ryanair pilots do pushbacks
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: right behind you
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The question is whether you do not comply and risk losing your job or you comply with the directive and enforce it to the letter of the law.Then let the company accept any loss of time/revenue which results.Again we see that there is no concensus of opinion on what the group decision should be.Why?because we have no leadership and no representation.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 20N 120W
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For so many years refuelling was done without the intervention of the pilots, except selecting the fuel quantity to be delivered, but now sudenly all these procedures have to revert to the pilots. Once again I do keep to my idea everybody covers themselves and the ultimate responsable is the pilot, where in this procedure is safety increased to me is unknow but I am sure that safety INFLIGHT is severely impaired by the pilots having to perform another task outside their cockpit duties during turnarounds.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 20N 120W
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For so many years refuelling was done without the intervention of the pilots, except selecting the fuel quantity to be delivered, but now sudenly all these procedures have to revert to the pilots. Once again I do keep to my idea everybody covers themselves and the ultimate responsable is the pilot, where in this procedure is safety increased to me is unknow but I am sure that safety INFLIGHT is severely impaired by the pilots having to perform another task outside their cockpit duties during turnarounds.
I do not work for a low cost, and worked mostly to charter companies and flag carries and even with these companies it is not unusual to refuel without having a mechanic on station, so it was never a case having less people employed by the airlines.
This recalls me another JAA brilliant idea like the authorisation to perform a walk around, another ridiculous piece of paper because since the dawn of aviation pilots were performing walkarounds without the necessity of an "authorisation".
A pilot, that does not know how to perform a proper walkaround simply should not be allowed to fly as this is a basic procedure and safety issue, not needing a piece of paper to allow him to perform such procedure.
I do not work for a low cost, and worked mostly to charter companies and flag carries and even with these companies it is not unusual to refuel without having a mechanic on station, so it was never a case having less people employed by the airlines.
This recalls me another JAA brilliant idea like the authorisation to perform a walk around, another ridiculous piece of paper because since the dawn of aviation pilots were performing walkarounds without the necessity of an "authorisation".
A pilot, that does not know how to perform a proper walkaround simply should not be allowed to fly as this is a basic procedure and safety issue, not needing a piece of paper to allow him to perform such procedure.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: very close to STN!!
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
time chart!!!
we at ryan were just blessed with an illuminating time chart for the turn-around event divided to each minute.
remarkably efficient.
no time for stopping in the toilet, so we must do that whilst in flight.
remarkably efficient.
no time for stopping in the toilet, so we must do that whilst in flight.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: MN
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: _
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since this has come to the fore by virtue of a JAR OPS ammendment can I confirm it's this part that was the subject of the ammendment?
(2) A two-way communication shall be
established and shall remain available by the
aeroplane’s inter-communication system or other
suitable means between the ground crew
supervising the refuelling and the qualified
personnel on board the aeroplane
Fair D'Income seems to make a point that this has always been the case and so which part has actually been revised if (s)he is correct?
I understand that a higher level of risk appears to be acceptable when there are no passengers on board or in the process of arriving/leaving the aircraft but when there are what's to stop the refuelling staff adopting the role of "ground crew supervising the refuelling" if given suitable means to communicate with "the qualified personnel on board the aeroplane"?
(misterblue Yoghurt pots doesn't seem a bad idea
)
Is this limited to operators registered in a JAR state or does this apply to all operators who happen to be refuelling in a JAR state?
Cheers
(2) A two-way communication shall be
established and shall remain available by the
aeroplane’s inter-communication system or other
suitable means between the ground crew
supervising the refuelling and the qualified
personnel on board the aeroplane
Fair D'Income seems to make a point that this has always been the case and so which part has actually been revised if (s)he is correct?
I understand that a higher level of risk appears to be acceptable when there are no passengers on board or in the process of arriving/leaving the aircraft but when there are what's to stop the refuelling staff adopting the role of "ground crew supervising the refuelling" if given suitable means to communicate with "the qualified personnel on board the aeroplane"?
(misterblue Yoghurt pots doesn't seem a bad idea
)Is this limited to operators registered in a JAR state or does this apply to all operators who happen to be refuelling in a JAR state?
Cheers
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Monkey-Island
Age: 51
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CR-ASC
RAT 5 gets closer to the real problem with his observation "Rushed departure to keep on time, as per company philosophy." Except that this is not the company philosophy. For it is written nowhere. Now you may say "but everybody knows it". But when the "tire hits the road" and something goes wrong it will be .... the pilot(s) who are in trouble .... because "but everybody knows it" does not count for getting you out of the merde.
Surely this is the problem of the moment in most Low Cost Carriers and some others too? Whose job is it to shout STOP? I'll wager that few Ryanair pilots are delaying their flights due to the lack of flight planning, eating, refuelling, etc. time. So where does this all come to roost: the authority?
[/I]
RAT 5 gets closer to the real problem with his observation "Rushed departure to keep on time, as per company philosophy." Except that this is not the company philosophy. For it is written nowhere. Now you may say "but everybody knows it". But when the "tire hits the road" and something goes wrong it will be .... the pilot(s) who are in trouble .... because "but everybody knows it" does not count for getting you out of the merde.
Surely this is the problem of the moment in most Low Cost Carriers and some others too? Whose job is it to shout STOP? I'll wager that few Ryanair pilots are delaying their flights due to the lack of flight planning, eating, refuelling, etc. time. So where does this all come to roost: the authority?
[/I]
ie if the extra procedure takes extra time, this leads to delay and delay costs the COMPANY money...We'll see how this ends....Safety first, then the rest.
And haven't you been to the smaller French airport yet? Setting up the fuelling-panel is standard there! At least now I have warm ears!
As is quoted before this allready was a requirement with fuelling and boarding, but you won't see the big boys doing it because THEY are in the hotel-bar for their daylong turnaround!
Just do the BL£$%^&* job like you are supposed to, stop the whining and we'll see if this procedure is efficient enough to maintain
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Monkey-Island
Age: 51
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The question is whether you do not comply and risk losing your job or you comply with the directive and enforce it to the letter of the law.Then let the company accept any loss of time/revenue which results.Again we see that there is no concensus of opinion on what the group decision should be.Why?because we have no leadership and no representation.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Ireland
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could the capt not just tell the boarding staff to wait until after refueling to board the pax. No need for the FO to stand in the lashing rain and smell like a wet dog for the rest of the day, pilots get their preflight duties out of the way and pax come on, doors close and immediate pushback, planning is done properly and hopefully no delays if the passengers are quick!
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bucharest
Age: 42
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...
Why the FO?
All airlines have employees on their target airports... Why can't they supervise this? Im mean, it's idiotic! What is his role being there? To watch the gasboy pumping gas? To tell him jokes and help past the time?
All airlines have employees on their target airports... Why can't they supervise this? Im mean, it's idiotic! What is his role being there? To watch the gasboy pumping gas? To tell him jokes and help past the time?
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 20N 120W
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=Danasutra;2823638]Well, if you are a professional, you don't do RUSHED DEPARTURES....
That looks nice in a paper not in real life, tell me that in your life you never did a rushed departure?
I would like to work in such a company, where there are no slots , no problems with cargo ,pax, lugage , technical ,etc.No duty limitations, etc, as I can remember one of the causes of the major acident in aviation the tenerife one was caused by concerns regarding exceeding the duty time.
Of course there is a limit to where you can expedite departure, up to a certain level, but do not tell me that a professional do not do rushed departures, you have to adapt acording the time frame you have, or you can do it or not.
Regarding the fueling procedure:
Again I stick to the idea of this procedure being a flop, so what is doing the fireman truck in front of me when I am refueling with pax on board?
As well if a pilot is outside whow is the emergency evacuation of the airplane performed?
there is a serious flaw in this situation as per sop of airbus, boeing , etc emergency evacuation is performed by the 2 crewmembers acting and checking, not one outside the aircraft!
The lawyers of JAA just lost the plot in this situation!
That looks nice in a paper not in real life, tell me that in your life you never did a rushed departure?
I would like to work in such a company, where there are no slots , no problems with cargo ,pax, lugage , technical ,etc.No duty limitations, etc, as I can remember one of the causes of the major acident in aviation the tenerife one was caused by concerns regarding exceeding the duty time.
Of course there is a limit to where you can expedite departure, up to a certain level, but do not tell me that a professional do not do rushed departures, you have to adapt acording the time frame you have, or you can do it or not.
Regarding the fueling procedure:
Again I stick to the idea of this procedure being a flop, so what is doing the fireman truck in front of me when I am refueling with pax on board?
As well if a pilot is outside whow is the emergency evacuation of the airplane performed?
there is a serious flaw in this situation as per sop of airbus, boeing , etc emergency evacuation is performed by the 2 crewmembers acting and checking, not one outside the aircraft!
The lawyers of JAA just lost the plot in this situation!
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: .
Posts: 2,997
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For those that can't read - A two-way communication shall be established and shall remain available by the aeroplane’s inter-communication system or other suitable means between the ground crew supervising the refuelling and the qualified personnel on board the aeroplane
That's the Ground Crew supervising the refuel, not the pilot or First Officer but the Ground Crew who will establish 2 way .... with the qualified personnel on board the aeroplane that's the Captain or First Officer.
The person doing the refuelling be it an Engineer, bowser driver etc etc is the one outside.
That's the Ground Crew supervising the refuel, not the pilot or First Officer but the Ground Crew who will establish 2 way .... with the qualified personnel on board the aeroplane that's the Captain or First Officer.
The person doing the refuelling be it an Engineer, bowser driver etc etc is the one outside.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: FUBAR
Posts: 3,348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CR-ASC has hit the nail exactly on the head, Boeing non-normal drill for pax evac is written for the participation of BOTH pilots, although I'm sure they would argue in Ryanair , and many other companies ,that it can be performed adequately by one, otherwise how do you do a walkround with pax on board/boarding ,as ,of course, an APU fire or whatever could happen at any moment.This of course fails to take into account that a "Ryanair" walkround ( ha bloody ha ) only takes 2 mins , whereas refuelling can take up to 16min, according to our esteemed STN base Capt/ Deputy Dog or whatever he is this week.Plus, of course, the risk is perceived to be higher during fuelling so shouldn't you keep all your cockpit resources available , not hanging around on the apron.Try explaining that one away in court when you are accused Dear Captain, with failing to command / orchestrate a successful evacuation coz u was chewing the cud with Essex's finest gas pumpers. . . Mate.Hmn methinks just forgetting fuelling with pax onboard until this sorry mess is tidied up is possibly the most legal option, even if it incurs the wrath of the Dark Side
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just don't get it (like Spannercatcx). Who interpretted SECTION 1 JAR-OPS 1 Subpart D 01.09.04 1-D-16 Amendment 7 Appendix 1 to JAR-OPS 1.305 to mean that either the Cpt or F/O has to be outside the acft?
I have read and re-read the above mentioned JAR-OPS and I just cannot see why Ryaniar (and others?) have taken this to mean that a member of the flt crew MUST go outside the acft to supervise the re/de fueling.
That'll be either the Cpt of F/O on the flight deck then.
Is the refueller not a 'member of the ground crew' who is 'supervising' the re/defuelling? S/he establishes 2-way comms with the flt crew and then gets on with the job. If there's a problem they inform the 'qualified personnel on board' who initiate [emergency] procedures.
Exactly what can a 'time-compromised' F/O see that the re/defueller can't?
Christ .. if this thing really is compromising safety (as some suggest), why doesn't someone question the airline SOPs, and instead of worrying about being reported for NOT being outside the acft worry about be being reported for NOT being INSIDE doing 'the job'.
I have read and re-read the above mentioned JAR-OPS and I just cannot see why Ryaniar (and others?) have taken this to mean that a member of the flt crew MUST go outside the acft to supervise the re/de fueling.
(a)(1) One qualified person must remain at a specified location during fuelling operations with passengers on board. This qualified person must be capable of handling emergency procedures concerning fire protection and fire-fighting, handling communications and initiating and directing an evacuation
(a)(2) A two-way communication shall be established and shall remain available by the aeroplane’s inter-communication system or other suitable means between the ground crew supervising the refuelling and the qualified personnel on board the aeroplane
Exactly what can a 'time-compromised' F/O see that the re/defueller can't?
Christ .. if this thing really is compromising safety (as some suggest), why doesn't someone question the airline SOPs, and instead of worrying about being reported for NOT being outside the acft worry about be being reported for NOT being INSIDE doing 'the job'.
Cunning Artificer
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Age: 76
Posts: 3,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Supervising the refuel.
Is it the right type of fuel? Is it the right refueller (I've been caught out by this when it came to signing the invoice and he couldn't accept our carnet) Have the caps been refitted? Is the refuelling panel door closed properly. It ain't rocket science but why the headset?
"I say old chap, there's a fire raging out here, you'd better evacuate the aircraft ...and don't forget to tell the cabin crew."
As to why flight crew are doing this, its simple. Low Cost Carriers (e.g. Ryanair about whom this topic began) cut costs everywhere they can. Including ground handling contracts. When we had an LCC negotiating a ground handling contract with us they didn't want any maintenance services except for
1. A marshaller to wave it in and put the chocks in and
2. A mechanic on headset for the engine start/chocks away.
3. Four baggage handlers to get the bags off and on.
They didn't want to use the airbridge as that meant paying the airport and also needed a tractor and team to push the aircraft back. They just wanted to taxi up to a remote stand - straight in and straight out again. (The reason why Stansted has both airbridges and stairways at some gates, with a parallel parking option?)
The mechanic for start up could have supervised the refuel but that would have meant paying for an additional 0.5 manhours (US$25) Their local agent couldn't do it as they supervise the deplaning/enplaning which goes on continuously while the aircraft is on its 25 minute turn-round. Passengers are already boarding while fuel is still being pumped. - which is why the JAR-OPS supervision procedure is required in the first place. So...
4. Flight crew have to do the transit, including the refuel.
5. Cabin crew do the cleaning/toilet service during the extremely short time between one lot of passengers leaving and the next lot boarding. (I hope they wash their hands afterwards)
6. No catering. (Ah! Forget about the hand washing then...)
As to having their own ground crew at every station - what exactly would they be doing in between transits?
BTW, despite what they wanted, they didn't get it. The airport operator is also the airworthiness regulator and they have to do a normal transit just like all the other aircraft operators who pass through here. On the airbridge, no refuelling with pax aboard. Flight crew do the transit though and cabin crew do the cleaning - and no, I don't know if they wash their hands.
Is it the right type of fuel? Is it the right refueller (I've been caught out by this when it came to signing the invoice and he couldn't accept our carnet) Have the caps been refitted? Is the refuelling panel door closed properly. It ain't rocket science but why the headset?
"I say old chap, there's a fire raging out here, you'd better evacuate the aircraft ...and don't forget to tell the cabin crew."
As to why flight crew are doing this, its simple. Low Cost Carriers (e.g. Ryanair about whom this topic began) cut costs everywhere they can. Including ground handling contracts. When we had an LCC negotiating a ground handling contract with us they didn't want any maintenance services except for
1. A marshaller to wave it in and put the chocks in and
2. A mechanic on headset for the engine start/chocks away.
3. Four baggage handlers to get the bags off and on.
They didn't want to use the airbridge as that meant paying the airport and also needed a tractor and team to push the aircraft back. They just wanted to taxi up to a remote stand - straight in and straight out again. (The reason why Stansted has both airbridges and stairways at some gates, with a parallel parking option?)
The mechanic for start up could have supervised the refuel but that would have meant paying for an additional 0.5 manhours (US$25) Their local agent couldn't do it as they supervise the deplaning/enplaning which goes on continuously while the aircraft is on its 25 minute turn-round. Passengers are already boarding while fuel is still being pumped. - which is why the JAR-OPS supervision procedure is required in the first place. So...
4. Flight crew have to do the transit, including the refuel.
5. Cabin crew do the cleaning/toilet service during the extremely short time between one lot of passengers leaving and the next lot boarding. (I hope they wash their hands afterwards)
6. No catering. (Ah! Forget about the hand washing then...)
As to having their own ground crew at every station - what exactly would they be doing in between transits?
BTW, despite what they wanted, they didn't get it. The airport operator is also the airworthiness regulator and they have to do a normal transit just like all the other aircraft operators who pass through here. On the airbridge, no refuelling with pax aboard. Flight crew do the transit though and cabin crew do the cleaning - and no, I don't know if they wash their hands.
Last edited by Blacksheep; 6th Sep 2006 at 05:42. Reason: to add comment about what they got
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tool8 I think your question "Is the refueller not a 'member of the ground crew'" is the key question to which the answer "no" undermines your efforts at deconstruction. The "refueller" may just be a fancy name for the guy who drives the truck with the fuel on board. The fact that he might help you out should not be confused with his position (and a minority even refuse to even open the refuelling panel).
You seem to take it for granted that the JAA requirement is not sensibly based. (If you use your imagination you might think it an appropriate precaution in circumstances where nobody else is around to take responsibility when large numbers are on board the aircraft). It is for you to produce arguments why it is not, since it was agreed to be a requirement by a majority of Aviation Authorities, has been there for some time and has been implemented procedureally by many airlines. The key issue, of course, is that not many airlines load a large percentage of their pax numbers as a matter of course while refuelling.
Low cost carriers are an increasing exception. Which is why we are discussing the matter here. (And BTW, Ryanair certainly will not "have taken this to mean that a crew member MUST go outside" to supervise refuelling. It has instead all the smell of an unfollowed requirement that has been forcibly drawn to their attention.).
You seem to take it for granted that the JAA requirement is not sensibly based. (If you use your imagination you might think it an appropriate precaution in circumstances where nobody else is around to take responsibility when large numbers are on board the aircraft). It is for you to produce arguments why it is not, since it was agreed to be a requirement by a majority of Aviation Authorities, has been there for some time and has been implemented procedureally by many airlines. The key issue, of course, is that not many airlines load a large percentage of their pax numbers as a matter of course while refuelling.
Low cost carriers are an increasing exception. Which is why we are discussing the matter here. (And BTW, Ryanair certainly will not "have taken this to mean that a crew member MUST go outside" to supervise refuelling. It has instead all the smell of an unfollowed requirement that has been forcibly drawn to their attention.).
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GGV, it's not that I don't believe it is sensibly based, it's rather that I don't think it will have the desired effect i.e. ensure safety of pax and crew.
As an attempt to ensure that refuelling is carried out safely during a rapid turnaround with pax dis/embarking, OK a vigilant crew member is likely to spot the problem and prevent the accident. Stood under the nose cone fiddling with the connector trying to get the damn thing to work; not so effective.
It just strikes me that this 'solution' has too many compounding elements e.g. less time to prepare in cockpit to be the correct solution.
So what is the answer? Slow Down, perhaps. Safety should be the primary concern of JAA, economics second. And as Blacksheep notes, we could be talking about c. £20 here to have someone competent do this job; with just 100 pax that's 20p each!!
As an attempt to ensure that refuelling is carried out safely during a rapid turnaround with pax dis/embarking, OK a vigilant crew member is likely to spot the problem and prevent the accident. Stood under the nose cone fiddling with the connector trying to get the damn thing to work; not so effective.
It just strikes me that this 'solution' has too many compounding elements e.g. less time to prepare in cockpit to be the correct solution.
So what is the answer? Slow Down, perhaps. Safety should be the primary concern of JAA, economics second. And as Blacksheep notes, we could be talking about c. £20 here to have someone competent do this job; with just 100 pax that's 20p each!!
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In a far better place
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let me toss another handgrenade...
This looks like enough of a shambles to have all the potential for another nasty accident.
When we are sorting through the smoking remains of an A320 at MPL, I won't need to say "told you so".
This looks like enough of a shambles to have all the potential for another nasty accident.
When we are sorting through the smoking remains of an A320 at MPL, I won't need to say "told you so".