Ryanair buys new private jet to shuttle staff
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gaunty
And yes the "private" jets illegally operated in charter are a danger to everyone, dumb owners and complicit and even dumber pilots don't seem to understand the seriously negative financial consequences if it goes pear shaped.
Edit: for dumb pilot, add idiot.
Edit: for dumb pilot, add idiot.
How can these, so called, dumb idiot pilots know whether the pax are employed by the owner of the airplane and/or know whether they are paying for the flight?
Last edited by Iceman666; 3rd Nov 2012 at 16:19.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: England
Posts: 1,008
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've been in the said aircraft a few times and it's far from 'tatty' etc as has been described here, it's even got a fully equipped bar on board (which is free, may I add...).
It's based at STN and usually moved to ferry engineers and parts around to stations that don't have FR based engineers (or limited hours coverage), I believe it's rarely used to transport the top knobs of FR around, just mostly engineering.
It's based at STN and usually moved to ferry engineers and parts around to stations that don't have FR based engineers (or limited hours coverage), I believe it's rarely used to transport the top knobs of FR around, just mostly engineering.
moved to ferry parts around to stations that don't have FR based engineers (or limited hours coverage)
I believe it's rarely used to transport the top knobs of FR around
SHJ
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Iceman666
Fair question. Simple answer.
It is their "job" to know and ensure that the flight they are about to COMMAND i.e. take legal responsibility for its conduct, is in fact legal in the terms under which it is flight planned and conducted.
The owner may or may not (by contrivance) wear the consequences but he/she does not carry the legal burden when the door is shut.
If the pilot has not the wit nor courage to satisfy himself completely of the circumstances in which he would be able to defend his actions in a court of law, and with the full and active cooperation of the owner, then he should not be in command.
Owners tend to have strong if not overbearing characters/personalities and may be difficult to deal with, but you can be assured of one thing and that is they will ALWAYS act in their own best interests. Your job as the competent aviation expert on staff is to show him clearly how it is in his best interests to accept the facts and understand the significant financially adverse consequences.
It is a well trodden path and the contrivances well understood and revealed.
He would be complicit, with the owner in the illegal action.
Clearly this is not well understood by said pilots, or worse if it is, then either way the definition under debate is clearly correct in this context.
Turning a blind eye on anything for the sake of a job corrupts the integrity of the whole trust process on which the whole aviation safety process rests.
Fair question. Simple answer.
It is their "job" to know and ensure that the flight they are about to COMMAND i.e. take legal responsibility for its conduct, is in fact legal in the terms under which it is flight planned and conducted.
The owner may or may not (by contrivance) wear the consequences but he/she does not carry the legal burden when the door is shut.
If the pilot has not the wit nor courage to satisfy himself completely of the circumstances in which he would be able to defend his actions in a court of law, and with the full and active cooperation of the owner, then he should not be in command.
Owners tend to have strong if not overbearing characters/personalities and may be difficult to deal with, but you can be assured of one thing and that is they will ALWAYS act in their own best interests. Your job as the competent aviation expert on staff is to show him clearly how it is in his best interests to accept the facts and understand the significant financially adverse consequences.
It is a well trodden path and the contrivances well understood and revealed.
He would be complicit, with the owner in the illegal action.
Clearly this is not well understood by said pilots, or worse if it is, then either way the definition under debate is clearly correct in this context.
Turning a blind eye on anything for the sake of a job corrupts the integrity of the whole trust process on which the whole aviation safety process rests.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: london, UK
Age: 57
Posts: 550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm lost. Which pilots?
Aren't they just running a lear about with bit of planes and crew in? Bits for their own planes? Pilots who are their own staff? Why would being on an AOC improve the safety of that bit of the operation? And it might be stating the obvious but they do already have an AOC if there was a need. Sticking the lear on the AOC just adds a load of bureaucratic nonsense to what will only ever be a private operation. Holding an AOC is not a shield of invincibility - commitment to genuinely good CRM, flying ability, technical competence and not employing idiots is the key to safety.
I've never worked for Ryanair but I know quite a few who do and it always seems to me that the stone throwing is from the outside - those that work there seem to like it!
Aren't they just running a lear about with bit of planes and crew in? Bits for their own planes? Pilots who are their own staff? Why would being on an AOC improve the safety of that bit of the operation? And it might be stating the obvious but they do already have an AOC if there was a need. Sticking the lear on the AOC just adds a load of bureaucratic nonsense to what will only ever be a private operation. Holding an AOC is not a shield of invincibility - commitment to genuinely good CRM, flying ability, technical competence and not employing idiots is the key to safety.
I've never worked for Ryanair but I know quite a few who do and it always seems to me that the stone throwing is from the outside - those that work there seem to like it!
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: In The Ether
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good God
Christ I just scanned through this thread but had to go back and read it from the beginning. Dare I ask whom half these 'aviation experts' are on this thread? Yes there are potentially down the line taxation liabilities but this is still a P91 operation whether the owner/crew/friends/mistress is on board. As long as there is no monetary gain for hire or reward I think the classification is pretty clear.
I have had a chance to meet some of the crew and these guys fly the arse of the thing and for all the reasons described in the official use of the aircraft.
Despite what people may think of O'Leary either personal or professional, sorry, the guys has done alright compared to a few!
I have had a chance to meet some of the crew and these guys fly the arse of the thing and for all the reasons described in the official use of the aircraft.
Despite what people may think of O'Leary either personal or professional, sorry, the guys has done alright compared to a few!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd say that it depends on the part, doesn't it? Some spare parts may be dangerous goods, but certainly not all of them. What about a nut or a relay that maintenance just doesn't have in stock at location x?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gaunty
I have never read such a load of ill informed rubbish as placed in this thread!
It is not the pilots job to know whether a flight is a legal or illegal charter!
Just the opinions shown here on the RyanAir Lear which is fully legal demonstrates how many pilots would get it wrong!
It is illegal for a pilot to "knowingly" fly or to have "reasonable" suspicions that a flight is an illegal charter it is not his position to sit in on meetings or to have the knowledge to study legal documents made between the owner and leasing party or to be a party to those meetings that was confirmed to me by a highly respected aviation lawyer!
A pilot is not an aviation lawyer! Probably better if he was as he might make some money !
The Ryan Air Lear was bought for internal work flying engineers and light parts to stricken aircraft! It was estimated to fly 900 hrs per year doing that work!
Maybe it's not flying as much as estimated so they are paddying things out moving employees and executives around as well !
All perfectly legal for a private op. Maybe the pilots should insist they sit in on the board meetings at RyanAir and are part of the decision making process as well as scrutinizing the legal documents made by RyanAirs legal department? and challenge the knowledge and accuracy of that legal department?
Very clever pilots!!! They could make a fortune in law.
Pace
I have never read such a load of ill informed rubbish as placed in this thread!
It is not the pilots job to know whether a flight is a legal or illegal charter!
Just the opinions shown here on the RyanAir Lear which is fully legal demonstrates how many pilots would get it wrong!
It is illegal for a pilot to "knowingly" fly or to have "reasonable" suspicions that a flight is an illegal charter it is not his position to sit in on meetings or to have the knowledge to study legal documents made between the owner and leasing party or to be a party to those meetings that was confirmed to me by a highly respected aviation lawyer!
A pilot is not an aviation lawyer! Probably better if he was as he might make some money !
The Ryan Air Lear was bought for internal work flying engineers and light parts to stricken aircraft! It was estimated to fly 900 hrs per year doing that work!
Maybe it's not flying as much as estimated so they are paddying things out moving employees and executives around as well !
All perfectly legal for a private op. Maybe the pilots should insist they sit in on the board meetings at RyanAir and are part of the decision making process as well as scrutinizing the legal documents made by RyanAirs legal department? and challenge the knowledge and accuracy of that legal department?
Very clever pilots!!! They could make a fortune in law.
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 14th Nov 2012 at 08:00.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Timbuktu
Posts: 962
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm no legal expert, but I know of at least 2 private jets, operated by different companies (neither of which are RYR or anything to do with them), and based in the UK, which are routinely used to ferry spare parts and engineers around the UK / Europe, on behalf of UK-based UK-AOCed airlines (1 airline per jet, not just any airline).
In one case, the person who owns the jet also owns the airline. I'm not sure about the second case.
The jets are not on any AOC. Several of the pilots even only have a CPL and no ATPL. It's been going on for more than 5 years with one aircraft, not sure about the other.
My "rule of thumb" with this sort of thing is, if the wording of the relevant regulations is ambiguous, always look at what the other people are getting away with, because, if nothing else, when you get nicked you can point and say "but they're doing it too".
In one case, the person who owns the jet also owns the airline. I'm not sure about the second case.
The jets are not on any AOC. Several of the pilots even only have a CPL and no ATPL. It's been going on for more than 5 years with one aircraft, not sure about the other.
My "rule of thumb" with this sort of thing is, if the wording of the relevant regulations is ambiguous, always look at what the other people are getting away with, because, if nothing else, when you get nicked you can point and say "but they're doing it too".
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pace
Ready Fire Aim.
Reading your post I didn't know whether to laugh or cry, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, bear with me.
First yourself and who he
"that was confirmed to me by a highly respected aviation lawyer!" probably need to brush up on your reading and comprehension skills. I was NOT referring to whether Ryanair had it right or wrong, in this context they have it right and I actually agree with you.
Second you as a self proclaimed ATPL shouldn't need a so called highly respected aviation lawyer! to school you in these matters. You must have been absent during the air leg classes. Yes part of your LEGAL responsibilities DO include assesment of the matters extant.
Third or whatever, I have owned and been the postholder of more than several organisations in the last 40 years, the most recent of which I started from a blank piece of paper and from which I have recently retired as CEO and handed over the day to day reins to some very bright youngsters that I have mentored, operating an AOC with unrestricted worldwide privileges, a fleet of Citation, Phenom, Challenger and Gulfstream aircraft and holder of an IS-BAO Stage 2 registration. Our clients a mix of Fortune 500 companies and major mining, oil and gas companies most of whom also operate to the IS-BAO.
So, as I am always in search of a higher level of self awarenes and education in matters aviation, I sincerely enquire what is it about:
such a load of ill informed rubbish as placed in this thread!
that I need to understand and if necessary, repent.
And/or do I place you in the "professional" column or the much more highly populated "idiot pilot" one.
Your call.
Ready Fire Aim.
Reading your post I didn't know whether to laugh or cry, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, bear with me.
First yourself and who he
"that was confirmed to me by a highly respected aviation lawyer!" probably need to brush up on your reading and comprehension skills. I was NOT referring to whether Ryanair had it right or wrong, in this context they have it right and I actually agree with you.Second you as a self proclaimed ATPL shouldn't need a so called highly respected aviation lawyer! to school you in these matters. You must have been absent during the air leg classes. Yes part of your LEGAL responsibilities DO include assesment of the matters extant.
Third or whatever, I have owned and been the postholder of more than several organisations in the last 40 years, the most recent of which I started from a blank piece of paper and from which I have recently retired as CEO and handed over the day to day reins to some very bright youngsters that I have mentored, operating an AOC with unrestricted worldwide privileges, a fleet of Citation, Phenom, Challenger and Gulfstream aircraft and holder of an IS-BAO Stage 2 registration. Our clients a mix of Fortune 500 companies and major mining, oil and gas companies most of whom also operate to the IS-BAO.
So, as I am always in search of a higher level of self awarenes and education in matters aviation, I sincerely enquire what is it about:
such a load of ill informed rubbish as placed in this thread!
that I need to understand and if necessary, repent.
And/or do I place you in the "professional" column or the much more highly populated "idiot pilot" one.
Your call.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: South Est
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is not the pilots job to know whether a flight is a legal or illegal charter!
Or, if you really do believe that, I hope your highly respected Aviation Lawyer doesn't charge too much to represent you in the event that your sole defence is "I didn't reaslise M'lud "
Good luck with that.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am a very open guy and was in just that situation a few years back.
A call from the CAA had me shaking in my shoes until an aviation lawyer corrected the CAA.
The next call was an apology and a total clearance by the CAA of my liability in the situation!
So NO I am right
Pace
A call from the CAA had me shaking in my shoes until an aviation lawyer corrected the CAA.
The next call was an apology and a total clearance by the CAA of my liability in the situation!
So NO I am right
Pace
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: london, UK
Age: 57
Posts: 550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ok thickie here again..
aren't you two saying the same thing?
I'm going to start another thread to take the focus off this one because its a bit boring - company has bought a private jet and are flying it around privately, end of story, dullsville..
aren't you two saying the same thing?
I'm going to start another thread to take the focus off this one because its a bit boring - company has bought a private jet and are flying it around privately, end of story, dullsville..
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No I am trying a clear a misconception that a Captain is ultimately responsible for an illegal charter as implied!
That is not the case! The Captain cannot knowingly carry out an illegal. Charter or fly such a charter if he has reasonable suspicions that the charter maybe illegal.
The Captain is not expected to be party to legal agreements between an owner or the person leasing the aircraft!
That is an important difference to ultimate responsibility!
It maybe a thread drift but an important distinction
Obviously in a court of law if it could be shown that the Captain did know the flight was illegal or it could be shown that he had reasonable doubt then that is another matter.
Pace
That is not the case! The Captain cannot knowingly carry out an illegal. Charter or fly such a charter if he has reasonable suspicions that the charter maybe illegal.
The Captain is not expected to be party to legal agreements between an owner or the person leasing the aircraft!
That is an important difference to ultimate responsibility!
It maybe a thread drift but an important distinction
Obviously in a court of law if it could be shown that the Captain did know the flight was illegal or it could be shown that he had reasonable doubt then that is another matter.
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 16th Nov 2012 at 12:48.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: london, UK
Age: 57
Posts: 550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
you're correct Pace.
Made sure of that about half an hour after I got my first job as a paid pilot!
now dump this non event of a thread and come and help me start a flap retraction arguement
Made sure of that about half an hour after I got my first job as a paid pilot!
now dump this non event of a thread and come and help me start a flap retraction arguement
Private Jet
