Away for a day and it's gone
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Middle Earth
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Censorship.
Given the extremely obvious way that large corporations manipulate every detail of the systems in this industry, it is naive to expect anyone to play fair and by the rules.
Of course no regulator is going to do anything about Ryanair. The only thing that will affect the behaviour of such a company is losing money/pax.
For the Prune site to be subjected to the power of money -the cost of a law suit - is bowing to the powerful rather than the truth. I have not read the thread in question and it is not the issue.
Private eye is still going after many decades of publishing, whatever the consequences. They have always found their readers willing to contribute to a fighting fund and I suspect Prune would find the same, as a previous poster suggested. I too would cough up willingly.
Many pilots register complaints on this site, that stem directly from the corporate power (bullying) that they experience and yet some now support bullyboy Ryanair in direct conflict with their own interests.
One of the reasons UK pilots are teated the way they are is because of this lack of willingness to stand together aginst the bully. The removal of the thread in question, is just one more example of the playground bully winning the point yet again.
Of course no regulator is going to do anything about Ryanair. The only thing that will affect the behaviour of such a company is losing money/pax.
For the Prune site to be subjected to the power of money -the cost of a law suit - is bowing to the powerful rather than the truth. I have not read the thread in question and it is not the issue.
Private eye is still going after many decades of publishing, whatever the consequences. They have always found their readers willing to contribute to a fighting fund and I suspect Prune would find the same, as a previous poster suggested. I too would cough up willingly.
Many pilots register complaints on this site, that stem directly from the corporate power (bullying) that they experience and yet some now support bullyboy Ryanair in direct conflict with their own interests.
One of the reasons UK pilots are teated the way they are is because of this lack of willingness to stand together aginst the bully. The removal of the thread in question, is just one more example of the playground bully winning the point yet again.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: EuroZone
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
XT,
well put!
THe FR action to silence comment on what happened that night in Stanstead is the same sort of action that was tried with REPA.
The tool used is fear.
O'Leary et al had managed to put fear into the FR pilots with the pending High Court case. The thought that FR management could have access to their names and details of their postings served to undermine their freedom to speak out about things that were wrong, and ultimately join REPA.
REPA stood up to them and won. The law is not on the side of the bully.
As with this thread, it would appear that some hard facts exist to support the statements made in the thread that was pulled.
Its just a pity that the facts may never emerge through any official line, and perhaps not at all.
well put!
THe FR action to silence comment on what happened that night in Stanstead is the same sort of action that was tried with REPA.
The tool used is fear.
O'Leary et al had managed to put fear into the FR pilots with the pending High Court case. The thought that FR management could have access to their names and details of their postings served to undermine their freedom to speak out about things that were wrong, and ultimately join REPA.
REPA stood up to them and won. The law is not on the side of the bully.
As with this thread, it would appear that some hard facts exist to support the statements made in the thread that was pulled.
Its just a pity that the facts may never emerge through any official line, and perhaps not at all.
Keeping Danny in Sandwiches
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A330
Check back to Danny's posts, I think that all he is waiting for is the IAA verdict then all the fact could well be on this board.
and:
Check back to Danny's posts, I think that all he is waiting for is the IAA verdict then all the fact could well be on this board.
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: EuroZone
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sky9,
As you rightly point out, Danny has indicated that he is awaiting the IAA's version of events.
My fear is that the IAA will, in a fashion they are well accustomed to, dodge the issue. This may well come about by taking five or ten years to investigate, conclude, or even acknowledge that it might warrant their investigation. Even if they do conclude an invetigation, they will no doubt hide behind the cloak of confidentiallity. This is their modus operandi.
I'm not suggesting that the IAA are any worse or better that other aviation authorities -for example, one only has to look at the continual friction that exists between the NTSB and the FAA.
Investigating a matter such as this should only take a few days - not months or years as everything is recorded. A/c operators, callsigns, crew details, RVRs, Radar plots etc.
It is not something subjective - purely a matter of record as to whether the aircraft that landed that evening at Stansted had adequate RVRs to commence and continue their approaches.
As you rightly point out, Danny has indicated that he is awaiting the IAA's version of events.
My fear is that the IAA will, in a fashion they are well accustomed to, dodge the issue. This may well come about by taking five or ten years to investigate, conclude, or even acknowledge that it might warrant their investigation. Even if they do conclude an invetigation, they will no doubt hide behind the cloak of confidentiallity. This is their modus operandi.
I'm not suggesting that the IAA are any worse or better that other aviation authorities -for example, one only has to look at the continual friction that exists between the NTSB and the FAA.
Investigating a matter such as this should only take a few days - not months or years as everything is recorded. A/c operators, callsigns, crew details, RVRs, Radar plots etc.
It is not something subjective - purely a matter of record as to whether the aircraft that landed that evening at Stansted had adequate RVRs to commence and continue their approaches.
Problem is Ireland is a small place, and with only a few big fish. It's really the great man himself who runs the show, not the IAA, who have, on many occasions shown themselves to be spineless.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Various
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My tuppence worth is that Danny is doing the right thing, even if it is frustrating. We pilots tend to like quick results (normally TODAY). We complete our work in blocks and tend not to take a longer perspective. That came home to me at a meeting where I was one of many who signed a letter to the IAA about another matter, namely the demotion of a Ryanair captain following a fatigue call.
As I recall the explanation, the IAA investigation of this event is still "open" and hence it is impossible to do anything. What we were told was that our letters will be sent in to help remind the IAA of the fact that the matter is important and that it is not going to go away (that much was made very clear). So, we just have to wait. Frustrating, yes. But necessary, yes.
After all, nobody doubts what is at issue in all of these events. The issue is who is responsible for actually doing something, as in taking action to preserve and support the safety framework on which the industry depends. In the end, just as with the event which gave rise to this thread, the IAA will have to make a decision. Afterwards is when the fun will start.
As I recall the explanation, the IAA investigation of this event is still "open" and hence it is impossible to do anything. What we were told was that our letters will be sent in to help remind the IAA of the fact that the matter is important and that it is not going to go away (that much was made very clear). So, we just have to wait. Frustrating, yes. But necessary, yes.
After all, nobody doubts what is at issue in all of these events. The issue is who is responsible for actually doing something, as in taking action to preserve and support the safety framework on which the industry depends. In the end, just as with the event which gave rise to this thread, the IAA will have to make a decision. Afterwards is when the fun will start.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Middle Earth
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Keep the thread.
Flash8 & FMGC both make vital points & it is not only Ireland where big business calls the shots. It is the new establishment & this can be seen by the way the CAA inspectors, et al, naturally identify with management.
For this reason I do not agree that the thread should have been pulled. Only a firm stand (even a confrontational one) will ensure that the issue remains live.
As it is, time will tick by, other events will gain prominence and more interesting causes will take eyes off balls and it will slip quietly into obscurity. You only have to look at the way government plays the media and uses spin.
If you can bury an issue for long enough you can distract the public with different bait and they'll forget or loose interest.
Remember too that the UK CAA gets its revenue from the industry. The more ASK out there for sale & the more fuel that is burnt, the more dosh they get. They are not in the business of rocking boats.
For this reason I do not agree that the thread should have been pulled. Only a firm stand (even a confrontational one) will ensure that the issue remains live.
As it is, time will tick by, other events will gain prominence and more interesting causes will take eyes off balls and it will slip quietly into obscurity. You only have to look at the way government plays the media and uses spin.
If you can bury an issue for long enough you can distract the public with different bait and they'll forget or loose interest.
Remember too that the UK CAA gets its revenue from the industry. The more ASK out there for sale & the more fuel that is burnt, the more dosh they get. They are not in the business of rocking boats.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"There were three 'Low Cost' operators involved in the breaches of safety regulations that night."
Were they all under the IAA?
Have I missed some vital piece of information that exonerated those, if any, that were not?
Were they all under the IAA?
Have I missed some vital piece of information that exonerated those, if any, that were not?
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely there are various agencies with an interest in discovering the truth. BAA own the airport. If an illeagal act occured on their turf, surely they have some jurisdiction. Likewise the UK CAA who have jurisdiction over users of the airspace for which it is responsible. NATS are probably without jurisdiction in this. How can the whole matter be monopolised by the IAA, even if it was only, perhaps, EI reg a/c involved?
