Daily Telegraph: 'Pilots 'under pressure to take risks'
There is a difference between short term tiredness and long term fatigue.
On certain duties (early starts, night flights etc.) it is "normal" to feel tired at times although this also can affect flight safety.
Long term fatigue is much more serious and can adversely affect flight safety.
Human beings can accept working in "overload" for short periods but when overload becomes continuous we are on a more slippery slope.
Society has changed enormously since the assumptions of CAP 371. For example, how long does it take to drive to the airport now (much longer I would suggest) compared to, say, ten years ago and would you say the journey now is less or more stressful?
We should also bear in mind that it is not only pilots who are affected by excessive hours etc. Engineers, crewing and ops staff etc are all part of the team which can make (or break!) your day.
My view is that the whole issue of fatigue needs a completely fresh approach after an in depth study. I fear, however, that it will take a major accident where fatigue is cited as a significant factor before we see any radical changes.
Finally there is the "Future Shock" issue. What sort of shape, physically and mentally, will our pilots be in over the next one to two decades given these gruelling schedules.
On certain duties (early starts, night flights etc.) it is "normal" to feel tired at times although this also can affect flight safety.
Long term fatigue is much more serious and can adversely affect flight safety.
Human beings can accept working in "overload" for short periods but when overload becomes continuous we are on a more slippery slope.
Society has changed enormously since the assumptions of CAP 371. For example, how long does it take to drive to the airport now (much longer I would suggest) compared to, say, ten years ago and would you say the journey now is less or more stressful?
We should also bear in mind that it is not only pilots who are affected by excessive hours etc. Engineers, crewing and ops staff etc are all part of the team which can make (or break!) your day.
My view is that the whole issue of fatigue needs a completely fresh approach after an in depth study. I fear, however, that it will take a major accident where fatigue is cited as a significant factor before we see any radical changes.
Finally there is the "Future Shock" issue. What sort of shape, physically and mentally, will our pilots be in over the next one to two decades given these gruelling schedules.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Thailand
Posts: 942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ILS27Left, you need to be shot at never mind down. Why oh why do you insist on qualifying all your rants and posts with the word Loco? You are the one who is loco in the head. The thread was never aimed at Low Cost Airlines but you always seem to insist on using the stupid word at every opportunity. Just what do you have against Low Cost Airlines? Please explain.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gentlemen, May I say something please.I didn't have the luxury of reading through all 7 pages of this thread,however I think I can get by pretty well with pages 123 and 7.
Here is the situation in the place I work!
Top 10 airline in the world. (the Top half of 10 I think)
Very good safety record.
Actual Safety breaches...........nearly everyday! mostly crew limitation violations, and very rarely but still existing, technical. Rostering is a farce. No one in the airline is trained to understand fatigue and its implications on flight safety. The CAA ( local) is another sad story.
More now than even about 5 years ago.
Who is to blame........not the management alone ( although they are the source)
The buck stops with us folks. As Captains, we have the FULL accountability of ensuring the safety of OUR flight, covering ALL ASPECTS.
If at all ANYONE can pressure us to "GO" when we shouldn't, for whatever reason, then we just failed the "command test"
So collectively, if this is happening and becoming more rampant now, then WE as the "worldwide community of pilots" are failing miserably. I believe it is going to get worse before it starts getting better. Lives are going to be lost and it will be partially our fault.
Dont get me wrong here guys. I am not one of those suck up to the boss pilots, on the contrary, I am one of those pain in the backside kid of fellas that just logs it in the book even if it is one minute before "off blocks". ( not the broken logo light of course).
Has this invited any undue and unrequested attention........well of course!
It may be a little different with this Large outfit. I dont ever get into trouble for doing my job right, but I do get the cold shoulder.
The manpower situation or rather the "dwindling" manpower situation has sort of caused a strain. The management hopes that pilots bust their limits and some pilots do that cause it means a few extra bucks ( plenty ).
This strain has now done a good thing of separating the real pilots from the fakes. Sure you might loose you job for doing the right thing. Where I come from I may even end up in jail. No kiddin!, but we got to do the right thing STILL.
Snag it if you have to.
Get all the required preflight rest. The Cap 371 is not ideal but if you stay within its limits, and of course for "industrial reasons" your company limits, then you SHOULD be covered. But it is a real bummer working 80-95 on short hauls.
Voice out those rostering " legal but stupid" practices.
And don't fly above "regulation time"
So .....it does happen at the "major airlines" as well. I think its pretty much the same the world around. What differs is how we handle it.
Cheers!
I call you back
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Alpha quadrant
Posts: 355
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brianingham,
I think your post reasonably accurately describes a lot of the usual airlines, including my own. Unfortunately if you worked for the worst offenders you would be fired within a month.
I think your post reasonably accurately describes a lot of the usual airlines, including my own. Unfortunately if you worked for the worst offenders you would be fired within a month.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brian
I agree with you my friend.
Any pilot who compromises safety - and then blames pressure from others for it is unworthy of the post.
If you are threatened with dismissal for doing what is right and ultimately what you are paid for, then that's just tough. Sorry mate but you are in the wrong place at the wrong time and are the chosen one to stand up for the profession. You must not bend.
When you do the right thing you will always sleep comfortably at night.
BS
I agree with you my friend.
Any pilot who compromises safety - and then blames pressure from others for it is unworthy of the post.
If you are threatened with dismissal for doing what is right and ultimately what you are paid for, then that's just tough. Sorry mate but you are in the wrong place at the wrong time and are the chosen one to stand up for the profession. You must not bend.
When you do the right thing you will always sleep comfortably at night.
BS
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: UK Seas
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brianigham
Agree of course.
Never have I personally taken an aircraft with a snag that I shouldn't have, that's not the pressure that I face, ever.
It's all crewing/duty/flight time related.
Strangely enough, I have never been in discretion either!
No one could ever blame me for choosing not to go with a "stopper" snag!
Agree of course.
Never have I personally taken an aircraft with a snag that I shouldn't have, that's not the pressure that I face, ever.
It's all crewing/duty/flight time related.
Strangely enough, I have never been in discretion either!
No one could ever blame me for choosing not to go with a "stopper" snag!
Guest
Posts: n/a
I have a simple way of looking at this. I have a "commercial" pilots licence. OK, its dressed up under the fancy title of ATPL. But the bottom line is that I am licenced, by the regulatory authority, NOT, my company to balance the sometimes conflicting interests of making money and ensuring safety. I voluntarily took on that difficult (sometimes) task when I accepted the 4 gold bars, years ago.
All pilots are under pressure....some, a few, give in. If we are smart, and build ourselves a good union we will not be alone. In any case, you have to be able to look in the mirror each morning.
In the world I want to live in the words"Captain" and "buckle under pressure" will never be seen in the same sentence.
All pilots are under pressure....some, a few, give in. If we are smart, and build ourselves a good union we will not be alone. In any case, you have to be able to look in the mirror each morning.
In the world I want to live in the words"Captain" and "buckle under pressure" will never be seen in the same sentence.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Heathrow
Posts: 178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But the bottom line is that I am licenced, by the regulatory authority, NOT, my company to balance the sometimes conflicting interests of making money and ensuring safety.
The regulatory authority has never licenced anybody to balance conflicting interests because they do not exist.
You are licenced to operate in accordance with the regulations.
>>The regulatory authority has never licenced anybody to balance conflicting interests because they do not exist.
You are licenced to operate in accordance with the regulations<<
Precisely so. You may go against the regulations only to achieve a safe outcome in an emegency. You are not authorised to break safety rules for commercial reasons.
There has been a subtle culture change over the past ten to fifteen years. It has become acceptable to management for some safety rules to be overlooked to acheive a commercial outcome.
I.e. if you fiddle the Tech Log or FTL's without incident management might view this as 'helping the company out.'
Pilots who do this are helping no one.
To quote the findings of an industrial tribunal which found in favour of a pilot who stood up to his airline on this issue:
'The contractual requirements placed upon Captain ------ were to meet the standards set by the CAA'
You are licenced to operate in accordance with the regulations<<
Precisely so. You may go against the regulations only to achieve a safe outcome in an emegency. You are not authorised to break safety rules for commercial reasons.
There has been a subtle culture change over the past ten to fifteen years. It has become acceptable to management for some safety rules to be overlooked to acheive a commercial outcome.
I.e. if you fiddle the Tech Log or FTL's without incident management might view this as 'helping the company out.'
Pilots who do this are helping no one.
To quote the findings of an industrial tribunal which found in favour of a pilot who stood up to his airline on this issue:
'The contractual requirements placed upon Captain ------ were to meet the standards set by the CAA'
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Crawley
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Management pressure
Are there unacceptable practices in Low Cost? You bet. Up to 36 sectors in a week. Multiple 11 hour days. Using holidays to reduce high duty hours. Unrealistic turaround times. Apoplexy if you put a defect in the book. Zero support for making a decision. The list is endless.
Is there management pressure? You bet. All you need is a blame culture and an enquiry every day, and you soon have crews skulking around in fear of their jobs. The most cherished position in a Low Cost operator is the Grey Man - Hear nothing, See nothing, Do nothing, Don't attract attention. Unfortunately, this is the most dangerous part about Low Cost flying - there is no pilot representation, participation or respect within the organisation.
In summary, I too worry about the future of aviation. I understand that some Low Costs loose 10% of their crew every year, mainly because crews cannot stand the pressure or the management any longer. But what will that level of staff turnover do to standards and skill levels? Is aviation to become a part-time profession, where everyone retires aged 35 due to fatigue? What will happen to aviation if this is allowed to continue?
Kiwi
Is there management pressure? You bet. All you need is a blame culture and an enquiry every day, and you soon have crews skulking around in fear of their jobs. The most cherished position in a Low Cost operator is the Grey Man - Hear nothing, See nothing, Do nothing, Don't attract attention. Unfortunately, this is the most dangerous part about Low Cost flying - there is no pilot representation, participation or respect within the organisation.
In summary, I too worry about the future of aviation. I understand that some Low Costs loose 10% of their crew every year, mainly because crews cannot stand the pressure or the management any longer. But what will that level of staff turnover do to standards and skill levels? Is aviation to become a part-time profession, where everyone retires aged 35 due to fatigue? What will happen to aviation if this is allowed to continue?
Kiwi
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Europe
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
..worst offenders...
thanks for the info Kiwi...but Rubik seems honestly and totally convinced that the worst offenders are not the Low Cost but other carriers?
Which ones Rubik? Tell us please.
I am more and more curious now, I want to know. Honestly.
Rubik, reading your posts you could easily be a Manager of a Low Cost airline, if not the CEO in person, so it would be an excellent idea if you could reply to posts like the one from Kiwi rather than mine as I do not have any facts about LoCo except what I get reading this great forum. I apologize if I gave the impression that I could be a LoCo servant but I am not.
I am sorry to disappoint you, but I am not a journalist neither, I am not even an anti Low Cost person, I am just trying to understand if there is really a problem "pressure-safety" or if all this is just a false rumour as you indirectly state in all your posts.
I have got nothing in principle against Low Cost, except that many pilots here say that these carriers are "negatively" changing this industry. Some of them, not all.
I get this impression exclusively reading this forum ,and not just one side of the story, I read it all if I can: what I have understood until now is that some Low Cost have not so high level of pressure and very hig standard of safety (e.g. Easyjet) whilst others have very high level of pressure and lower level of safety (Ryanair): this is what you can read through the posts of this thread and others. It might be wrong but this is the rumour.
This rumour started on a pilot rumour forum, nothign wrong with this.
This is simply what some people are telling us.
I am not sure this is all 100% truth ( I do not generally trust rumours), but I cannot exclude it neither and you cannot deny that many many many posts here have been describing high level of pressure and "reduced" safety as related, with a particular attention to the Low Cost operations of some carriers.
This is a rumour that started on this forum.
I am open to any change of opinion, but at the moment, being honest with you, I tend to trust more those who say that there is effectively a safety and pressure issue that needs to be addressed.
Your posts are just against anything or anybody mentioning LoCo together with pressure. But why?
There are thousand of Low Cost carriers around the world so we are not necessarily referring to your Company, do not worry.
I know many Low Costs have an excellent reputation and I am not going to dispute that, never.
We are worried about the others...
Which ones Rubik? Tell us please.
I am more and more curious now, I want to know. Honestly.
Rubik, reading your posts you could easily be a Manager of a Low Cost airline, if not the CEO in person, so it would be an excellent idea if you could reply to posts like the one from Kiwi rather than mine as I do not have any facts about LoCo except what I get reading this great forum. I apologize if I gave the impression that I could be a LoCo servant but I am not.
I am sorry to disappoint you, but I am not a journalist neither, I am not even an anti Low Cost person, I am just trying to understand if there is really a problem "pressure-safety" or if all this is just a false rumour as you indirectly state in all your posts.
I have got nothing in principle against Low Cost, except that many pilots here say that these carriers are "negatively" changing this industry. Some of them, not all.
I get this impression exclusively reading this forum ,and not just one side of the story, I read it all if I can: what I have understood until now is that some Low Cost have not so high level of pressure and very hig standard of safety (e.g. Easyjet) whilst others have very high level of pressure and lower level of safety (Ryanair): this is what you can read through the posts of this thread and others. It might be wrong but this is the rumour.
This rumour started on a pilot rumour forum, nothign wrong with this.
This is simply what some people are telling us.
I am not sure this is all 100% truth ( I do not generally trust rumours), but I cannot exclude it neither and you cannot deny that many many many posts here have been describing high level of pressure and "reduced" safety as related, with a particular attention to the Low Cost operations of some carriers.
This is a rumour that started on this forum.
I am open to any change of opinion, but at the moment, being honest with you, I tend to trust more those who say that there is effectively a safety and pressure issue that needs to be addressed.
Your posts are just against anything or anybody mentioning LoCo together with pressure. But why?
There are thousand of Low Cost carriers around the world so we are not necessarily referring to your Company, do not worry.
I know many Low Costs have an excellent reputation and I am not going to dispute that, never.
We are worried about the others...
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Europe
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...some more ideas....
you can also check this, which is not entirely another subject...
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...99#post2084599
I think this is an interesting thread for some people who are posting here too!
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...99#post2084599
I think this is an interesting thread for some people who are posting here too!
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: One hump; two if you're pretty.
Posts: 293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wet weather day get 'em indoors.
I read it all if I can: what I have understood until now is that some Low Cost have not so high level of pressure and very hig standard of safety (e.g. Easyjet) whilst others have very high level of pressure and lower level of safety (Ryanair):
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Europe
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear Leo...
Dear Leo,
"...Are you prepared to condemn bullying and intimidation of Ryanair employees by management?"
Dear Leo, you better concentrate on the other forum, why do not you answer such a simple question instead of wasting your time here?
Just one post here and I already feel so intimidated by you.
You never change!!!
"...Are you prepared to condemn bullying and intimidation of Ryanair employees by management?"
Dear Leo, you better concentrate on the other forum, why do not you answer such a simple question instead of wasting your time here?
Just one post here and I already feel so intimidated by you.
You never change!!!
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Thailand
Posts: 942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Faire Dincome said;
Unfortunately if you worked for the worst offenders you would be fired within a month.
Please enlighten us as to which airlines you refer.
Accident prawn said;
Never have I personally taken an aircraft with a snag that I shouldn't have, that's not the pressure that I face, ever.
Not another pilot who has never felt pressure to take risks or reduce safety, surely? Other pressures maybe but not that one.
Spartacan said;
There has been a subtle culture change over the past ten to fifteen years. It has become acceptable to management for some safety rules to be overlooked to acheive a commercial outcome.
Oh really? Pray tell where you got this jem from? Please supply your reference material.
Kiwibird said;
Are there unacceptable practices in Low Cost? You bet. The list is endless
Please supply us with the rest of the list. The items you mention might or might not be common. Following the CAP371 most of what you say is impossible to achieve. Unrealstic turn-around times? If it is possible to turn an aircraft around in 20-25 minutes time after time after time for months on end then when does it become unrealistic? Please explain.
Apoplexy if you put a fault in the Tech Log? Please give instances of such an event and who was apoplectic? Did you see them? Which Engineering company did the apoplectic engineer work for?
ILS27Left said;
If you just go through the posts of this forum you can easily find several pilots working for some LoCo airlines who are really under pressure, they are worried: sometimes they are stretched to the limit. They admit this.
This was the 8th post on this thread so just how do you justify such a statment? Where do all these pilots identify themselves as pilots, much less from Low Cost operators?
...but Rubik seems honestly and totally convinced that the worst offenders are not the Low Cost but other carriers?
Did I say that? I asked you why you constantly added the word Loco to all your posts in spite of the fact that the thread never pointed to Low Cost carriers in the first place, but you seem to think it does. Please explain. I have never suggested that any carriers are worse or better than any others, unlike you.
Rubik, reading your posts you could easily be a Manager of a Low Cost airline, if not the CEO in person, so it would be an excellent idea if you could reply to posts like the one from Kiwi rather than mine as I do not have any facts about LoCo except what I get reading this great forum. I apologize if I gave the impression that I could be a LoCo servant but I am not.
If I were the CEO of any airline I would be unlikely to have the time or inclination to write here, on any subject. Nor am I a management or training pilot. I have however flown for several airlines in Europe for over 25 years, charter and scheduled and not once, never, ever have I felt undue pressure from anyone to accept an aircraft in a non-airworthy condition. Nor, to my knowledge, has any of my work colleagues felt such pressure so to do.
That is what this thread is about, cutting corners with safety due to undue pressure from management.
I am not suggesting that this does not ever occur. I am suggesting that it is isolated, rare and if it does occur it is not a common occurence within Western Europe, as was pointed out by Mr. Learmount in the original article.
Most of the posts here suggest it is common, widespread and occurs on a daily basis, particularly amongst the Low Cost carriers. The facts simply do not support this argumet. Or should I say the lack of facts do not lead anyone except the ranting doomsayers to support such a misguided position. Somebody said they were amazed that there hadn't been more accidents amongst the Low Cost carriers. Pray tell when was the last accident of such an airline in Western Europe.
Just one other point. Mr. Sayers, who was quoted and posted earlier in this thread, was not fired because he stood up to the management because of his refusal to accept an unservicable aircraft. The facts of his case are public knowledge. It had absolutely nothing to do with undue pressure to compromise safety.
Don't make up statistics or quote unrelaible sources nor make unfounded allegations without any apparent evidence or published references. Don't tell us things happen all the time in an airline then refuse to tell us which airline you are reffering to.
Don't rant on and on expecting someone to publish an article in the press which suports your weak and unsupportable argument.
Unfortunately if you worked for the worst offenders you would be fired within a month.
Please enlighten us as to which airlines you refer.
Accident prawn said;
Never have I personally taken an aircraft with a snag that I shouldn't have, that's not the pressure that I face, ever.
Not another pilot who has never felt pressure to take risks or reduce safety, surely? Other pressures maybe but not that one.
Spartacan said;
There has been a subtle culture change over the past ten to fifteen years. It has become acceptable to management for some safety rules to be overlooked to acheive a commercial outcome.
Oh really? Pray tell where you got this jem from? Please supply your reference material.
Kiwibird said;
Are there unacceptable practices in Low Cost? You bet. The list is endless
Please supply us with the rest of the list. The items you mention might or might not be common. Following the CAP371 most of what you say is impossible to achieve. Unrealstic turn-around times? If it is possible to turn an aircraft around in 20-25 minutes time after time after time for months on end then when does it become unrealistic? Please explain.
Apoplexy if you put a fault in the Tech Log? Please give instances of such an event and who was apoplectic? Did you see them? Which Engineering company did the apoplectic engineer work for?
ILS27Left said;
If you just go through the posts of this forum you can easily find several pilots working for some LoCo airlines who are really under pressure, they are worried: sometimes they are stretched to the limit. They admit this.
This was the 8th post on this thread so just how do you justify such a statment? Where do all these pilots identify themselves as pilots, much less from Low Cost operators?
...but Rubik seems honestly and totally convinced that the worst offenders are not the Low Cost but other carriers?
Did I say that? I asked you why you constantly added the word Loco to all your posts in spite of the fact that the thread never pointed to Low Cost carriers in the first place, but you seem to think it does. Please explain. I have never suggested that any carriers are worse or better than any others, unlike you.
Rubik, reading your posts you could easily be a Manager of a Low Cost airline, if not the CEO in person, so it would be an excellent idea if you could reply to posts like the one from Kiwi rather than mine as I do not have any facts about LoCo except what I get reading this great forum. I apologize if I gave the impression that I could be a LoCo servant but I am not.
If I were the CEO of any airline I would be unlikely to have the time or inclination to write here, on any subject. Nor am I a management or training pilot. I have however flown for several airlines in Europe for over 25 years, charter and scheduled and not once, never, ever have I felt undue pressure from anyone to accept an aircraft in a non-airworthy condition. Nor, to my knowledge, has any of my work colleagues felt such pressure so to do.
That is what this thread is about, cutting corners with safety due to undue pressure from management.
I am not suggesting that this does not ever occur. I am suggesting that it is isolated, rare and if it does occur it is not a common occurence within Western Europe, as was pointed out by Mr. Learmount in the original article.
Most of the posts here suggest it is common, widespread and occurs on a daily basis, particularly amongst the Low Cost carriers. The facts simply do not support this argumet. Or should I say the lack of facts do not lead anyone except the ranting doomsayers to support such a misguided position. Somebody said they were amazed that there hadn't been more accidents amongst the Low Cost carriers. Pray tell when was the last accident of such an airline in Western Europe.
Just one other point. Mr. Sayers, who was quoted and posted earlier in this thread, was not fired because he stood up to the management because of his refusal to accept an unservicable aircraft. The facts of his case are public knowledge. It had absolutely nothing to do with undue pressure to compromise safety.
Don't make up statistics or quote unrelaible sources nor make unfounded allegations without any apparent evidence or published references. Don't tell us things happen all the time in an airline then refuse to tell us which airline you are reffering to.
Don't rant on and on expecting someone to publish an article in the press which suports your weak and unsupportable argument.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: over the hill
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rubik, if you cant see what the "low cost culture" is doing to standards and safety throughout this industry you are either A) blind B) willfully ignorant C) mendacious D) all of the above.
You are certainly not a professional pilot but you may well be a management accountant.
Just remember - if you think safety is expensive, try having an accident. Rostering practises alone in the "Lo Cos" are shameful, let alone the plethora of other issues alluded to in this thread.
You are certainly not a professional pilot but you may well be a management accountant.
Just remember - if you think safety is expensive, try having an accident. Rostering practises alone in the "Lo Cos" are shameful, let alone the plethora of other issues alluded to in this thread.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Thailand
Posts: 942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fred, please justify, with evidence, your assertion that the Low Cost culture, whatever that is, has affected standards and safety throughout the industry. Facts please, not your opinion.
If you had read my post carefully you would know what I do for a living.
How many more times will pprune suffer that phrase about the cost of an accident being more than the cost of safety? Enough!
Give us facts and references or stop slinging mud until it sticks somewhere. I have yet to see one verifiable fact on this thread in reply to any of the posts asking for them. Not once.
Read what I said instead of telling me I am unprofessional.
If you had read my post carefully you would know what I do for a living.
How many more times will pprune suffer that phrase about the cost of an accident being more than the cost of safety? Enough!
Give us facts and references or stop slinging mud until it sticks somewhere. I have yet to see one verifiable fact on this thread in reply to any of the posts asking for them. Not once.
Read what I said instead of telling me I am unprofessional.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Europe
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rubik Hi!
"ILS27Left said;
If you just go through the posts of this forum you can easily find several pilots working for some LoCo airlines who are really under pressure, they are worried: sometimes they are stretched to the limit. They admit this"
Rubik:
This was the 8th post on this thread so just how do you justify such a statment? Where do all these pilots identify themselves as pilots, much less from Low Cost operators?"
First: I have specifically said "..on
this forum " and not this thread.
See the other threads on Ryanair for example: rosters, bullying, etc. Plenty of posts for you.
They clearly admit to be working for Ryanair. There are hundreds of posts. I know you aren't blind, please check again.
Note to all: check Leo's message history and you have got his CV.
He is probably the reincarnation of Ryanair into a human.
If you just go through the posts of this forum you can easily find several pilots working for some LoCo airlines who are really under pressure, they are worried: sometimes they are stretched to the limit. They admit this"
Rubik:
This was the 8th post on this thread so just how do you justify such a statment? Where do all these pilots identify themselves as pilots, much less from Low Cost operators?"
First: I have specifically said "..on
this forum " and not this thread.
See the other threads on Ryanair for example: rosters, bullying, etc. Plenty of posts for you.
They clearly admit to be working for Ryanair. There are hundreds of posts. I know you aren't blind, please check again.
Note to all: check Leo's message history and you have got his CV.
He is probably the reincarnation of Ryanair into a human.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: UK Seas
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rubik
Re Read my posting on this thread posted 8th September 2005 08:43
What are you after? I am a working LoCo airline pilot. I have given my feelings and facts in that posting.
How much evidence are you after precisely?
Why do you need evidence?
The thread's title is: 'Pilots 'under pressure to take risks'
Do you think pilots here are lying? Do you think I am lying?
What is your point anyway? I thought mine is damn crystal clear. I am under pressure, we are (Pilots that is) are under pressure. You're clearly not. Your posts don't exactly offer a solution, they simply disagree with what people seem to write.
Where are you going with your responses???
Why am I getting drawn in even???
Re Read my posting on this thread posted 8th September 2005 08:43
What are you after? I am a working LoCo airline pilot. I have given my feelings and facts in that posting.
How much evidence are you after precisely?
Why do you need evidence?
The thread's title is: 'Pilots 'under pressure to take risks'
Do you think pilots here are lying? Do you think I am lying?
What is your point anyway? I thought mine is damn crystal clear. I am under pressure, we are (Pilots that is) are under pressure. You're clearly not. Your posts don't exactly offer a solution, they simply disagree with what people seem to write.
Where are you going with your responses???
Why am I getting drawn in even???