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

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

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

Original in Spanish

Another report in English

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion of specific named airlines
 

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

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

Strange ?

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

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

Is this possibly an example of the dilution of experience?

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

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

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

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

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

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

:p

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

ross_M,

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

had the same situation about 20 years ago in BKK.

easy handled.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Latest "facts" from Ryanair directly
 

As reported online by Spanish news radio SER

www.cadenaser.com

and then put Ryanair in search box

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

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

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

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

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

Link on audio only to "UCE Andalucia"
 

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

To summarise:

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

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

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

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

A couple of thoughts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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