single handedly shattered any goodwill there was between ATCOs and your company.

Next time your Dublin - UK and Europe flights get stuck at FL190, don't go bleating that ATC aren't going out of their way to obtain higher levels, as from where I'm seeing things, I feel I'll subjectively make the decision to keep you down there.

Kindest regards

160

BEagle

22nd Jun 2002, 18:14

A fairly long trip from Africa to UK. Roberts, Dakar, Canaries, Casablanca, Lisbon ATCCs - no problem. We greet Madrid and are told that we'll have to descend from FL380 to FL280 at LOTEE as "You are not RVSM approved". We query this, stating that we certainly are RVSM approved. "It is not indicated on your flightplan" says Manuel. "Well it was filed with the correct RVSM-approval identifier and I can assure you that we were RVSM approved when we came down this way yesterday" I add. "Stand by. What is your ac type" We tell him. "Please advise your company to file correctly in future" grumbles the controller. We resist the temptation to enter into further conversation but just say "Roger. Confirm cleared direct LOTEE maintaining FL380?" "Affirm" he grudgingly replies.........

So sometimes it's not just aircrew who cause ill-feeling....

But the female controller who replaced this grumpy $od a few minutes later on the same frequency couldn't have been more charming!

eyeinthesky

22nd Jun 2002, 18:20

How did he think you had got all the way across France at FL380 without being RVSM compliant?? Idiot!

It happens quite often that we get estimates by computer from Maastricht that indicate RVN (not approved) but the a/c is at FL340 or so. Usually there has been a corruption of data or it has been input incorrectly so the NAS computer assumes the worst case scenario. We always check with the aircraft when it calls but we usually assume that if it has got this far at that level then it must be approved.

BEagle

22nd Jun 2002, 20:26

No - we were going from Lisboa ATCC to Madrid ATCC. The error probably originated at Lungi airport whence we had departed; they are not all that used to RVSM down there! But Canaries had already asked - we'd been at FL330 in the Dakar area (having been too heavy to make FL370) and were asked whether we wanted FL320 or FL340. By then we could make FL380 - so that's where we'd been for the hour or so before Manuel queried us!

hobie

22nd Jun 2002, 22:31

charlie32's post reminded me of a posting I made last november and which I've noted below ....... no response was ever posted

quote ....

Air Rage? .......

"this happened about three weeks ago .... it does't matter where the airport was but the large aircraft was about to commence a west bound atlantic crossing .......

an Airbus 330 was waiting for line up clearance and a small aircraft was about to land .... the small aircraft decided to overshhoot and go around .... the airbus was given clearance to line up and then cleared for take off ..... after take off and during the climb out the airbus called the tower and said .....

"I feel I should mention this .... what are you guys running here?, an airfield or a flying club?"

....... the pilot then went on to say that he should have been given priority and the smaller aircraft made to make another approach ..... further remarks were made re. the fuel consumption of a large passenger aircraft holding on the ground versus a small non comercial aircraft ..... about this time the airbus had reached hand over altitude and was passed to another controller without response ......

meanwhile the tower was handling a landing 737 .... an L1011 and then a 747 freighter that missed the runway exit taxiway and had to backtrack causing a 5 minute delay to two more west bound 330's ....... a little while later a Galaxy enroute to the States from Germany diverted with smoke in the cockpit with all the associated emegency activity ....... I'm only telling you this because I felt so sorry for the poor bl$$dy ATC guy but also the airbus .... what a great way to start a trans atlantic crossing!"

end of post

I have to say that the above incident disturbed me greatly at the time

Skye Pilot

23rd Jun 2002, 14:57

The company I work for will fail any pilot for busting, ignoring SLP or restrictions imposed on them by ATC, whether during a line check or LPC OPC in the simulator. This I believed to be the industry norm. Anybody treating ATC restrictions with disdain has no place in a cockpit. It terrifies me that this goes on, please tell me this is a windup.

However obviously in vary rare situations were complying with an ATC instruction will jeopardise the safety of the aircraft it will be prudent to disregard the instruction but you MUST tell ATC. i e radar heading into CB, collision avoidance.

My understanding of the SLP is that you are to be at the speed required 3nm prior to the SLP.

marianne23

24th Jun 2002, 14:53

I've been reading this debate about the article in the Times, it's fascinating. However some of the people who have been contributing to the forum seem to be in the industry and obviously should know whether or not low-cost airlines ARE or ARE not endangering passengers by cutting corners. The press has focussed on the row between Ryanair and Easyjet but has not addressed the issue. Would anyone out there who works for an LCA have any views?

marianne23

24th Jun 2002, 15:16

You two seem to know quite a lot about this, if you have any more info to give me and would like to do so confidentially, email [email protected]

FlapsOne

24th Jun 2002, 18:39

marianne23

I work for a LCA as you call it. A major one.

The simple, clear and unambiguous answer is NO, we do not, and have not, and will never comprimise safety by cutting any corners whatsoever.

We aim to limit time on the ground between flights and keep the aircraft flying more sectors than do the frilly airlines (H(igh)CAs ??). All flights, from start to finish, are conducted in an identical fashion to the HCAs. Correct spreeds, heights and profiles etc. If given an instruction from ATC - we follow it, end of story.

Occaisionally we might ask if a more direct routing is available - as does everybody I might add - if so we take, if not then no problem.

Approach speeds are straight out of the book, only varied following ATC request. Stable approach parameters must be met by 1000' on finals - if not then Go Around and do it again.

There is no variance from the above principles either encouraged or allowed. Any pilot deliberately deviating from the above will have a limited time with the company - and rightly so.

Finally, if any pilot, without clearance, flew his aircraft within controlled airspace on a routing for which he had no clearance (particularly in a busy terminal area):

a: Everyone would know about it due to the following R/T exchange

b: An MOR would almost certainly be filed

c: He/She had better be a fast talker as 'tea and biscuits' with the Chief Pilot would surely follow swiftly

d: P45 would be available for collection

marianne23

25th Jun 2002, 16:45

FlapsOne:

Thanks for full reply, this seems to be the consensus but then again I was curious given the recent turmoil in the press (any idea why the ATC who "blew the whistle" did so?) I'm a consumer which means a) I was concerned and b) I don't understand most of the abbreviations you use!!!

Thanks,
M

nice_beaver

25th Jun 2002, 17:14

Overheard on MAN ATCC couple days ago

Irish LCA requesting left 20 to avoid WX

MAN ATCC 'OK, WX avoidance approved'

MAN ATCC 'UK charter airline would you like to deviate
for the WX?'

UK charter airline ' Negative, pause...... no WX here!'

Nuff said.

Stan Woolley

25th Jun 2002, 18:08

Nice_Beaver

I'm no fan of MOL but that was a cheap shot which actually proves nothing at all.:rolleyes:

Seriph

25th Jun 2002, 18:31

When 'consumes' try to interpret this nonsense then it is time to wrap it up. The exchanges with ATC have nothing to do with safety.

HOMER SIMPSONS LOVECHILD

25th Jun 2002, 18:46

"Cross SLP or 2 minutes before holding fix at 250kts or less when at FL140 or below" Who the F*** dreamed up that masterpiece of yuck-speak?.(The SLP invariably being "10 before SNOTTY"or some such)
Confused? You should be!

Gladfa

25th Jun 2002, 19:04

Less than 5 miles to Mirsi, FL70....

"LowCostIrishAirline, what's your speed?"
"310 knots, is there any speed???"

<DOH>

FlapsOne

25th Jun 2002, 21:56

Sorry for the jargon abbreviations - here goes:

R/T - Radio Telephony (the radio)

ATC - those who we speak to on the R/T

MOR - Mandatory Occurrence Report

P45 - Get another Job!

Hope that helps;)

overstress

27th Jun 2002, 21:41

flanker

a. I wouldn't have said it was a cheap shot
b. nothing proves anything except in equations and courts of law
c. both the airline in question and the one our esteemed leader is employed by have, or have had, a reputation for this kind of sneaky corner-cutting.

But airliners were made to travel in straight lines, so who can blame them for trying?

I heard a Irish LCA asking to cut the corner of the Welsh MTA the other day. Air 2 bob regularly invent their own SW departure from BHX, but so does Brymon. So what?

BEagle

28th Jun 2002, 06:02

Back in the '80s corner-cutting off-route airliners often got intercepted in the North Sea. The route of the 'Norwich Flier' often meant that it attracted our interest until we'd identified it as such! Way back a Lightning actually took the paint off a light twin who was flogging across the North Sea at night not talking to anyone....

One off-route airliner flew himself through the NOTAM'd exercise area for an air defence exercise involving communications jamming - we were closing for a visident before SOC called us on Guard to haul off....

It might seem economic sense to go off-airways, but it can expose people to the attention of others they'd probably rather avoid - although probably far less so these days!

Son Of Piltdown

30th Jun 2002, 13:25

From the Sunday Times:

June 30, 2002

Budget airline ‘risked safety’
Gareth Walsh

RYANAIR, the budget airline, has disobeyed instructions issued by air traffic controllers, potentially compromising the safety of its passengers, according to official safety reports.
The documents reveal how the airline’s jets have approached airports too low. Earlier this month Ryanair’s chief executive claimed that recent criticism of the carrier’s pilots was unfounded.

The reports, held by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) at Gatwick, appear to support a recent complaint by an anonymous air traffic controller to Chirp, the aviation industry’s whistleblowing service. It alleged that pilots flying for budget operators were cutting corners to save time and money.

At the time Michael O’Leary, Ryanair’s chief executive, fiercely denied any suggestion that his airline was involved, casting aside the complaint as nothing more than the “subjective, personal opinion of one individual air traffic controller”.

The CAA documents seen by The Sunday Times last week detail a series of official allegations lodged against Ryanair by air traffic controllers within the past 12 months and include:

Flying too low into airports. In two incidents jets approached 1,000ft too low.

Misleading controllers about flying at high altitudes. On more than six occasions the airline filed flight plans saying its planes were equipped to fly close to other jets at high altitude, only for the pilots to inform controllers that they were not qualified to use the equipment once they were in the air.

There have also been complaints about Ryanair pilots mixing up call signs and reacting to radio messages that were intended for other aircraft.
All the CAA reports were filed by controllers who felt the incidents could have put safety at risk if not dealt with.

Last week Ryanair denied compromising on safety. “In all airlines, including Ryanair, the principal pressure — and ‘pressure’ is a bad word — put on pilots is to ensure that safety is prioritised as their number one objective at all times,” said O’Leary.

The company added that it is working with the CAA to reduce call sign confusion, which it said is an industry-wide problem.

Ryanair also said it had an 18-year unblemished safety record and that the number of reports relating to it was significantly lower than for other airlines.

The CAA files reveal a startling range of incidents occurring in Britain’s skies affecting most airlines.

Among the most worrying are deliberate attempts to cause mayhem in the air. On two occasions reports have warned of hoax radio commands to aircraft, one successfully telling a Boeing 747 to make a left turn, and a second giving speed instructions to the crew of an American Airlines jet.

On four other occasions commercial aircraft, including a Boeing 747, have been accidentally routed through designated danger zones where military exercises were under way. In one case, four unidentified planes flew into a naval missile-firing exercise off Portsmouth.

Among the most common risks are near-misses between aircraft. One involved an easyJet crew, who took off despite having just been warned to wait while a helicopter crossed the runway.

Among the more bizarre reports to the CAA was one from an Aer Lingus crew, who encountered a freefall parachutist at 9,000ft “dead ahead at very close range” as they prepared to land.

Another was after an Air 2000 captain told air traffic controllers there were two unidentified flying objects speeding beneath their jet as it flew at 33,000ft above over Hertfordshire.