Ryanair faces inquiry as toilets on aircraft were used as seats
Quite so DIsco FEver. There's unsafe and UNSAFE. The "what if" brigade are taking over. What if they were doing 35 mph in a 30 mph area and killed a young child? I wonder how many of the above saints and disciplined professionals break the speed limit on a daily basis? I'm not talking excessive speeding, simply 5 - 10 mph above the posted limit. They ALL do it and they don't give it a second thought. Then these hypocrites come on these forums preaching SAFETY. Makes me 
Even the cops regularly break speed limits (I know, and I'm not talking about answering emergency calls either), then they too preach about safety on the roads
!
Even the cops regularly break speed limits (I know, and I'm not talking about answering emergency calls either), then they too preach about safety on the roads
!
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why all the fuss, the crew knew what they were doing,yeah it was unsafe, but hey lots of unsafe things happen
Have you stopped once to consider that an unsecured body in an incident won't be bouncing around from 35mph to zero, but 150mph to zero, something which endangers the lives of not only those who disregard the rules, but all of those on board the aircraft.
There is a difference between what was done in the past and what is the done thing now - as a safety based industry this is since rules are developed to make things safer for all of us, so don't lets be blase about it and take a step back in history to the detriment of us all.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So off duty cabin crew colluding with handling agents to place two stowaways on the toilet seats without the knowlege of the Captain is OK is it.
If what has been said is true, the Captain was informed after doors closed and he made a terrible error of judgement.
I would have returned to stand called the police and had the lot arrested including the person or persons who allowed them out to the aircraft.
Captains seem to me more and more out on a limb these days without brain dead individuals making his task even more difficult.
One hopes there will be legal procedings taken against all involved in this sordid incident.
PS How come Ryanair allow stanby crew to use tha F/D jumpseats.
If what has been said is true, the Captain was informed after doors closed and he made a terrible error of judgement.
I would have returned to stand called the police and had the lot arrested including the person or persons who allowed them out to the aircraft.
Captains seem to me more and more out on a limb these days without brain dead individuals making his task even more difficult.
One hopes there will be legal procedings taken against all involved in this sordid incident.
PS How come Ryanair allow stanby crew to use tha F/D jumpseats.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Land of the Northern Lights
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spot on Re-Heat! Can not believe DIsco FEver's post. What about the fare paying passengers oblivious of the 'risk'.
Avman not sure you can compare a car at 35mph with an aircraft. Yes I like many others have exceeded the limits whilst driving my car in the knowledge that if I am caught 'its a fair cop'. Isn't this want happened here, or am i just naive.
But hay we are all entitled to our own opinions thats what makes pprune such good reading.
Avman not sure you can compare a car at 35mph with an aircraft. Yes I like many others have exceeded the limits whilst driving my car in the knowledge that if I am caught 'its a fair cop'. Isn't this want happened here, or am i just naive.
But hay we are all entitled to our own opinions thats what makes pprune such good reading.
I think you fail to grasp the meaning of my posts. I do not condone the breaking of rules. I do, however, believe that disciplinary meassures should reflect the severity of the indiscretion. If we start to go into the "what if" grey area then I ask those same people, "what if" in the number of safety indiscretions they make in the course of their daily lives(such as driving as only one example) which affect the safety of others ? It's the hypocrisy of all the above righteous blood thirsty posters, especially AVIACO, which bugs me. The outcome should have been a severe bollocking and a memo to all staff that it's an absolute no-no with a sacking if it ever happens again. Can't continue the debate further as I'm off on a trip now.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Avman,
Rubbish you have obviously never held a position of authority within an airline.
Post 9/11 it should be impossible for non ticketed passengers to board an aircraft and stowaway. You clearly do not fully understand the security implications of this incident.
Rubbish you have obviously never held a position of authority within an airline.
Post 9/11 it should be impossible for non ticketed passengers to board an aircraft and stowaway. You clearly do not fully understand the security implications of this incident.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Dreamland
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FAX boy,
They were not unticketed and even if they were, what's the problem ?? They were known personally to PIC. but......
As the stoopid flight deck access rules state " no-one can sit on jump-seat, apart from CAA officials, etc, Wouldn't know them from Adam, but fellow Pilot, Hostie who I have flown with for 20 years cant ????? What's the reasoning behind that.
SAFETY< SAFETY< bleat the liberals,, utter tosh more like..
Just watched 9/11 Security Inspection of HIJ pilots, but thats nothing to do with this thread..
The only danger that the Stowaways faced was from themselves, other PAX were not under any threat or was there any other safety issues to the PAX onboard.
As for braking from 150mph to a standstill, cant see any real danger to them either, I think you have watched one to many movies if you think it's dangerous. Main danger is over-run, or tire burst, again, not really an issue for our toilet travellers.
Plenty of places to brace yourself against in the bog, as opposed to the seats with 29" pitch, " FACE,SEAT , SEAT, FACE", better in Tommy Cooper voice.
Gota go, the voices are caling me.....
They were not unticketed and even if they were, what's the problem ?? They were known personally to PIC. but......
As the stoopid flight deck access rules state " no-one can sit on jump-seat, apart from CAA officials, etc, Wouldn't know them from Adam, but fellow Pilot, Hostie who I have flown with for 20 years cant ????? What's the reasoning behind that.
SAFETY< SAFETY< bleat the liberals,, utter tosh more like..
Just watched 9/11 Security Inspection of HIJ pilots, but thats nothing to do with this thread..
The only danger that the Stowaways faced was from themselves, other PAX were not under any threat or was there any other safety issues to the PAX onboard.
As for braking from 150mph to a standstill, cant see any real danger to them either, I think you have watched one to many movies if you think it's dangerous. Main danger is over-run, or tire burst, again, not really an issue for our toilet travellers.
Plenty of places to brace yourself against in the bog, as opposed to the seats with 29" pitch, " FACE,SEAT , SEAT, FACE", better in Tommy Cooper voice.
Gota go, the voices are caling me.....
Join Date: May 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As the stoopid flight deck access rules state " no-one can sit on jump-seat, apart from CAA officials, etc, Wouldn't know them from Adam, but fellow Pilot, Hostie who I have flown with for 20 years cant ????? What's the reasoning behind that.
I've been in the business for over 30 years and have seen all the bog sitting, strap hanging etc that has gone on but that is in the past.
Security now is the buzz word any sort of infringement will be jumped on. Anyone who was involved with this incident will be looking for another job soon.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Age: 48
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just read through this thread with a mixture of amusement and horror.
The fact that there are people in the industry who defend the individual concerned is disturbing in the extreme and I can only wonder at what corners they themselves cut, if allowing people in the toilets is acceptable.
Just goes to show the wide mix of opinion towards safety in the modern aviation industry.
The fact that there are people in the industry who defend the individual concerned is disturbing in the extreme and I can only wonder at what corners they themselves cut, if allowing people in the toilets is acceptable.
Just goes to show the wide mix of opinion towards safety in the modern aviation industry.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Frimley, Surrey.
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and I can only wonder at what corners they themselves cut...
Oh and who they work for so that any interested slf can ensure they never fly with them again? A creeping, insidious lowering of safety standards is in nobody’s interests.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Mk. 1 desk at present...
Posts: 365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DIsco FEver:
Read facsimiles post again. And the post that was cross-posted from the cc forum.
He's talking about the bog riders, not the jump seaters. The bog riders boarded the acft via the staff door to the ramp, according to the cc post. *No-one* on the acft knew they were on board, until the cc were doing their cabin secure checks after pushback. They certainly weren't ticketed!
That's a pretty good definition of stowaway for my money, and a hanging offence for staff these days.
Having heard the account from the cc forum - if true, I have a *little* more sympathy for the capt. One can conjecture the thought process: 'OK... we go back to the gate, offload them, miss our slot, delay, (was this his last sector? Running out of hours perhaps)... that's going to have to be explained and the stupid sods will be in the deepest ****... OK we're half way to the flaming hold, let's just GO and I'll read them the riot act myself after we arrive'
Doesn't excuse a wrong decision but you can imagine the thinking that led to it.
R1
They were not unticketed and even if they were, what's the problem ?? They were known personally to PIC. but......
He's talking about the bog riders, not the jump seaters. The bog riders boarded the acft via the staff door to the ramp, according to the cc post. *No-one* on the acft knew they were on board, until the cc were doing their cabin secure checks after pushback. They certainly weren't ticketed!
That's a pretty good definition of stowaway for my money, and a hanging offence for staff these days.
Having heard the account from the cc forum - if true, I have a *little* more sympathy for the capt. One can conjecture the thought process: 'OK... we go back to the gate, offload them, miss our slot, delay, (was this his last sector? Running out of hours perhaps)... that's going to have to be explained and the stupid sods will be in the deepest ****... OK we're half way to the flaming hold, let's just GO and I'll read them the riot act myself after we arrive'
Doesn't excuse a wrong decision but you can imagine the thinking that led to it.
R1
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some of you might like to read posts in full before making quite an astute reply.
They WERE ticketed pax (albeit standby ticket, so all security has been done)
They were company and not pax people (though for the law just another fare paying pax I do agree)
Having pax on the jumpseat doesn't matter at all, in respect of the amount of opening the flight deck door. Especially not short haul.
He made a mistake, a big mistake. Something he'll probably regret, but can you at least put it into PERSPECTIVE.
Guys saying that the loadsheet was now wrong, so what?!
It ain't going to crash with 120kgs more on board.
He should have just the rules as they are, now he paid the price.
I'm sorry but a little more consideration will be nice to see, and no I AM NOT condoning this type of SOP usage.
and regarding SOP's, they are there for 95% of occasions but they don't tell you everything. He bend the rules, he's "fired"...
safe flying to you all (if you are pilots)
They WERE ticketed pax (albeit standby ticket, so all security has been done)
They were company and not pax people (though for the law just another fare paying pax I do agree)
Having pax on the jumpseat doesn't matter at all, in respect of the amount of opening the flight deck door. Especially not short haul.
He made a mistake, a big mistake. Something he'll probably regret, but can you at least put it into PERSPECTIVE.
Guys saying that the loadsheet was now wrong, so what?!
It ain't going to crash with 120kgs more on board.
He should have just the rules as they are, now he paid the price.
I'm sorry but a little more consideration will be nice to see, and no I AM NOT condoning this type of SOP usage.
and regarding SOP's, they are there for 95% of occasions but they don't tell you everything. He bend the rules, he's "fired"...
safe flying to you all (if you are pilots)
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only danger that the Stowaways faced was from themselves, other PAX were not under any threat or was there any other safety issues to the PAX onboard.
He made a mistake, a big mistake. Something he'll probably regret, but can you at least put it into PERSPECTIVE.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
so what is your point?
yes the loadsheet is incorrect, so?
as i say, legally not correct, but for the SAFE conducting of the flight irrelevant!
your turb comment is taken and indeed a risk for the persons involved (both crew and the 2 off duty crew members)
yes the loadsheet is incorrect, so?
as i say, legally not correct, but for the SAFE conducting of the flight irrelevant!
your turb comment is taken and indeed a risk for the persons involved (both crew and the 2 off duty crew members)
Shaka Zulu.
Just sit back and re-read what you have written.
Notwithstanding the whys and wherefors of the Captains actions, if a Captain, any Captain, is presented with a loadsheet he is legally obliged to certify that, to the best of his/her knowledge, the figures are correct. The buck stops there etc etc.
We all know that the ACTUAL aircraft load may vary widley to what is ACTUALLY loaded, eg estimated passenger/baggage weight, but the fact remains that one CANNOT sign for x number of passengers knowing that there are y passengers on board and then hope to escape censure when things go wrong.
Its obvious to all that the aircraft wont 'crash' with your 120kgs not accounted for, that is not the point and well you know it!
As for the jumpseat, be careful with your generalisations. Having jumpseaters and opening the flight deck door isnt the issue. The Ops manual will give guidelines for its usage and they are non negotiable; ours for example spells out the specfic occassions when it can be used and whose permission is required in such events.
Some rules can be interpretted and some most definatley cannot!
Thats why they are written down, to give you a reference to base your decisions upon - just as the Ops manual has step by step instructions for loadsheet completion!!
Its all a no brainer.
You may well wish to defend this particular chap but in doing so, dont make silly statements.
Just sit back and re-read what you have written.
Notwithstanding the whys and wherefors of the Captains actions, if a Captain, any Captain, is presented with a loadsheet he is legally obliged to certify that, to the best of his/her knowledge, the figures are correct. The buck stops there etc etc.
We all know that the ACTUAL aircraft load may vary widley to what is ACTUALLY loaded, eg estimated passenger/baggage weight, but the fact remains that one CANNOT sign for x number of passengers knowing that there are y passengers on board and then hope to escape censure when things go wrong.
Its obvious to all that the aircraft wont 'crash' with your 120kgs not accounted for, that is not the point and well you know it!
As for the jumpseat, be careful with your generalisations. Having jumpseaters and opening the flight deck door isnt the issue. The Ops manual will give guidelines for its usage and they are non negotiable; ours for example spells out the specfic occassions when it can be used and whose permission is required in such events.
Some rules can be interpretted and some most definatley cannot!
Thats why they are written down, to give you a reference to base your decisions upon - just as the Ops manual has step by step instructions for loadsheet completion!!
Its all a no brainer.
You may well wish to defend this particular chap but in doing so, dont make silly statements.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Dublin
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ranger one, that was my post, as i loive with one of the operating cabin crew on that flight!! they were ticketed for standby, but obviously werent issued boarding cards, and proceeded to go thru the staff doors in GRO.... sotaways, and idiots at that... i advise all to read my post, as its str8 from the horses mouth, just simple facts about that flight. everyone can make thier own assumptions to it, but read it b4 going on about rumours and threads!
thanks ranger!!
thanks ranger!!
!Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
kick the tires, couldn't agree with you more on that post.
I did say I am not defending the guy, but for some thought processes of flight crew are a little bit difficult to understand.
There is no doubt in my mind the captain knew about all the legal implications bla bla bla... I do not need to explain you.
About the FDD, i wasn't commenting about the people that are allowed to sit on the jump seat and which people are not. My Ops Manual states exactly the same
, good to know...
I was simply referring to a guys post saying that with a guy on jumpseat the FDD would be opened more since guys need to go to the toilet.
The Buck indeed stops at making the wrong decision, that's what we are paid to do. Making the right ones...
I just find it stupid to talk about ALL the consequences it could have had ten times in the same thread.
Safe flying! (and to Stan Woolley i won't even bother replying)
I did say I am not defending the guy, but for some thought processes of flight crew are a little bit difficult to understand.
There is no doubt in my mind the captain knew about all the legal implications bla bla bla... I do not need to explain you.
About the FDD, i wasn't commenting about the people that are allowed to sit on the jump seat and which people are not. My Ops Manual states exactly the same
, good to know...I was simply referring to a guys post saying that with a guy on jumpseat the FDD would be opened more since guys need to go to the toilet.
The Buck indeed stops at making the wrong decision, that's what we are paid to do. Making the right ones...
I just find it stupid to talk about ALL the consequences it could have had ten times in the same thread.
Safe flying! (and to Stan Woolley i won't even bother replying)
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Mk. 1 desk at present...
Posts: 365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shaka Zulu:
Suggest you do the same. If there is a post saying definitively that they were ticketed pax I must have missed it - But you seem to have missed the post that was cross-posted from the CC forum, from the horses mouth:
So yes the *J/S pax* were legit, ticketed, but no-one is talking about *them*!
One can argue the toss about whether deadheading in toilets was once acceptable, in another place or a bygone era, but *stowing away* in the toilets is outrageous in any time or place, IMHO.
The staff who did so put the entire crew on that flight in a very difficult position, and by the above account led to the capt. departing without ever getting 'cabin secure' - how do you think the crew would have performed in an emergency in THAT kind of atmosphere? Professionally I'm sure, but it wouldn't have helped.
R1
Some of you might like to read posts in full before making quite an astute reply. They WERE ticketed pax...
the flight was fully booked out, and there was 2 staff occupying the flight deck J/seats, another staff member occupying the J/S beside my housemate, and then the 2 senior CCM's occupying the jacks! they werent ticketed at all... <snip> she assumed that they had taken seats. the headcount was done, and they cloed up... 130 pax, 3 J/S, and that was it. as they were not ticketed, they were not in the figures.
One can argue the toss about whether deadheading in toilets was once acceptable, in another place or a bygone era, but *stowing away* in the toilets is outrageous in any time or place, IMHO.
The staff who did so put the entire crew on that flight in a very difficult position, and by the above account led to the capt. departing without ever getting 'cabin secure' - how do you think the crew would have performed in an emergency in THAT kind of atmosphere? Professionally I'm sure, but it wouldn't have helped.
R1
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are many different views/takes of what happened so nothing that's been written here I take for granted.
I'll say again, I'm not defending what happened but trying to put it a little more into perspective.
BTW how come the boeing 737-700 has 2 jumpseats and the 737-700 only has 1? I've not seen one with 2 j/s's before....
that's why i seriously doubt that quote that you take for the truth!
I'll say again, I'm not defending what happened but trying to put it a little more into perspective.
BTW how come the boeing 737-700 has 2 jumpseats and the 737-700 only has 1? I've not seen one with 2 j/s's before....
that's why i seriously doubt that quote that you take for the truth!