Away for a day and it's gone
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps all anonymous posts should be moderated first? I wouldn't want to see anonymous posts banned but perhaps that would be a reasonable compromise? I guess the problem is one of proving identity and the agro that causes for board admin.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All this serves as a very good example to show how FR deals with its problems. Right and wrong is not the issue here, to FR its irrelevent. All that relevent is how deep the pockets of its opponents are.
The same methods are used when dealing with its employees as is seen with current events in Dublin. To anybody out there thinking of joining you have been warned, this is a perfect eample of how FR works.
Dont want to get anybody in trouble but FR had a serious incident in Knock a few weeks back resulting in the demotion of a captain.
The same methods are used when dealing with its employees as is seen with current events in Dublin. To anybody out there thinking of joining you have been warned, this is a perfect eample of how FR works.
Dont want to get anybody in trouble but FR had a serious incident in Knock a few weeks back resulting in the demotion of a captain.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: EuroZone
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Danny,
thank you for such a detailled and clear explanation of events. In my previous post I did not mean to offend anyone - especially not yourself. I was unaware of the background to the matter and perceived the mentioned threats as being the usual rhetoric that comes from that stable everytime they do not see their version of the world being promulgated.
As to FL,
You have answered my question. No, I don't know Danny, never met the man, and never intended any offense to him. However, the fact of seeing a large banner ad for an airline on a page informing me that a thread was pulled because that same said advertiser demanded it so, prompted my question.
Keep up the good work.
thank you for such a detailled and clear explanation of events. In my previous post I did not mean to offend anyone - especially not yourself. I was unaware of the background to the matter and perceived the mentioned threats as being the usual rhetoric that comes from that stable everytime they do not see their version of the world being promulgated.
As to FL,
You have answered my question. No, I don't know Danny, never met the man, and never intended any offense to him. However, the fact of seeing a large banner ad for an airline on a page informing me that a thread was pulled because that same said advertiser demanded it so, prompted my question.
Keep up the good work.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: FUBAR
Posts: 3,348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What this "incident"(?),and the subsequent arrangements (or lack of) for crew and pax brings to the forefront is the hopelessly inadequate Ops structure which "tight control of costs" prevents being adequately expanded to match Ryanairs explosive growth over the last few years.If those of you outside RYR knew how many people were ( or more pertinetly were not? ) employed in Ops/ Crewing I imagine you would think it was some sort of sick joke.It is deeply offensive that the spineless crustaceans charged with regulating it ,need pressure from the CAA and the Press before they sit up and take notice,without that ,this would have been swept under the carpet.Most of the other problems documented here, such as pilots out of check etc, stem from the same inadequacies. Sure, RYR are at this moment trying to fix it ,but it appears to be too little/too late, and they are in a hopeless game of catch-up. Situations normal for us here unfortunately.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: FUBAR
Posts: 3,348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And if you didn't believe my last post, the latest gem to appear on Crewdock (our internal e-mail contact with our "masters" for those of you on the outside) is an URGENT ( their word ,not mine followed by multiple exclamation remarks ? duh ) request for pilots at 3 of our bases to forward details of their medicals. Amazing the chaos that can be caused by a simple house move.Don't suppose a vertically challenged " gentleman" that lost half his empire put a spanner in the works ? No,much too machievelian,surely, just another day with the loonies administering the asylum comes to fruition. Oh dear oh dear.
Originally Posted by haughtney1
Well said Danny...a nice clear explanation.
I don't know about anyone else but..
Last time I looked we lived in a country with freedom of speech (unless you upset emperor Bliar)..so it seems a little off-hand that those with more money than others can effectively buy silence with threatened expensive legal action.
I don't know about anyone else but..
Last time I looked we lived in a country with freedom of speech (unless you upset emperor Bliar)..so it seems a little off-hand that those with more money than others can effectively buy silence with threatened expensive legal action.
There has never been an established link between the law and justice!!
Well done Danny for pulling the thread. We need PpRUNE more than a good thread on RYR.
Many of us have had an intake of breath through clenched teeth observing RYR and discussed it here, Danny's action ensures we will long be able to do so.
Best wishes
Doc C
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am glad I saw Danny's vital post. Says it all. It's there for all to see but Ryan haven't bothered to look. The lawyers were happy with the 'facts.' Whose facts might they be. Minimums were apparently busted time and time again.
niknak
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its just my personal opinion that Danny was absolutely right to do what he thought was right for either his benefit or that of Pprune.
What does concern me is that there has been no mention of any involvement of the UK CAA, after all the "alleged incident" did occur in the UK, and they should be leading the investigation.
Again, its just my personal opinion, but I have no faith in the IAA to do anything positive when it comes to a certain Irish airline.
What does concern me is that there has been no mention of any involvement of the UK CAA, after all the "alleged incident" did occur in the UK, and they should be leading the investigation.
Again, its just my personal opinion, but I have no faith in the IAA to do anything positive when it comes to a certain Irish airline.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by flowman
For what it's worth I have just looked at data stored in CFMU systems. This data is available to anyone registered for access to RCA or CHMI - i.e. most aircraft operators.
I looked at 25 RYR flights planned to arrive at EGSS after 2140 and before 2340 UTC.
Arrival messages were received from the following aerodromes:
EGNX 6 flights
EGGW 3 flights
EGBB 7 flights
EGKK 1 flight
Radar plots were recorded for 2 other flights terminating in the vicinity of other aerodromes and the remaining 6 flights deviated from flight planned route away from EGSS without Div Arrival messages being received and without landing at EGSS.
I did not look at any flights outside the above mentioned times. It's the end of a night shift, I'm tired and I'm going home.
I looked at 25 RYR flights planned to arrive at EGSS after 2140 and before 2340 UTC.
Arrival messages were received from the following aerodromes:
EGNX 6 flights
EGGW 3 flights
EGBB 7 flights
EGKK 1 flight
Radar plots were recorded for 2 other flights terminating in the vicinity of other aerodromes and the remaining 6 flights deviated from flight planned route away from EGSS without Div Arrival messages being received and without landing at EGSS.
I did not look at any flights outside the above mentioned times. It's the end of a night shift, I'm tired and I'm going home.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the subsequent enquiries prove illegal approaches and landings were made - will the passengers on the aircraft involved have a case against Ryanair for endangering their lives?
Maybe one for Flying Lawyer?
Maybe one for Flying Lawyer?
Too mean to buy a long personal title
Originally Posted by Tags
If the subsequent enquiries prove illegal approaches and landings were made - will the passengers on the aircraft involved have a case against Ryanair for endangering their lives?
Maybe one for Flying Lawyer?
Maybe one for Flying Lawyer?
Perhaps Danny could make a deal here along the lines of:
1. If the elaborate claims made by the initiator of this thread are proved to be greatly in error then he/she pays Danny £5000 and then tries to make his peace with the Ryanair lawyers.
2. If his elaborate claims are proved to be correct then Ryanair pays Danny £5000 and the initiator can then sue Ryanair for defamation of his anonymous character.
It all adds weight to the fact that the sooner we get these (un)promising hysterics banned from taking part in sensible discussion the better. Otherwise, pprune is going to get shut down.
1. If the elaborate claims made by the initiator of this thread are proved to be greatly in error then he/she pays Danny £5000 and then tries to make his peace with the Ryanair lawyers.
2. If his elaborate claims are proved to be correct then Ryanair pays Danny £5000 and the initiator can then sue Ryanair for defamation of his anonymous character.
It all adds weight to the fact that the sooner we get these (un)promising hysterics banned from taking part in sensible discussion the better. Otherwise, pprune is going to get shut down.
Keeping Danny in Sandwiches
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a thought.
IF the allegations prove correct, has Danny been defamed or threatened by the lawyers? Demanded money with menaces springs to mind.
IF the allegations prove correct, has Danny been defamed or threatened by the lawyers? Demanded money with menaces springs to mind.
aka Capt PPRuNe
Join Date: May 1995
Location: UK
Posts: 4,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please note in my earlier posts, we do not need 'Jackwhoknowsabitabouteverything' giving us his unlearned opinion.
The allegations that "many" aircraft landed at STN on the night of the 24th April when the RVR was below the minimum allowed for the level of lighting available still stands. Those aircraft that landed that night in RVR's below the minimum allowed under safety regulations were not just Ryanair aircraft.
We already know the numbers and are waiting to see the results of the official investigation. We do not need speculative posts about the incidents or the investigation for now. All the aircraft landed safely but that doesn't mean that they didn't breach safety regulations. Our concern at the moment is why did we see one of the biggest breakdowns of operational integrity by a first world airline in a very long time?
Considering the numbers involved, which we will try to keep confidential for the time being, are we looking at procedural lapses by a group of individuals or do we need to look much further than that? It should not just be a case of firing the crews as they are an expensive and rare commodity in the market. It should be about educating them individually to correct any shortcomings, improving and/or correcting any company wide factors involved and finally educating and raising awareness of all personnel at the company about the lessons learned.
Should scapegoats be found individually and action taken against them in a punitive manner (education and retraining should not be punitive), then we would be outraged here at PPRuNe as that would not be tackling the real problems underlying why so many pilots breached the rules on the 24th April. We wait to see the results of the inquiry and will compare our notes at the time whilst watching the reactions from the companies involved.
The dogs have been unleashed against myself and PPRuNe and I am proud to say that as far as I am concerned, our integrity is intact and we will prevail with the truth in this matter. Whose court is the ball in now?
The allegations that "many" aircraft landed at STN on the night of the 24th April when the RVR was below the minimum allowed for the level of lighting available still stands. Those aircraft that landed that night in RVR's below the minimum allowed under safety regulations were not just Ryanair aircraft.
We already know the numbers and are waiting to see the results of the official investigation. We do not need speculative posts about the incidents or the investigation for now. All the aircraft landed safely but that doesn't mean that they didn't breach safety regulations. Our concern at the moment is why did we see one of the biggest breakdowns of operational integrity by a first world airline in a very long time?
Considering the numbers involved, which we will try to keep confidential for the time being, are we looking at procedural lapses by a group of individuals or do we need to look much further than that? It should not just be a case of firing the crews as they are an expensive and rare commodity in the market. It should be about educating them individually to correct any shortcomings, improving and/or correcting any company wide factors involved and finally educating and raising awareness of all personnel at the company about the lessons learned.
Should scapegoats be found individually and action taken against them in a punitive manner (education and retraining should not be punitive), then we would be outraged here at PPRuNe as that would not be tackling the real problems underlying why so many pilots breached the rules on the 24th April. We wait to see the results of the inquiry and will compare our notes at the time whilst watching the reactions from the companies involved.
The dogs have been unleashed against myself and PPRuNe and I am proud to say that as far as I am concerned, our integrity is intact and we will prevail with the truth in this matter. Whose court is the ball in now?
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeh I agree. My eye's have been opened to a lot of things by this post. I thought there was no point in discussing a simple issue. Danny gets a law suit threat...pulls thread....end of story. What's to discuss, maybe a whinge about free speech. BUT there is a lot more to this than I for one realised. This has turned out better than the original thread!!!!
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First, may I add my thanks and congratulations to Danny and his team. The painstaking analysis and explanation they have collectively provided above is helpful and most valuable. In particular Danny has shown us how a “steady pair of hands” keeps the real issues clearly in focus whilst avoiding needless risk.
In that regard, and speaking as somebody who believes he has recently been in the company of a pilot who was directly involved in these events, may I particularly commend the following observation by Danny (which I believe goes to the core of the consistent message coming from pprune and other sources):
Of course these eminently sensible and constructive words apply as much to Aviation Authorities as they do to airlines.
If anyone has any doubts as to the litigious and legally threatening nature of Ryanair when it believes it important to silence adverse comment, they may care to look at the following link: http://www.ryanair.org.uk/
If you feel that Ryanair would not become involved in litigation unless the facts were on their side, you might care to search for various reports, of which the following is but one, on the Ryanair "one millionth passenger" case: http://www.rte.ie/news/2002/0619/ryanair.html
The following words of the judge, taken from the judgment in that case, relate to two findings of fact:
In that regard, and speaking as somebody who believes he has recently been in the company of a pilot who was directly involved in these events, may I particularly commend the following observation by Danny (which I believe goes to the core of the consistent message coming from pprune and other sources):
Should scapegoats be found individually and action taken against them in a punitive manner (education and retraining should not be punitive), then we would be outraged here at PPRuNe as that would not be tackling the real problems underlying why so many pilots breached the rules on the 24th April. We wait to see the results of the inquiry and will compare our notes at the time whilst watching the reactions from the companies involved.
If anyone has any doubts as to the litigious and legally threatening nature of Ryanair when it believes it important to silence adverse comment, they may care to look at the following link: http://www.ryanair.org.uk/
If you feel that Ryanair would not become involved in litigation unless the facts were on their side, you might care to search for various reports, of which the following is but one, on the Ryanair "one millionth passenger" case: http://www.rte.ie/news/2002/0619/ryanair.html
The following words of the judge, taken from the judgment in that case, relate to two findings of fact:
I found the plaintiff a more persuasive witness than Mr. O’Leary and I therefore find as a fact that the version of events given by the plaintiff is correct. … I reject Mr. O’Leary’s assertion that he was not hostile or aggressive or bullying toward the plaintiff. I find that he was.
Last edited by GGV; 9th May 2006 at 23:48.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Dublin
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Serious kudos Danny, that's one hell of a comprehensive post.
For those who still don't get it or who cannot read in, on or between the lines perhaps you may care to compare and contrast:
a) Ryanairs response to the Dispatches program
b) Ryanairs response to these allegations on Pprune
c) MOL's previous opinion that various postings on Pprune were akin to "scribblings on a toilet wall"
For those who still don't get it or who cannot read in, on or between the lines perhaps you may care to compare and contrast:
a) Ryanairs response to the Dispatches program
b) Ryanairs response to these allegations on Pprune
c) MOL's previous opinion that various postings on Pprune were akin to "scribblings on a toilet wall"
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Citizen of the World
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Congrats, Danny, on an outstanding piece of work - probably the best ever seen on pprune. As stated by another poster, Ryanair has very often gone to law with their massive financial resources, to prevent any serious level of criticism of their operation. Pruners have to stand up to bullying tactics from whatever source they may emanate.
It may turn out that no Ryanair aircraft landed at Stansted on the night in question in breach of the JAA Approach Ban. If that's the case it will no doubt be given equal airing here as did the original post. On the other hand it may be shown that some Ryanair aircraft did land in breach of the law (and possibly some from other companies as well.) We will have to await the reults of the various enquiries to establish the facts.
The most telling item on this whole thread is the quotation from the judge in the millionth passenger case against Ryanair that he found a certain gentleman to be an unreliable witness and in fact found that the court did not believe this gentleman but did believe the lady who took the claim against the company. Official Ireland has stated that this person, on this one occasion, was not to be believed. It appears that Ryanair's lawyers are telling us that the Ryanair version of events on the night in question is the correct one. I leave it to your imagination as to which version is likely to be proved correct.
Let's all start by pledging twenty quid to Danny's fighting fund right now. Just tell us where to send it. Freedom of speech and flushing out those who are 'econmical with the truth' is still an important part of the British way of life. It is critical that accurate, informed comment is not silenced whether that be attempted by Ryanair or anyone else.
It may turn out that no Ryanair aircraft landed at Stansted on the night in question in breach of the JAA Approach Ban. If that's the case it will no doubt be given equal airing here as did the original post. On the other hand it may be shown that some Ryanair aircraft did land in breach of the law (and possibly some from other companies as well.) We will have to await the reults of the various enquiries to establish the facts.
The most telling item on this whole thread is the quotation from the judge in the millionth passenger case against Ryanair that he found a certain gentleman to be an unreliable witness and in fact found that the court did not believe this gentleman but did believe the lady who took the claim against the company. Official Ireland has stated that this person, on this one occasion, was not to be believed. It appears that Ryanair's lawyers are telling us that the Ryanair version of events on the night in question is the correct one. I leave it to your imagination as to which version is likely to be proved correct.
Let's all start by pledging twenty quid to Danny's fighting fund right now. Just tell us where to send it. Freedom of speech and flushing out those who are 'econmical with the truth' is still an important part of the British way of life. It is critical that accurate, informed comment is not silenced whether that be attempted by Ryanair or anyone else.