Away for a day and it's gone

[rubik101]

Regardeless of the outcome of the investigation, there must be someone who knows which aircraft of which airline landed, what time these landings occurred and under what RVR conditions such landings occurred in STN on that foggy night. Regardless of whether the Captains are guilty or not of some infringement or have disregarded some rules and regulations, can we not simply have the facts and then form opinions for ourselves?
What those 'opinions' might be are purely our own and can be discussed ad nuaseam here or at work or in the bar etc.
Or do these facts constitute some breach of confidentiality or some breaking of the law once they become known?

[Danny]

IAA & Pan-national a/c basings

Again, I reiterate, we are not going to publish the numbers or who was involved on here until we get the IAA's version of events. Needless to say, we have all the information and will be comparing notes at that time.

NATS collated all the information and passed it to the CAA SRG and to the IAA. As aviation professionals you will know that the information involved will include time referenced radar plots, approach and tower frequency audio, atis, met observations and, most importantly, the IRVRs constantly logged and updated when vis falls below specified limits.

The IAA have been under a lot of criticism on here for being 'toothless'. With the UK agencies' role and UK airline involvement on the night, the opportunity is there for the CAA to present the results of their own investigation.

It is our hope, here at PPRuNe, that the investigations and reports issued will not just be a limited, dry technical analysis of the multiple approaches that breached safety regulations on the night in question. All the aviation professionals who use PPRuNe are concerned that the investigations will not only delve into the operational issues but, in particular, will highlight the cultural issues that are behind what appears to be the biggest breakdown in operational integrity and safety for many years here in the UK.

This is not just an issue for the IAA but one that relates to the oversight functions of all regulators, including the CAA, and will possibly highlight the differences in their authority with respect to the way they deal with pan-national basings by individual operators. The CAA does not have oversight responsibility for foreign registered aircraft based here in the UK. All they can do is ramp checks and we all know that is not the same thing.

Operating to the same set of safety regulations in itself is not the only criteria that should be looked at. It's the same old adage about accountants, they know the price of everything but the value of nothing. We here at PPRuNe are trying to highlight the effects that different corporate cultures can have in a safety critical industry. Does corporate culture and the fallibility of human factors have an influence on the amount of 'Risky shift' that is the result? Could it be that the regulators have different attitudes to it on either side of the Irish Sea?

[Faire d'income]

Fantastic work Danny and Pprune.

For those who cannot read between the lines please stop asking questions. It appears all will be revealed in good time.

This is a monumental development and I am glad to see Pprune taking such a position.

Bravo.

[TDK mk2]

To any of you who have expressed your support of Danny Fyne and the PPRuNe team's postion on this matter: If you wished to make a contribution to assist their position in this situation, you could consider purchasing a personal title by clicking on those words under each posters name of each thread. You can choose the amount you pledge by the number of words and adornments you choose, or make a small donation by requesting no words at all be displayed under your name.

I have no connection with Danny Fyne or PPRuNe other than my membership but I am glad that Danny Fyne and the PPRuNe team have taken the position they have, I consider it to be on my behalf and therefore I have given them a small contribution towards any possible legal expenses they may incur.

[Dream Land]

TDK, do we know for certain that PPRuNe has incurred such a charge, if so, I am sure the vast majority of posters will step up to the plate.

[angels]

For crying out loud Dreamland!!

Look at the big picture rather than being pedantic. Do you think Danny makes a profit from this site?? Do you think this site is useful? Do you CARE?

Take TDK's excellent advice and cough up a few GBP/EUR/USD/AUD/NZD/VND or whatever to help keep this site going.

Step up to the plate.....

And kudos to the people who are obviously helping out with this one.

[forget]

View from across the pond. The April issue of Air Line Pilot

[Speed of Sound]

In an age where integrity is often seen as a dirty word, and people are all to ready to take the corporate dollar for the sake of a quiet life, Danny's actions in this matter are like a breath of fresh air.

Donation on its way!

SoS

[doubtfire]

Someone somewhere must have an accurate record of flights landing on that night. Surely. Anybody

[VIKING9]

Think you'll find Airfield Ops and the airlines will have accurate records but most unlikely to be revealed on here

[Danny]

All parties involved will have 'accurate records' of who landed and at what time, and that includes PPRuNe. What some of the other parties may not have is copies of the IRVR records which, together with the 'accurate records' of who landed when, show who continued their approaches below the 1,000ft approach ban height when the broadcast RVR's were below the safety minimum published for the facilities available at that time.

One of the most interesting points about the large number of aircraft that were flown to safe landings, despite breaching the safety regulations concerning the minimum safe visibility allowed for the equipment available at Stansted that night, is the fact that they were all 'Low Cost' operators. What does this tell us? Is there a problem with the standards of training for LVP operations or could there be a problem with commanders decision making due to certain pressures within some corporate cultures that are not addressed properly by the regulating authorities?

Whatever happens, this needs to be addressed and any attempts to stifle the discussion should be seen as blatant attempts to put profit before safety. There were three 'Low Cost' operators involved in the breaches of safety regulations that night. Whilst there is no doubt that they all 'train and operate' to the minimum standards as set out by the regulators and the JAA, the questions raised because there were so many breaches of the rules that night must be dealt with by the regulators themselves. Either they have minimum safety standards for a reason or else they are just paying lip service to those same operators who fund the regulators activities in the first place. Conflict of interest?

[sky9]

An interesting and thought provoking comment Danny.
I would have thought that if your comments are true the first action that the regulators must take is to withdraw the Low Visibility Approval for the companies concerned while they review their training and procedures.

As far as stifling discussion is concerned, I cannot think what you are taking about, surely no airline (worth an AOC) would compromise safety for profit now would they? Anyway how would they do that in a free society?

[Faire d'income]

One of the most interesting points about the large number of aircraft that were flown to safe landings, despite breaching the safety regulations concerning the minimum safe visibility allowed for the equipment available at Stansted that night, is the fact that they were all 'Low Cost' operators.

But they repeatedly tell us that they operate to the highest safety standards.

That is not meant as a cheap shot at the crews involved, they have my complete sympathy, but rather at the company spokespersons who usually have no idea what they are talking about.

Q: Can anyone operating for any of the low cost operators confirm or deny for your company the rumour that some dont carry Cat III plates but merely use Cat I plates and change the minima?

[05omega]

statistics

I don't mean to undermine Danny's argument but since it happened at STN and since the overwhelming majority of airlines operating there are low-cost companies, isn't it just normal (statistically speaking) that all the companies involved in the breaching of regulations should be low-cost operators?
I'd be curious to know how many aircraft from 'traditional' (ie not low-cost) operators were supposed to land at STN on that night.

[Norman Stanley Fletcher]

I heartily commend Danny for all he is doing and I hope that the truth comes out. I am slightly intrigued by the other alleged transgressors. I do not know if aircraft from my company, easyJet, are included in those that committed the alleged breaches of regulations that night. If they are I would be both surprised and disappointed. I can only tell you that the level of LVP knowledge required at easyJet is way in excess of any of my previous 4 airlines.

At this juncture, knowing the safety culture of easyJet as I do, then I cannot imagine any conversation in one of our cockpits that could result in an approach being attempted with both pilots knowing the RVRs were below limits. If the RVRs are below limits then I would have expected that there was simply nothing to discuss other than the diversion brief. What I can imagine is a genuine mistake whereby the pilots believed that they were able to operate to Cat III B limits even if they were not. I think we would all recognise the difference between a genuine error of judgement and a deliberate flounting of the regulations. Frankly, if it transpires that crews have knowlingly landed in RVRs below limits for a legal approach without an overwhelming safety imperitive, then I would expect people to lose their jobs.

[N380UA]

if it transpires that crews have knowlingly landed in RVRs below limits for a legal approach without an overwhelming safety imperitive, then I would expect people to lose their jobs.

Purely speaking from a company unofficial politics point of view, as it had been mentioned by Danny,

decision making due to certain pressures within some corporate cultures

and as we know does exist within some companies, the crew might find itself compromised by just that fact. A certain "Do or Die" mentality in the FD doesn’t necessarily mean that one would loose their job but reflects on the crews performance review. Too much sticking to rules and regulations might be regarded as overly concerned, low self-confidence and as a lack of loyalty to the company. Especially then when others have done it before without any incidence – "See! They did it no problem! So why did you divert and cost us a bunch of dough?"

Regardless of the events at STN that night or any carrier in question here, this is not an isolated phenomena. I have seen it before at airlines where I would have least suspected it. Bend the law a bit, sneak around the corner get there faster and cheaper and above all drive the pax to their destination. You'll get a cash bonus – if you get caught by authorities, well ain't our problem, your PIC!
If you wont do it then you’re a lousy aviator, Incompetent, as it will show on your PR. Three strikes and you get downgraded or even booted.

So what does one do in such circumstances? It happened to me once, albeit not in a flight deck. I stuck to the R&R, the aircraft suffered a delay, there were additional costs to do it right and thus my boss was unhappy and I without a job soon there after.

[captplaystation]

I have never been subjected, in three and a half years at RYR, to any pressure to get in. Wx below minima? hold as long as poss if there is any realistic possibility of an improvement or temporary alleviation,if not, off you go to wherever you nominated, or have been asked, to divert. I think what we saw was simply an ignorance of the regulations for the airfield deficiencies that night.This can, and regretably will, be laid directly on the doorsteps of the crews concerned. However, had a certain individual been more concerned with being a bit more pro-active in safety matters , rather than passing his time writing to crews asking why they took more than 300kg extra fuel, perhaps he could have avoided this embarassment at our largest base , that he supposedly oversees.He will, as usual, come out of this smelling of roses, and that is the greatest injustice.

[essexboy]

Faire d'income
Q: Can anyone operating for any of the low cost operators confirm or deny for your company the rumour that some dont carry Cat III plates but merely use Cat I plates and change the minima?

Slightly off topic but I shall answer you from a Ryanair perspective. Absolutely NOT true. CAT II/IIIA are carried. I think where this has come from is that the Low vis plates only show the CAT II minima as the CAT IIIA is standardized to 50ft/200 metres... etc.

[AIMS by IBM]

Injustice

There are far bigger problems in aviation then a few planes that land below minimums.

However the argument that nobody was killed seems to have become the yardstick.

The UK and all other European CAA should concentrate of those very fastgrowing Airlines in the Middle East that breach basic safety rules on a daily basis.

All the rest is plain hypocricy.

[A330busdriver]

Any news from the IAA yet?