Safety on low cost flights.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Europe
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So IŽd like to run by you something that I have long wondered about.
Unlike the practice in many countries, the IAA (very like the CAA) receives no funding from the Government. It is a commercial semi-State body responsible for the provision of ... the safety regulation of the Irish civil aviation industry. The IAA's revenue primarily comes from charging aircraft that use Irish-controlled airspace.
From their website:
To my uninformed eye it looks as if a large part of the IAAŽs funding is paid by Ryanair.
Could you possibly tell me if that impression is correct?
And am I the only one who wonders if the funding of a regulatory authority is relevant?
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yes it is but its not only the IAA. How much money do you think BA passes into the UK CAA's hands.
But of course it doesn't influence regulatory decision making or oversight of the airlines
Interesting quote from another thread on pprune, says it all really
But of course it doesn't influence regulatory decision making or oversight of the airlines
Interesting quote from another thread on pprune, says it all really
In the modern world the political nations are governed by separation of powers. There are the executives, the lawmakers and the judges. (i will not contest the new power, the media, having a big impact as well).
In aviation there was a comparable set up with the company executives, the aviation authorities and the genuine postholders of safety within the company or some NTSB. (the unions also playing a part in it).
Today the company executives pay all of them and practically own them at least politically through economical blackmail. Rising big powers in Asia are set up in dictatorship countries anyway. The unions are almost eliminated and the media is so incompetent, that their impact is controllable. The big manufacturers play along, as it serves them well. The outcome is blatantly readable on more and more accident reports, but only for insiders, as it is well masked by the mighty interest groups.
It will not change, as it works nicely on the bonus side. Victims don't matter as long as the numbers stay below an unfortunately very high public trigger.
So brace for more automatic induced and low training enhanced accidents. The warnings on threads like this will only serve as cover-up in a future rude awakening.
In aviation there was a comparable set up with the company executives, the aviation authorities and the genuine postholders of safety within the company or some NTSB. (the unions also playing a part in it).
Today the company executives pay all of them and practically own them at least politically through economical blackmail. Rising big powers in Asia are set up in dictatorship countries anyway. The unions are almost eliminated and the media is so incompetent, that their impact is controllable. The big manufacturers play along, as it serves them well. The outcome is blatantly readable on more and more accident reports, but only for insiders, as it is well masked by the mighty interest groups.
It will not change, as it works nicely on the bonus side. Victims don't matter as long as the numbers stay below an unfortunately very high public trigger.
So brace for more automatic induced and low training enhanced accidents. The warnings on threads like this will only serve as cover-up in a future rude awakening.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: lancs.UK
Age: 77
Posts: 1,191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We're all concentrating on deaths here.....but i'd venture to suggest that the premature end of a car-journey happens at a much lower speed than that of a prematurely-terminated flight 
Serious injury can be , arguably, worse than a quick,clean departure from the mortal coil.
I flew BEA some 40 years ago...they called it a Viscount , I suspected it was a civilian-equipped Vimy.
I flew Ryan a couple of years ago,- shiny spaceship oozing newness.
Always felt safe, from Auster in the late 50's (pleasure-flight over water from Butlin's to Clacton Pier and back, grass strip and not even a caravan ,iirc....... to the professional,timely,well managed RYR trips liverpool -Limoges return.
UK LCC's are, IMHO, much better value and every bit as safe as the legacy carriers who are hidebound by unions and archaic practices which lead to expense and inefficiency.
Serious injury can be , arguably, worse than a quick,clean departure from the mortal coil.
I flew BEA some 40 years ago...they called it a Viscount , I suspected it was a civilian-equipped Vimy.
I flew Ryan a couple of years ago,- shiny spaceship oozing newness.
Always felt safe, from Auster in the late 50's (pleasure-flight over water from Butlin's to Clacton Pier and back, grass strip and not even a caravan ,iirc....... to the professional,timely,well managed RYR trips liverpool -Limoges return.
UK LCC's are, IMHO, much better value and every bit as safe as the legacy carriers who are hidebound by unions and archaic practices which lead to expense and inefficiency.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Europe
Posts: 716
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the pilot will always be the first to the scene of a crash and we usually want to get home for tea, stickies and beer.
The fact that pilots don't want to crash/die/screw up, doesn't mean they won't. A part from a few, no crashes in aviation history have been attributable to wilful negligence or conscious crashing. You know the saying "the road to hell is paved with good intentions"?
The statement speaks volumes about human behaviour, and nothing about air safety, when you really think about it.
(Coincidentally, the specific wording in the quote have in fact been attributable to several accidents: "get-there-itis". But that is another point.)
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For the record, there is little or no correlation between the commercial policies of an airline and the safety of its operations. As one example only; I am in a position to know - as an outsider - that Ryanair's maintenance standards are among the highest in the world. The reason is consistent with all Ryanair's thinking; top-class maintenance saves a fortune by avoiding maintenance-induced delays or diversions, and Ryanair does not knowingly waste money.
It still has dreadful commercial policies and I only submit myself to its treatment of passengers when there is no viable option. But when I do, I'm damn sure I'll get there safely.
On the other hand, there are airlines beset by antediluvian working practices on the flight deck, in the cabin and in the hangar, complacency, who-gives-a-toss attitudes, unreasoning intransigence by unions with an agenda, etc etc. Their cabin staff might speak nicely, and you might even get a free stale sandwich, but I somehow feel less secure than on FR because I know that the organisation is a stranger to the real meaning of "safety culture".
It still has dreadful commercial policies and I only submit myself to its treatment of passengers when there is no viable option. But when I do, I'm damn sure I'll get there safely.
On the other hand, there are airlines beset by antediluvian working practices on the flight deck, in the cabin and in the hangar, complacency, who-gives-a-toss attitudes, unreasoning intransigence by unions with an agenda, etc etc. Their cabin staff might speak nicely, and you might even get a free stale sandwich, but I somehow feel less secure than on FR because I know that the organisation is a stranger to the real meaning of "safety culture".
