Ryanair: approach incidents in the news

[Faire d'income]

Firstly, don't make statements you can't possible validate as fact: whether you believe that I am, or am not, a pilot is an OPINION and irrelevant when we are discussing regulatory issues.

It is my opinion that anyone who regurgitates Ryanair spin is a manager and unlikely to be a pilot. It is very relevant to the other readers of a Pilots Website.

Secondly, you will no doubt wish to retract your erroneous statement that Ryanair is not subject to SAFA inspections and that the rules and regulations Ryanair operates to are somehow different to any other Irish carrier. My remark, was then, accurate and factual.

I did not say Ryanair was not subject to SAFA inspections. The Operations Manual is the de facto rulebook for any airline's pilots. Ryanair's OM is different to other carriers ergo Ryanair operate to different rules. For example this thread is about the new 'rule' at the 500' gate. No other Irish carrier, that I am aware of, has that rule. Different rule.

For operating pilots most of 'the rules' are contained in the Operations Manual. Certainly the Statutory Instruments and various Jar regs must be complied with. BTW it is Ryanair that feel the need to repeat the original statement publicly, I have heard no other airline doing it and while my point is probably pedantic it is not incorrect.

As the inspector normally flies as Commander your insanity remark is simply inflammatory.

The inspector never flies as Commander in my airline and there is always a full crew with him/her and if they operate one is always a training Captain. Anyone from another airline like to comment. Do the regulator's inspectors fly only with a co-pilot at any time with your airline?

Where there are variations these will be more restrictive than the existing legislation, as no Authority may approve operating procedures less restrictive than the prescribed requirement. For example, a carrier may wish to operate to a Decision Altitude of 100ft on a Cat 1 approach and include that text in their Ops Manual: that would plainly be rejected. Hence, they do NOT write their own rules and regulations. The one single area where the Authority is permitted to allow a degree of latitude is in the company FTL scheme, which may be more restrictive than the legislation but cannot be less restrictive.

Your view of the rules seems to constitute only what the absolute state limits are. That is not the case for us flying the line. We are certainly bound by the state limits but we must remain within the parameters of the Operations Manual otherwise what is the point in having one? Surely one wouldn't just print it as an exercise merely to satisfy the Regulator, would they?

Until recently Ryanair boarded/disembarked passengers at Dublin while refuelling without taking any special procedures ( i.e no one on a headset and no one supervising the refueller ). The other operators all followed what we understood to be the correct 'rules' ( contained in our OM ) for that situation and were always amazed to watch your guys. I note this has changed now.

Ryanair bashing is a popular pastime on this board

You do seem to have a magnetic attraction for negative attention, I wonder why?

[braking action poor]

12 months ago RYR had an engine failure enroute and diverted to the nearest suitable airfield, because of an engine gear box going hay-way.

Noone in the media wrote anything about it.

1 week ago RYR had a tyre- burst+ brakes spitting flames after landing at one of their bases, slides were blown and pax evacuated, against capt's orders. RYR claims it never happened, the pax would beg to differ.

Noone in the media wrote anything about it.

Who's in their pocket you say?

[Tom the Tenor]

Would you like to let us know the base where all this is supposed to have happened one week ago? Thank you.

[Ashling]

If you have a report of std-45 and are rostered that close to FTL limits that has got to put pressure on crews.

Looking on from the outside it seems all this has got to be linked to the pressure percieved or actual directly or indirectly applied to crews. This would seem to be leading to crews making poor decisions. I appreciate its a very small number in relation to the total flights but even so too much seems to be going on.

4 crews or 5 crews landing outside limits, does it matter which ? Not in my view, either is unacceptable. I struggle to buy that they were all ignorant of the rules which leaves a very unpleasant other option. Sorry and feel free to correct me.

During the recent Bristol debacle one airline led the pack with a bold decision, others followed. Ryanair ? well they just said they were unaware of any problem ! Seems the IAA share their approach.

[maxalt]

Do FR use Jeppesen charts?
On the 'minima' panel on the Stansted runway plates there are two headers "FULL" and "ALS out". The "ALS out" column shows the appropriate vis value to apply. Likewise on the Take-Off minma panels, where the decrements are even more specific. How can any crew not know how to read and apply these blindingly obvious corrections? They are right there on the plate. Not tucked away in an Ops Manual.
Are approach briefings carried out in FR?

[mill island]

intersting that the IAA don't see such events as "safety critical"....I recall this is the same IAA that stated before a government committee that "the death of a passenger on an irish registered aircraft is of no concern to the IAA".....
makes you wonder what purpose the IAA actually thinks it serves???

[curser]

Maxalt, I understand from friends that briefs are carried out by RYR flight crew. You are quite right that the ALS out figures are printed on Jepp. plates, however on this occation it was not the whole system that was u/s and therfore those were not the figures required. Most ops manuals have a form of JAR aerodrome operating minimums table 10 which lists failures and there effect on RVR even if RYR didnt have this in theirs they would have had access to it in their Jep. text. It only takes a minute to look it up, but may be thats the point!

[Leo Hairy-Camel]

Independent Representation? Independent of whom?

You do seem to have a magnetic attraction for negative attention, I wonder why?

Perhaps its because he, like I, have a very clear idea about what is really going on, Faire d’income.

In understanding the current spike in anti Ryanair chatter, might I suggest first viewing it through the prism of IALPA’s recent blistering defeat in the Supreme Court of Ireland.

The outcome of this case was long anticipated by the pilot unions and was to have represented the apotheosis of IALPA’s scurrilous attempt to thrash a negative consensus of sorts from the pilot corps at Ryanair, at apparently any cost. In arriving at this point in time, IALPA, BALPA and their dilettante ninny REPA have lied, intentionally misled, coerced and intimidated any individual within, or component part of Ryanair they see as fair game in their comprehensively failed attempt. Their bluff has been called and they don’t like it.

Ladies and Gentlemen, lets be perfectly clear. Since October 2004, the principal pilot unions in the Irish Republic and Great Britain have being doing their utmost to colonise Ryanair as a means of control. Ryanair’s commercial success represents a threat to the continued existence of dozens of heavily unionised carriers across Europe, all of which have been compelled to develop responsive strategies to answer the commercial threat we represent. Attempted unionisation of our pilot corps is merely an extension of this strategy by other means. In order to achieve this, however, the unions have singularly failed in the one area that matters to them most. They have failed to construct a persuasive narrative around the central theme that commercial pressures or management style may be responsible for a tarnished safety culture within Ryanair. They fail because their claim is demonstrably false.

Their nefarious plans have backfired badly and it is plain that these latest tabloid style attempts to point the finger of doubt at the Ryanair operation, along with a contemporary Leader article in Flight International and the journalistic interest it has quite understandably generated, as being, if not entirely then in very large part, related to IALPA’s last ditch, gloves off, attempt to justify their expensive existence and the orchestrated litany of lies they continue to employ in failing to make their case.

Ryanair is an organisation of 130 aircraft, 1500 pilots, and around 1000 flights every day of the year. Those figures are, I think, well worth reflecting upon. Like all organisations in our industry, every flight we do is underwritten by an open safety culture that is very nearly obsessive. Unlike other companies though, we make no secret of the fact that when we get it wrong, as all airlines do from time to time, we turn ourselves inside out trying to find out why so as to improve future performance.
Unfortunately, this openness is easily abused by those with a murky agenda as a stick to beat us with and you’re witnessing the latest manifestation of that now.

The LoCo business model is, more than any other, necessarily predicated on doing everything to prevent the development of a nexus between low fares and low standards in the collective psyche of our customer and no amount of failed union tantrum or tabloid journalism will change any part of that at Ryanair.

Journalists are supposed to be good at the temporal assessment of seemingly disparate events, Messers Shoesmith and Tighe. Lets hope so. As is the case with all media, be it the BBC, the Irish Times, Pprune or Flight International, published views have implicit powers of persuasion. I would caution, with the greatest of respect, that you both ensure your perceptions of Ryanair are not formulated, as is too often the case, by the regurgitation of falsely received wisdom.

[Bearcat]

Leo with respect what is the above anti-union rant got to do with appallingly executed approachs that have caught everyone's attention?

Also dear Leo why did your boss not make an appearance on Irish radio this morning to defend a piece done on Ryanair re safety, unions and the unsafe approach?

Bluff, bluster and verbose.....

[jbsharpe]

Question for Leo

Leo, why are the CVRs never available after these incidents?

JBS

[blackmail]

jbs... . because as you say, these are incidents & not accidents.

[Leo Hairy-Camel]

An answer for jbsharpe.

Possibly due to the fact that CVR's are, by design, a constantly re-recorded 30 minute loop. If an investigative event comes to light, even an hour later, the data is long since overwritten. CVR's are only ever useful in extremis.

Leo with respect what is the above anti-union rant got to do with appallingly executed approachs that have caught everyone's attention?

Everything.

Also dear Leo why did your boss not make an appearance on Irish radio this morning to defend a piece done on Ryanair re safety, unions and the unsafe approach?

Haven't the foggiest, Bearcat. Might have something to do with the fact that he's got the most successful airline on earth to run and stroking journalistic egos isn't a priority first thing in the morning. Ask him yourself.

[curser]

Ahh leo,time was when you brought somthing new to a debate, no longer. What blistering defeat? Back to the labour court,a delay, thats all.
Litany of lies indeed! only ryr executives have been found to be liers on the stand under oath, a legal fact!

[Rivet gun]

During the period when the runway centerline lighting was inoperative at STN the minimum RVR for take off was 250 m. I know of one occasion during this period when an aircraft belonging to another well known low cost airline took off with an RVR of less than 250 m. The pilots of the Airbus and the controller who issued the take off clearance appeared unaware of the minimum RVR required by JAR OPS.

So it's not just Ryanair who were caught out by this.

[hetfield]

@Rivet gun

Don't actually know what british regulations are. In most countries the commander can determine the actual RVR for t/o if below or RVR not given (counting the lights).

[curser]

you don't mean counting the lights which were u/s do you?

[hetfield]

@curser

Ooops

Sorry


Shame on my head.

[maxalt]

Here's a link to the radio item mentioned.
Story begins at minute 22.
http://dynamic.rte.ie/quickaxs/209-r...hpatkenny.smil
Too busy running the airline, eh Leo? Funny, it never stopped him before. Any chance for a bit of a promo is usually grabbed without hesitation, and sure Micko is well able to bluff the credulous public into believing whatever he tells them. Bluff and Bluster is his stock in trade.
Maybe the real truth is that the bulls*it is getting too heavy to shovel now, even for Mick.
If your hero had any of the integrity you bestow on him perhaps he would announce that he was right in the beginning about the wisdom of these 25 minute turnarounds, which you know well he resisted strenuously when first dreamed up by Mr.C. McC.
He might even gain some credibility in the pilots eyes by declaring that it was indeed a failed experiment which placed undue pressure on the safety of the operation.
He could legitimately shove the blame onto 'those others' who forced him to accept it by going over his head to Tony Ryan.
Not likely.
For Micko has, on numerous occasions, duplicitously taken personal credit for inventing the 25 minute turnaround (prompting an insulted Mr.McC to huff off to Asia), and has crowed about its efficacy in making FR the most efficient of airlines. What a twister!
Besides which, even if he didn't think it up (btw, has Micko thought up ANYTHING that has worked lately?) he knows a nice little earner when he sees one, and he just can't help himself.....they've got to stay, because deep down he's just a greedy little

[Faire d'income]

Leo, as usual to the untrained eye it is difficult to separate the spin from the truth. Your claim that the world’s pilot unions have organised a conspiracy against Ryanair, and Ryanair only, is at best paranoia. This conspiracy is your explaination for the large number of threads here and the increasing number of media articles reporting incidents at Ryanair.

In arriving at this point in time, IALPA, BALPA and their dilettante ninny REPA have lied, intentionally misled, coerced and intimidated any individual within, or component part of Ryanair they see as fair game in their comprehensively failed attempt. Their bluff has been called and they don’t like it.

Firstly the only finding in any court of anything resembling was against Ryanair when the judge found the management style to be oppressive. There is no evidence to suggest any unions or group of employees has acted as you state and in fact when Ryanair took a case against IALPA on the matter the court found the reverse was true.

They have failed to construct a persuasive narrative around the central theme that commercial pressures or management style may be responsible for a tarnished safety culture within Ryanair. They fail because their claim is utterly false.

Leo, could it be that the reason they fail is because there has been no investigation into the effects of the management style or indeed into the relationship between the Low Cost model as used by Ryanair and unusual incidents such as only Ryanair aircraft landing below minimum visibility limits?

Ryanair is an organisation of 130 aircraft, 1500 pilots, and around 1000 flights every day of the year. Those figures are, I think, well worth reflecting upon. Like all organisations in our industry, every flight we do is underwritten by an open safety culture that is very nearly obsessive. Unlike other companies though, we make no secret of the fact that when we get it wrong, as all airlines do, we turn ourselves inside out trying to find out why so as to improve future performance.

Let us reflect on those figures. You have 1500 pilots many who are not permanent Ryanair staff, many co-pilots who would be consider very low hours by other airlines, captains promoted far quicker and with lower hours than would be considered normal elsewhere, operating to off-line airfields with limited navigation aids, in high tech aircraft that require intensive training and comprehensive understanding of their systems. Add in the fact that many of your crews operate to the state limits, often clocking up 50 hours duty time a week on shift work and you can see safety might be a common theme amongst your staff and their representatives.

Particularly galling is your Chief Executive’s oft repeated mantra that pilots only work 18 hours a week. If we assume that he thoroughly believes this claim then we have to assume he is referring only to the time pilots are in the air. We can then assume that Mr O’Leary appears to think that none of the following constitutes pilots work:

* checking weather for destinations/alternates/en route airfields
* checking weathers charts for the various levels likely to be flown
* checking Notams for destinations/alternates/en route airfields
* checking the maintenance status of the aircraft
* checking the flight plan is legal and accurate
* checking the fuel load for each leg to be flown
* external pre-flight inspection of the aircraft
* checking status of tech log including fuel/oil etc on board
* ensuring required security checks have been carried out
* pre-flight cockpit set-up and programming of Navigational computers for the flight
* liasing with cabin crew/engineer/dispatcher to exchange relevant info
* getting Air Traffic clearance/checking slots
* receiving/checking and inputting load sheet data
* Ensuring all necessary systems are working and carrying out all before start checks
* any unusual events/decisions such as use of the MEL/disruptive pax/missing pax w bags etc.

Journalists are supposed to be good at the temporal assessment of seemingly disparate events

Let’s hope they can see exactly what the great leader’s 18 hour claim was trying to achieve.

As for your claim of an obsessive safety culture well I won't argue with that. However words like obsessive, oppressive etc don’t meet my idea of a proper safety culture. We should have a look at Ryanair’s performance with regard to some of the recent incidents.

Cork: event date 04 June 2006
Ryanair reported event 13 June 2006

Knock: event date 23 March 2006
Ryanair reported event 4 April 2006

This report states: This delay is unacceptable and contrary to the requirement of Section 11 Air Navigation ( Notification and investigation of Accidents and Incidents ) Regulation, 1997, S.I. No 205 of 1997.

The AAIU site doesn’t appear to have any report on the Rome Fumicino incident which 4 months after the event the IAA claimed it didn’t have to investigate as it happened in Italy. Before that of course they investigated the Skavska incident which presumably they felt obliged to do as it hadn’t happened in Italy.

I am willing to accept that Ryanair are indeed serious about safety ( I don’t doubt it for a second ) there is however evidence is that they don’t seem to learn from earlier mistakes. Three times they have been late reporting incidents and twice extenuating circumstances suggest a pilot reported when clearly unfit for duty. Once, it seems they had no intention of reporting the incident as suggested by the four4 month delay in doing so.

The problem would appear to be the managements inability to connect what one might call the “ temporal assessment of seemingly disparate events “. For example on the one hand we had two incidents directly linked to pilots who IMHO should not have flown, on the other hand a memo appeared on this site as follows:

RYANAIR
THE LOW FARES AIRLINE
Corporate Head Office Dublin Airport
County Dublin
Ireland

Over the past year over 10,000 days have been lost through absenteeism in RYANAIR; which equates to 7 un-crewed aircraft every day, all year around!!!
Your attendance record shows that you have been absent from work on [ 3..4.. etc.] occasions during the last 12 months. This high frequency of absence cannot be sustained, as other people within your area have to pick up additional work in your absence.

All absences in the future will be closely monitored and I need to see a dramatic and sustained improvement in your attendance in the months ahead.
Please confirm receipt of this letter and measures you will take to eliminate further absence from work. If you have any queries on the above please do not hesitate to contact me.
Yours sincerely,

[Stoic]

Mr Camel

I have never flown on your airline. Nor will I ever, if I can possibly avoid it. The reason is this:

You may be obsessive about your safety culture, but you did not give a damn about the health of a 92-year-old friend of mine when she flew with you from “Strasbourg” to Stansted three-and-a-half years ago.

You may remember that you were arguing about wheelchairs for the disabled at the time.

My friend, Betty, had travelled unaccompanied to Strasbourg for a 60th wedding celebration. She had requested a wheelchair to and from the aeroplane, for which she was quite happy to pay. On the way out she was given one. On the way back she was not, but instead was abandoned by Ryanair on the tarmac at Stansted underneath the aeroplane. She was rescued by the ground staff of another airline. It took her an hour to get to the arrivals hall.

She wrote a lucid letter to Ryanair to complain – she had been a distinguished English teacher in her professional career. She showed me the letter. I explained to her that Ryanair’s customer service department is a wastepaper basket. She did not believe me. Shortly afterwards she suffered a stroke and was following Ryanair’s wheelchair court case with interest from her hospital bed when she succumbed to another stroke and died.


Sadly, Betty died before the result of the wheelchair case was known. She never did receive an apology.

I am not blaming Ryanair for Betty’s demise, but whenever I see or hear Ryanair principals mouthing off, as they do, I am reminded of Ryanair’s treatment of my friend.

Stoic