O'Leary v Evan Cullen on RTE1
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Dublin
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok guys time to start looking out of the goldfish bowl & realize a few hard to swallow facts.
1 Joe public doesnt give a s*** about pilots, all he cares about is cheap travel from A to B
2 There is no point in rehashing this "He said/I said/didn't say" debate,as previously stated nobody cares.
3 joe Public would probably side with MOL if it came to public opinion( pilots work 18 hours a week etc) because MOL is a motormouth who plays the hard done by small buisnessman trying to get on who is being hounded by those big bad IALPA Unioin types.
4 Public opinion is not going to increase any FR pilots pay / decrease working hours / improve working conditions etc for the same reason as stated previously.
So basically it boils down to like it or lump it. either quit moaning & keep working for FR or get out & chase far away hills for greener pastures (Don't get me wrong, I am as anti FR as the next man).
Right thats my tuppence worth.Time to shut up now.
1 Joe public doesnt give a s*** about pilots, all he cares about is cheap travel from A to B
2 There is no point in rehashing this "He said/I said/didn't say" debate,as previously stated nobody cares.
3 joe Public would probably side with MOL if it came to public opinion( pilots work 18 hours a week etc) because MOL is a motormouth who plays the hard done by small buisnessman trying to get on who is being hounded by those big bad IALPA Unioin types.
4 Public opinion is not going to increase any FR pilots pay / decrease working hours / improve working conditions etc for the same reason as stated previously.
So basically it boils down to like it or lump it. either quit moaning & keep working for FR or get out & chase far away hills for greener pastures (Don't get me wrong, I am as anti FR as the next man).
Right thats my tuppence worth.Time to shut up now.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Thrid rock from the sun
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sue Him
Evan Cullen, I hope your lawyers are preparing a writ against O`Leary for calling you a "failed Pilot". It was a low punch.
IAA.......hang your heads in shame !!!!!
IAA.......hang your heads in shame !!!!!
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: ireland
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
im a loudmouth mullingar bully, blah blah blah.....
The fact the programme went ahead in the first place speaks volumes, not to mention the fact that several fr pilots confirmed the fatigue issue on it. The issue is REAL. MOL calling Evan a failed pilot, sticks and stones mate, 0ctober is fast approaching.
MOLs typical gob****e 'i dont care how its done just do it or else, big schoolyard bully attitude' is once again evident.
Leo,you tried to discredit LOC on this forum before only to have your false allegations dispelled. He was a good bloke who gave fr 10 years of good service. The only thing bogus about his ordeal was the kangaroo court he was subjected to . Good luck to him.
Seeing as you like anagrams and using initials Leo, here s one for you:
MOL, EW, DOB = DO BLOW ME.
Release the hounds smithers,
EXCELLENT!
MOLs typical gob****e 'i dont care how its done just do it or else, big schoolyard bully attitude' is once again evident.
Leo,you tried to discredit LOC on this forum before only to have your false allegations dispelled. He was a good bloke who gave fr 10 years of good service. The only thing bogus about his ordeal was the kangaroo court he was subjected to . Good luck to him.
Seeing as you like anagrams and using initials Leo, here s one for you:
MOL, EW, DOB = DO BLOW ME.
Release the hounds smithers,
EXCELLENT!
Join Date: May 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was a Ryanair pilot
I joined Ryanair just because I fancied a break from UK weather. However, it turned out to be a very bad move for me. During earliy shifts I was waking up at 4.30am and not getting home until around 5pm (for 5 days in a row) - I didn't even feel safe to drive home and I'd just landed a jet with 195 people on board (myself included!)
Typical morning rosters from our base were CIA-STN-CIA-BVA-CIA and CIA-BGY-CIA-DUB-CIA - very long days indeed. You frequently got back on the 4th sector to find yourself facing very large thunderstorms or a VOR to circle visually onto the opposite runway - some 10 hours or more after you woke up at 4.30am. I couldn't believe it was legal to fly when I felt like I did. In fact, it's not legal in the UK.
The max duty time under UK rules if you report before 6am local for a 4 sector day is 9:15min. Under Irish rules you can still do a 12 hour flight duty with 2 hours of additional time for discression. For me, this was the most unsafe aspect of the whole operation and it turned me into a walking zombie every 2nd week of my life.
So, I wrote the following letter
-----------------------------------------------------------------
To: Base Captain (CIA)
From: XXXX - F/O (XXX)
Dear Xxxxxx,
Please accept this letter as my formal resignation from Ryanair. I have come to feel that, for me personally, the early shifts we are being asked to fly are excessively long and I often feel unsafe (particularly by the 4th sector) due to tiredness / fatigue. I can't continue to fly when I feel unfit for any reason, as is clearly stated in the Ryanair Operations Manual and is required by law.
------------------------------------------------------------------
My resignation was accepted graciously by letter from Gen Mgr of Flight Ops and I was thanked for my support of the company. I left the company 1 month later with no further communications.
Typical morning rosters from our base were CIA-STN-CIA-BVA-CIA and CIA-BGY-CIA-DUB-CIA - very long days indeed. You frequently got back on the 4th sector to find yourself facing very large thunderstorms or a VOR to circle visually onto the opposite runway - some 10 hours or more after you woke up at 4.30am. I couldn't believe it was legal to fly when I felt like I did. In fact, it's not legal in the UK.
The max duty time under UK rules if you report before 6am local for a 4 sector day is 9:15min. Under Irish rules you can still do a 12 hour flight duty with 2 hours of additional time for discression. For me, this was the most unsafe aspect of the whole operation and it turned me into a walking zombie every 2nd week of my life.
So, I wrote the following letter
-----------------------------------------------------------------
To: Base Captain (CIA)
From: XXXX - F/O (XXX)
Dear Xxxxxx,
Please accept this letter as my formal resignation from Ryanair. I have come to feel that, for me personally, the early shifts we are being asked to fly are excessively long and I often feel unsafe (particularly by the 4th sector) due to tiredness / fatigue. I can't continue to fly when I feel unfit for any reason, as is clearly stated in the Ryanair Operations Manual and is required by law.
------------------------------------------------------------------
My resignation was accepted graciously by letter from Gen Mgr of Flight Ops and I was thanked for my support of the company. I left the company 1 month later with no further communications.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: u.k.
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This does astound me that IAA ftl scheme does not differentiate between a late start and an early start.
You can start from an 0600 and do 12hours duty or 12pm and complete a 12hours duty.
Where is the logic is the IAA basically saying that a human being performance is not affected by what time they report for duty????
Oh i forgot we are all bloody Androids....................
You can start from an 0600 and do 12hours duty or 12pm and complete a 12hours duty.
Where is the logic is the IAA basically saying that a human being performance is not affected by what time they report for duty????
Oh i forgot we are all bloody Androids....................
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Ireland
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem is the IAA do not have a FTL scheme, it's up to the Operator to submit a set of their proposed FTL guidelines and invariably the IAA will approve them, so in effect each Irish based company has a different set of rules. In other words, the IAA merely tick the boxes in order to meet their "Authority" obligations, dont ask them to create a policy, that would upset the applecart.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: N59W30
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
me thinks the IAA are h@le open for litugation should heaven forbid a serious event happens in that they failed to address stark issues that other regulatory authorities would have dealt with as against parked.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sunfish & others: If it's legal it's OK.
Driving down the motorway at + 50mph is legal; in the fog it's legal. After the crash it is considered Bl&*)y stupid, but it was legal. The crime was negligent driving. Does the same exist for pilots? Legal does NOT make it correct!!!!! The escape clause is do not fly if you do not consider yourself fit, but risk your livelyhood. I would expect that more than 50% of pilots who have to fly 5 earlies are knackered after 3, How many do the correct thing and cry off the 5th?
Driving down the motorway at + 50mph is legal; in the fog it's legal. After the crash it is considered Bl&*)y stupid, but it was legal. The crime was negligent driving. Does the same exist for pilots? Legal does NOT make it correct!!!!! The escape clause is do not fly if you do not consider yourself fit, but risk your livelyhood. I would expect that more than 50% of pilots who have to fly 5 earlies are knackered after 3, How many do the correct thing and cry off the 5th?
Join Date: Jun 1997
Location: 5530N
Posts: 845
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do when needs be....very seldom and only do it when I am on my hands and knees..... pull the plug...they wont thank you for it in the stewards inquiry when on your fifth early , last leg when you clobbered the airbridge.
Rat5, of course you are perfectly correct. That is my point.
But before an accident occurs the argument willl be made that the rosters are legal under the regulations and it is therefore assumed that those that drafted the regulations knew what they were doing so inter alia - the rosters are safe.
You cannot challenge them without proving scientifically that the research behind them was flawed - and that means destroying the credibility of whoever drafted the regs, not a pleasant or easy thing to do when civil service careers are involved.
Of course if an incident occurs, and fatigue is discovered to be the proximate cause, the employer will then blame the pilot and piously wonder why they didn't call in sick if they were so tired. The trouble there of course is the "double bind" problem (discussed elsewhere or google it yourself) if the employer has an internal corporate culture that discourages taking sick time.
The depressing thing is that it will require a series of incidents before anyone can prove statistically and scientifically that there is a fatigue problem. Only then can the regulations be changed after suitable regulatory backside covering has taken place.
But before an accident occurs the argument willl be made that the rosters are legal under the regulations and it is therefore assumed that those that drafted the regulations knew what they were doing so inter alia - the rosters are safe.
You cannot challenge them without proving scientifically that the research behind them was flawed - and that means destroying the credibility of whoever drafted the regs, not a pleasant or easy thing to do when civil service careers are involved.
Of course if an incident occurs, and fatigue is discovered to be the proximate cause, the employer will then blame the pilot and piously wonder why they didn't call in sick if they were so tired. The trouble there of course is the "double bind" problem (discussed elsewhere or google it yourself) if the employer has an internal corporate culture that discourages taking sick time.
The depressing thing is that it will require a series of incidents before anyone can prove statistically and scientifically that there is a fatigue problem. Only then can the regulations be changed after suitable regulatory backside covering has taken place.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: EuroZone
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regarding the IAA
They are, and always have been seen as the downtown office of the airlines. Ryanair, amongst others, has brought substantial earnings to the IAA. The IAA are not in the habit of biting the hand that feeds it - quite the contrary. As for the money we as pilots pay the IAA, its small fry in comparison. Ireland is to aviation what Panama is to shipping - a flag of convenience, where the appropiate paperwork is issued for the relevent fee. As for policing regulations or practices, the situation is all too clear.
So get used to it. The IAA are a comercial entity where earnings are paramount.
They are, and always have been seen as the downtown office of the airlines. Ryanair, amongst others, has brought substantial earnings to the IAA. The IAA are not in the habit of biting the hand that feeds it - quite the contrary. As for the money we as pilots pay the IAA, its small fry in comparison. Ireland is to aviation what Panama is to shipping - a flag of convenience, where the appropiate paperwork is issued for the relevent fee. As for policing regulations or practices, the situation is all too clear.
So get used to it. The IAA are a comercial entity where earnings are paramount.
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 1,879
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I get the impression, reading the posts about FR and the IAA that we're in "Tombstone Imperative" territory; nothing - at least nothing significant - is going to happen until there's an almighty balls-up (aka, "a crash"), traceable back to FR's mgmt and poor oversight by the IAA. You can almost imagine the report now: probable causes:
- Crew fatigue
- Hostile r'ship with mgmt - disincentive to report problems/issues, including fatigue
- Lack of effective oversight by IAA; no effective plan to raise/follow up issues raised by crews;
- Commercial rationale undermining regulatory authority's failure to challenge operator*;
- Other issues?
What happens then? It may seem irrelevant to EI, but what happens if as a result of the IAA being criticised for its oversight, the FAA decided to reduce Ireland to a Level 2 country, which would make it harder for EI to add US routes? That is, of course, way down the list of "bad things", relative to the key issue - safety, but I wonder what would happen if that possibility alone were brought to the Dept of Transport's attention?
Incidentally, has MO'L or FR done anything further to look into Latvia or other countries as a possible base?
(*I know virtually all aviation regulatory bodies receive income from airlines for licencing etc, but are there any others which are as dependant on revenue as the IAA?)
- Crew fatigue
- Hostile r'ship with mgmt - disincentive to report problems/issues, including fatigue
- Lack of effective oversight by IAA; no effective plan to raise/follow up issues raised by crews;
- Commercial rationale undermining regulatory authority's failure to challenge operator*;
- Other issues?
What happens then? It may seem irrelevant to EI, but what happens if as a result of the IAA being criticised for its oversight, the FAA decided to reduce Ireland to a Level 2 country, which would make it harder for EI to add US routes? That is, of course, way down the list of "bad things", relative to the key issue - safety, but I wonder what would happen if that possibility alone were brought to the Dept of Transport's attention?
Incidentally, has MO'L or FR done anything further to look into Latvia or other countries as a possible base?
(*I know virtually all aviation regulatory bodies receive income from airlines for licencing etc, but are there any others which are as dependant on revenue as the IAA?)
Last edited by akerosid; 18th Sep 2006 at 21:08. Reason: Inclusion of question
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 272
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Quote:
is Aer Lingus unsafe as well because its Pilots operate 900 hours per year on the A320 the same number as Ryanair Pilots do on the 737
Aer Lingus rosters are worse and must be considered less safe.
Quote:
or are Aer Lingus duties spread out differently to Ryanair making them less tiring on the crews?
The exact opposite is true."
Akerosid, did you read the posts? Try the above from Faire d'Income's post #47.
is Aer Lingus unsafe as well because its Pilots operate 900 hours per year on the A320 the same number as Ryanair Pilots do on the 737
Aer Lingus rosters are worse and must be considered less safe.
Quote:
or are Aer Lingus duties spread out differently to Ryanair making them less tiring on the crews?
The exact opposite is true."
Akerosid, did you read the posts? Try the above from Faire d'Income's post #47.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bottom
Age: 78
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I may be wrong, but I believe Aer Lingus's duty days are a lot shorter than ours here at FR. Have heard that a new system for rostering is being negotiated at EI. At least EI recognoise there is a problem and are trying to fix it, whereas FR claim fatigue is not an issue.
Sadly I believe people would rather risk their lives than their jobs because of the poor relations between the management and their staff.
Sadly I believe people would rather risk their lives than their jobs because of the poor relations between the management and their staff.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Cartoon strip
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There does seem to be a culture in Ryanair of repeatedly saying things that are either not entirely true or just outright lies. The case against REPA recently proved that outright lies were being told by at least two members of senior management.
Now having watched the O'Leary v. Cullen debate we have the following "not entirely true" statements:
1. That the pilots only work 18 hours a week on average. Nonsense of course. Unfortunately it may make a good headline for Joe Public to consume but it is utterly untrue as all pilots know. For that amount of flying, without even examining a typical Ryanair pilot's working week, I would guess 45 hours a week (and with no opportunity for breaks). Real figures supplied here agree with that guess.
2. The suggestion was made about 6 times was that all the pilots are on €100,000. No they are not, but what percentage are? A lot less than 50%.
3. A doctor who contributed to the program noted he had been asked a number of times to supply false medical certificates (to indicate anything other than fatigue or stress). He at no time suggested he supplied such certificates. However OLeary decided in his infinite wisdom that the doctor must have done so and therefore his evidence was entirely unreliable. If I was that doctor I would be more than a little annoyed at that conclusion.
4. IALPA in the parallel universe of OLeary is the Aer Lingus pilots union. Really? Are there no other pilots from other Irish companies in this union?
5. And of course the final "failed pilot" lie about Mr.Cullen. This is extraordinary and if you watch the report again this lie was carefully timed by OLeary to be delivered at precisely a time when no rebuttal was possible by Mr Cullen. OLeary obviously spots the studio floor director doing that "wind it up in 5 seconds" thing they do and chucks that obnoxious comment in at the very last second. Theatrical indeed but it was basically the act of a craven little bollix.
Apart from all that, I found David Learmount's comment about the IAA very disturbing. The fact that a highly respected aviation industry commentator could make such a remark raises more alarm bells than everything else in the program. What he is in effect saying is that the IAA are waiting for an incident or crash before they will act. This makes me think that the idea that the IAA, however large or small and however well funded or not, should be the aviation authority for say scheduled flights between Italy and Spain or Germany and Norway is highly questionable.
The phrase "flag of convenience" springs to mind. Convenient because while the IAA maybe "standing on the sidelines" as Mr Learmount stated, the fact that the sideline is potentially 1000's of miles away (in Dublin) from the operation that should be under constant scrutiny is even more worrying. How long will it be before that part of JAR is re-examined?
Now having watched the O'Leary v. Cullen debate we have the following "not entirely true" statements:
1. That the pilots only work 18 hours a week on average. Nonsense of course. Unfortunately it may make a good headline for Joe Public to consume but it is utterly untrue as all pilots know. For that amount of flying, without even examining a typical Ryanair pilot's working week, I would guess 45 hours a week (and with no opportunity for breaks). Real figures supplied here agree with that guess.
2. The suggestion was made about 6 times was that all the pilots are on €100,000. No they are not, but what percentage are? A lot less than 50%.
3. A doctor who contributed to the program noted he had been asked a number of times to supply false medical certificates (to indicate anything other than fatigue or stress). He at no time suggested he supplied such certificates. However OLeary decided in his infinite wisdom that the doctor must have done so and therefore his evidence was entirely unreliable. If I was that doctor I would be more than a little annoyed at that conclusion.
4. IALPA in the parallel universe of OLeary is the Aer Lingus pilots union. Really? Are there no other pilots from other Irish companies in this union?
5. And of course the final "failed pilot" lie about Mr.Cullen. This is extraordinary and if you watch the report again this lie was carefully timed by OLeary to be delivered at precisely a time when no rebuttal was possible by Mr Cullen. OLeary obviously spots the studio floor director doing that "wind it up in 5 seconds" thing they do and chucks that obnoxious comment in at the very last second. Theatrical indeed but it was basically the act of a craven little bollix.
Apart from all that, I found David Learmount's comment about the IAA very disturbing. The fact that a highly respected aviation industry commentator could make such a remark raises more alarm bells than everything else in the program. What he is in effect saying is that the IAA are waiting for an incident or crash before they will act. This makes me think that the idea that the IAA, however large or small and however well funded or not, should be the aviation authority for say scheduled flights between Italy and Spain or Germany and Norway is highly questionable.
The phrase "flag of convenience" springs to mind. Convenient because while the IAA maybe "standing on the sidelines" as Mr Learmount stated, the fact that the sideline is potentially 1000's of miles away (in Dublin) from the operation that should be under constant scrutiny is even more worrying. How long will it be before that part of JAR is re-examined?
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Devon
Age: 70
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you RogerIrrelevant, you have concisely expressed the views and doubts I hold. By the way, I notice, post the REPA case, that Ryanair ads no longer quote specific ( and often untrue) salaries, they just say "high pay"
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: DUBLIN
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rat5, of course you are perfectly correct. That is my point.
But before an accident occurs the argument willl be made that the rosters are legal under the regulations and it is therefore assumed that those that drafted the regulations knew what they were doing so inter alia - the rosters are safe.
You cannot challenge them without proving scientifically that the research behind them was flawed - and that means destroying the credibility of whoever drafted the regs, not a pleasant or easy thing to do when civil service careers are involved.
Of course if an incident occurs, and fatigue is discovered to be the proximate cause, the employer will then blame the pilot and piously wonder why they didn't call in sick if they were so tired. The trouble there of course is the "double bind" problem (discussed elsewhere or google it yourself) if the employer has an internal corporate culture that discourages taking sick time.
The depressing thing is that it will require a series of incidents before anyone can prove statistically and scientifically that there is a fatigue problem. Only then can the regulations be changed after suitable regulatory backside covering has taken place.
But before an accident occurs the argument willl be made that the rosters are legal under the regulations and it is therefore assumed that those that drafted the regulations knew what they were doing so inter alia - the rosters are safe.
You cannot challenge them without proving scientifically that the research behind them was flawed - and that means destroying the credibility of whoever drafted the regs, not a pleasant or easy thing to do when civil service careers are involved.
Of course if an incident occurs, and fatigue is discovered to be the proximate cause, the employer will then blame the pilot and piously wonder why they didn't call in sick if they were so tired. The trouble there of course is the "double bind" problem (discussed elsewhere or google it yourself) if the employer has an internal corporate culture that discourages taking sick time.
The depressing thing is that it will require a series of incidents before anyone can prove statistically and scientifically that there is a fatigue problem. Only then can the regulations be changed after suitable regulatory backside covering has taken place.
But can i ask a question which seems stupid to me... Why haven't they had a serious accident yet? Just been lucky? Although i dont think luck comes into it when your flying a 73-8.
So how come they havent had a serious accident yet? Anyone?
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DUB-Greg:
Not sure of your background, but your address is curious. Accidents are the last thing anyone wants; and it would be impossible to know/guess how many close shaves there are everyday. What we know/hear about are frightening enough. Just because there is no smoking hole does NOT mean everything on the farm is rosy. There have been identified fatigue accidents and they were shovelled under the carpet. There have been numerous suspected others. Don't you think it strange that the whole fatigue issue has been aired on the ATC side of things, and it was all well received and caused raised eyebrows, but when the sharp end jockeys start to bleat, it is dismissed as whinging for a few extra payments? If you thought the authorities governing trains, boats and busses were derelict in their duties, when the lid came off after a few mishaps, I would hate to be in the shoes of some people after the next smoking hole caused directly by overwork, lowered standards, excess financial pressure, botched maintenance, various rule bending and cut corners is investigated. It happened in Valujet and the FAA was castigated for having a gross conflict of interest; that of safety and commercial oversight. The report said these should be divorced asap. I'm not sure if it happened in USA, and I'm mighty certain it ain't happened in EU. It's just a smoking hole waiting to happen. I have been in large airline in a major western EU country where commercial survival of the company was allowed by the local CAA to take precedent over crew rostering within local FTL's. Rules were bent to save money and blind eyes were turned. Only after a unionised airline took over the contract, and refused the roster, was anything done about it. That's only 1 instance; how many others are out there. Flags of convenience are rife with this. Foreign a/c flyng charters for operators in one contry, with local pax, using foreign FTL's that are illegal under local CAA rules. It's a joke. You could say that the idea of a JAA FTL scheme is the answer. We have been waiting for over 15 years. We are still waiitng for compensation to be introduced for aviation not being included in the 'working time directive'. That was 15 years ago and still nothing. Indeed working times have get worse, not better.
In any case, does it take an accident to show that working conditions are scandalous in such a safety concious profession in the 21st century? What ever happend to the balanced life. It is too much 'live to work', and NOT 'work to live'. We are always being taught to be proactive in accident prevention. The use of the human resource in the chain is for ever being weakened, be it the ATC, the engineer, the dispatch staff or the crew. Everywhere the power of the fast buck is driving the show. It is going to happen one day; the smoking hole.
Not sure of your background, but your address is curious. Accidents are the last thing anyone wants; and it would be impossible to know/guess how many close shaves there are everyday. What we know/hear about are frightening enough. Just because there is no smoking hole does NOT mean everything on the farm is rosy. There have been identified fatigue accidents and they were shovelled under the carpet. There have been numerous suspected others. Don't you think it strange that the whole fatigue issue has been aired on the ATC side of things, and it was all well received and caused raised eyebrows, but when the sharp end jockeys start to bleat, it is dismissed as whinging for a few extra payments? If you thought the authorities governing trains, boats and busses were derelict in their duties, when the lid came off after a few mishaps, I would hate to be in the shoes of some people after the next smoking hole caused directly by overwork, lowered standards, excess financial pressure, botched maintenance, various rule bending and cut corners is investigated. It happened in Valujet and the FAA was castigated for having a gross conflict of interest; that of safety and commercial oversight. The report said these should be divorced asap. I'm not sure if it happened in USA, and I'm mighty certain it ain't happened in EU. It's just a smoking hole waiting to happen. I have been in large airline in a major western EU country where commercial survival of the company was allowed by the local CAA to take precedent over crew rostering within local FTL's. Rules were bent to save money and blind eyes were turned. Only after a unionised airline took over the contract, and refused the roster, was anything done about it. That's only 1 instance; how many others are out there. Flags of convenience are rife with this. Foreign a/c flyng charters for operators in one contry, with local pax, using foreign FTL's that are illegal under local CAA rules. It's a joke. You could say that the idea of a JAA FTL scheme is the answer. We have been waiting for over 15 years. We are still waiitng for compensation to be introduced for aviation not being included in the 'working time directive'. That was 15 years ago and still nothing. Indeed working times have get worse, not better.
In any case, does it take an accident to show that working conditions are scandalous in such a safety concious profession in the 21st century? What ever happend to the balanced life. It is too much 'live to work', and NOT 'work to live'. We are always being taught to be proactive in accident prevention. The use of the human resource in the chain is for ever being weakened, be it the ATC, the engineer, the dispatch staff or the crew. Everywhere the power of the fast buck is driving the show. It is going to happen one day; the smoking hole.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: On the Camel's back
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DUB-Greg
As Evan Cullen stated on Prime Time, an accident is the last indication of a problem, not the first.
To the IAA/MOL, it appears that the regard an accident as being indeed the first indication.
Luck, or whatever it was, has very much prevented smoking holes in the last year. Try this one for size: http://www.aaiu.ie/AAIUviewitem.asp?...g=ENG&loc=1280
Then there was BVS, CIA, NOC... How many events do you need before having a closer look?
Remember, prevention is better than cure. Would you wait til you had a terminal disease before consulting the doctor?
Finally, remember, this is the airline that "forgot" to hand over its report on an incident (CIA) to the relevant authorities.
As Evan Cullen stated on Prime Time, an accident is the last indication of a problem, not the first.
To the IAA/MOL, it appears that the regard an accident as being indeed the first indication.
Luck, or whatever it was, has very much prevented smoking holes in the last year. Try this one for size: http://www.aaiu.ie/AAIUviewitem.asp?...g=ENG&loc=1280
Then there was BVS, CIA, NOC... How many events do you need before having a closer look?
Remember, prevention is better than cure. Would you wait til you had a terminal disease before consulting the doctor?
Finally, remember, this is the airline that "forgot" to hand over its report on an incident (CIA) to the relevant authorities.