Ryanair faces inquiry as toilets on aircraft were used as seats
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to clarify - it is only because the aircraft was carrying more people than it had seats for - which is a certification issue. If the aircraft is not in compliance with it's Airworthiness Certificate, the hull is probably uninsured - insurance for the pax is a separate issue, but likely to be a problem for the airline if the aircraft they are travelling in is not being operated IAW its certificate..
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is endless speculation here that presents itself as factual discussion. The insurance argument is a good example. I think if you take the trouble to inquire, you will find that the aircraft is insured, even if that offends predjudices against insursance companies, fellow pilots or whatever.
Deductions about the captain and the role of other crew members above are sometimes very speculative. We even have an authoritative, and seriously inaccurate account, from someone who apparent knows one of the crew. The entire content has become quite misleading.
We also have some quite precise, black and white, right and wrong types who think life is simple and that drawing a line in the sand is easy. Well, not always.
The post by Wig Wag above may, or may not, tell us something about this particular incident, but it most definitely tells us something very real about the "real world" occupied by an ever growing number of pilots.
Deductions about the captain and the role of other crew members above are sometimes very speculative. We even have an authoritative, and seriously inaccurate account, from someone who apparent knows one of the crew. The entire content has become quite misleading.
We also have some quite precise, black and white, right and wrong types who think life is simple and that drawing a line in the sand is easy. Well, not always.
The post by Wig Wag above may, or may not, tell us something about this particular incident, but it most definitely tells us something very real about the "real world" occupied by an ever growing number of pilots.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GGV
The wholepoint about safety culture is that we as pilots and individuals have the ability and responsibility to ' draw the line ' in todays 'real world' !
If my (UK)employer tells/ hints/orders me to operate the aircraft outside safety guidelines I have and will continue to say ' no thanks'. I am well aware of the consequences that may arise from such decisions but decided a while ago to worry about that if and when it happens.
I too would take people in the toilet/aisles/ cockpit if we were evacuating a war zone for example, but flying paying pax around Europe? Come on!
We also have some quite precise, black and white, right and wrong types who think life is simple and that drawing a line in the sand is easy.
If my (UK)employer tells/ hints/orders me to operate the aircraft outside safety guidelines I have and will continue to say ' no thanks'. I am well aware of the consequences that may arise from such decisions but decided a while ago to worry about that if and when it happens.
I too would take people in the toilet/aisles/ cockpit if we were evacuating a war zone for example, but flying paying pax around Europe? Come on!
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: to close
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is what happened just for anybody who is unsure. I know all parties. The GRO base manager was dealing with the two crew who were at the bottom of the stairs. he dealt with the capt without the girls talking to him. He then left the flight deck and told the girls to go down to the back and go into the toilets and that the capt said it was ok. On taxing out the number 1 onboard while checking the cabin found the two girls in the toilet and went straight to the capt and told him what she had just found. he told her everything was ok and not to worry about it. The rest as they say is history.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well Stan,
You say "The wholepoint about safety culture is that we as pilots and individuals have the ability and responsibility to ' draw the line ' in todays 'real world' !"
I was not saying that you would not, only that in an organisational culture which has gone off the tracks it is an exceedingly hard thing to do for mere mortals. The evidence is actually overwhelmning that most people keep a very, very low profile in such circumstances. The do so because they see what happens to those who do not.
I think that by simply making inquiries my statement can be established to be valid across a range of airlines and industries.
So, judging from the certainty of your reply, we will just have to agree to differ!
You say "The wholepoint about safety culture is that we as pilots and individuals have the ability and responsibility to ' draw the line ' in todays 'real world' !"
I was not saying that you would not, only that in an organisational culture which has gone off the tracks it is an exceedingly hard thing to do for mere mortals. The evidence is actually overwhelmning that most people keep a very, very low profile in such circumstances. The do so because they see what happens to those who do not.
I think that by simply making inquiries my statement can be established to be valid across a range of airlines and industries.
So, judging from the certainty of your reply, we will just have to agree to differ!
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GGV
I agree, and the result is the decline of airline standards to unacceptable levels.
Mere mortals can make a difference.
The evidence is actually overwhelmning that most people keep a very, very low profile in such circumstances. The do so because they see what happens to those who do not.
Mere mortals can make a difference.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Mk. 1 desk at present...
Posts: 365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GGV:
Well if you know better, or are able to correct inaccuracies, please feel free to do so!
Look, this is a rumor network, everything should be taken with a pinch of salt, but I found the post on the CC forum by jayo2002 (which I assume is the post you're referring to) at least moderately convincing & credible.
R1
We even have an authoritative, and seriously inaccurate account, from someone who apparent knows one of the crew. The entire content has become quite misleading.
Look, this is a rumor network, everything should be taken with a pinch of salt, but I found the post on the CC forum by jayo2002 (which I assume is the post you're referring to) at least moderately convincing & credible.
R1
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ranger One, I think this quote below is what GGV meant with an authorative but seriously inaccurate account:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GGV
I doubt it.
In a recent incident where one of our aircraft flew with no emergency checklist, the major issue was insurance. An aircraft that is not operating in accordance with its certification documentation is unlikely to be insured, and that includes operating outside the MEL or having more pax than seats. I know this to be true. Now, perhaps you would like to quote from your employers insurance policy that specifically covers your aircraft in this situation?
Yes, and you have contributed some yourself.
That is only true for those without the character to enforce the rules. Who are you, as an employee, to decide which rules you will obey, and which you won't? Anybody with the slightest bit of management experience will tell you that people who will do that, will also very likely be fired at the first opportunity.
Aviation is, in most cases, extremely black and white. All the rules, minima, MELs etc are there to make your life simple - if you choose to obey them. There are still a few judgement calls, but not very many.
Whether or not you take passengers in the lavs doesn't even begin to qualify as a judgement call. The rule is clear, everybody concerned knows what it is, and if you choose to break it - especially these days - you deserve all you get.
Unfortunately, many captains choose to turn what should be simple yes/no decisions, into judgement calls. I have done the same, more than once. As I look back over my career, I am really very lucky to have never been caught out. I am a little more disciplined these days.
I think if you take the trouble to inquire, you will find that the aircraft is insured, even if that offends predjudices against insursance companies, fellow pilots or whatever.
In a recent incident where one of our aircraft flew with no emergency checklist, the major issue was insurance. An aircraft that is not operating in accordance with its certification documentation is unlikely to be insured, and that includes operating outside the MEL or having more pax than seats. I know this to be true. Now, perhaps you would like to quote from your employers insurance policy that specifically covers your aircraft in this situation?
There is endless speculation here that presents itself as factual discussion.
...right and wrong types who think life is simple and that drawing a line in the sand is easy. Well, not always.
Aviation is, in most cases, extremely black and white. All the rules, minima, MELs etc are there to make your life simple - if you choose to obey them. There are still a few judgement calls, but not very many.
Whether or not you take passengers in the lavs doesn't even begin to qualify as a judgement call. The rule is clear, everybody concerned knows what it is, and if you choose to break it - especially these days - you deserve all you get.
Unfortunately, many captains choose to turn what should be simple yes/no decisions, into judgement calls. I have done the same, more than once. As I look back over my career, I am really very lucky to have never been caught out. I am a little more disciplined these days.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: to close
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They had tickets but were never given boarding cards and they were brought down to the gate by the gro base manager who also was on the flight but he was in the figures and on the jumpseat down the back
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Somewhere between Europe and Africa
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In a couple of post s before someone said that he was called up to management to explain his delays even though the reason was technical. This kind of pressure must be put aside, because when something happens you can't defend yourself on those unwritten rules. The finest example is exactly this one. By trying to be friendly to his colleagues and to the company, this captain just lost his job. However, I find it very hard to get a kick on the butt when you have a sound reason to delay a departure, for example.
So, my two cents are, safety is paramount and no bean counter is willing to face in court by firing you for putting safety issues in front of commercial reasons.
So, my two cents are, safety is paramount and no bean counter is willing to face in court by firing you for putting safety issues in front of commercial reasons.
GGV,
"There is endless speculation here that presents itself as factual discussion. The insurance argument is a good example. I think if you take the trouble to inquire, you will find that the aircraft is insured, even if that offends predjudices against insursance companies, fellow pilots or whatever. "
Would you care to explain why?
"There is endless speculation here that presents itself as factual discussion. The insurance argument is a good example. I think if you take the trouble to inquire, you will find that the aircraft is insured, even if that offends predjudices against insursance companies, fellow pilots or whatever. "
Would you care to explain why?
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: uk
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What I would like to know is what will be the likely outcome of this for the captain in question, what is the worst, best, & most likely scenario.
NN
Guest
Posts: n/a
Sleeve,
Yes, I agree with you, be sure. It is such a pity that it happened, IMHO, just the one lapse, but that’s the way it must be.
It’s true that in the service we were sometimes, at a lower level, able to get away with quite a lot, but woe betide us if we got found out and things had gone wrong. It is quite different in civvie street of course
*********.
I am sure the answer is yes, adversely.
Lots of very good points made, very interesting. Bet no-one ever, ever, tries it again though !
BTW, let's have no more of this bleating nonsense about him being such a decent fellow, 30 years, his boat blah blah blah. Nothing to do with anything at all. Get real and focus on the facts please.
oTd
Yes, I agree with you, be sure. It is such a pity that it happened, IMHO, just the one lapse, but that’s the way it must be.
It’s true that in the service we were sometimes, at a lower level, able to get away with quite a lot, but woe betide us if we got found out and things had gone wrong. It is quite different in civvie street of course
*********.
I am sure the answer is yes, adversely.
Lots of very good points made, very interesting. Bet no-one ever, ever, tries it again though !
BTW, let's have no more of this bleating nonsense about him being such a decent fellow, 30 years, his boat blah blah blah. Nothing to do with anything at all. Get real and focus on the facts please.
oTd
Guest
Posts: n/a
The facts are ou Trek dronkie that the captains good nature & willingness to help stranded crew members out rather than having them stuck in an airport in the middle of no doubt nowhere with probably little facilities got in the way of his professional judgement. He made an error of judgement, he played loose with the rules. (I'd say he's far from the only one) however he's the one who got caught out, full stop!
As is said the captain was about to retire anyway & if Normal Nigel is correct that the IAA etc will leave him alone (does anybody else have opinions on this) , if that is so & from the other lowdown I've received but don't care to publicise hopefully all will be well that ends well.
Coco
As is said the captain was about to retire anyway & if Normal Nigel is correct that the IAA etc will leave him alone (does anybody else have opinions on this) , if that is so & from the other lowdown I've received but don't care to publicise hopefully all will be well that ends well.
Coco
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: NY
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another case of - "Well he's a prat then"
If the Captain knew - then he is prat and deserves to be in deep 
!...if he did not know then whoever should have told him and didn't is a prat and should be in deep ....and if nobody on the aircraft knew - then we are all in deep !!! 'cos next time they might be Islamic Militant Murdering Terrorists! armed with a razor blade!!
!...if he did not know then whoever should have told him and didn't is a prat and should be in deep ....and if nobody on the aircraft knew - then we are all in deep !!! 'cos next time they might be Islamic Militant Murdering Terrorists! armed with a razor blade!!
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Florence, ITALY
Age: 44
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry but if this had happened at Big Airways would we be onto the 13th page??
come on *professionals* stop going over the same ground over and over again, dropping in the odd ryanair bash at the same time.
It's happened [note the past tense], the pilot resigned [he wasn't sacked] the matter is being investigated both internally and externally and we must wait for the outcome.
basta ragazzi!
come on *professionals* stop going over the same ground over and over again, dropping in the odd ryanair bash at the same time.
It's happened [note the past tense], the pilot resigned [he wasn't sacked] the matter is being investigated both internally and externally and we must wait for the outcome.
basta ragazzi!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Dunstable, Beds UK
Posts: 545
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a word on insurance particularly hull insurance.
Most aircraft are owned by leasing companies and operated by the airline. The leasing contracts of course require that the aircraft is operated in accordance with all applicable rules and regulations.
However !!
If the airline with a $50m aircraft operated with some slight breach such outside the MEL or too many pass or whatever and then crashed do you think the leasing company would say "oh dear no insurance we will have to sue the airline who has just gone broke ?"
The leasing companies basically insist on a hold harmless clause which they will get paid out regardless and they are named as "loss payees" so they money goes direct to them is does not pass go or even the operator.
Now of course the insurance company can sue the airline for the money back !!! and good luck
Most aircraft are owned by leasing companies and operated by the airline. The leasing contracts of course require that the aircraft is operated in accordance with all applicable rules and regulations.
However !!
If the airline with a $50m aircraft operated with some slight breach such outside the MEL or too many pass or whatever and then crashed do you think the leasing company would say "oh dear no insurance we will have to sue the airline who has just gone broke ?"
The leasing companies basically insist on a hold harmless clause which they will get paid out regardless and they are named as "loss payees" so they money goes direct to them is does not pass go or even the operator.
Now of course the insurance company can sue the airline for the money back !!! and good luck