Ryanair: approach incidents in the news

[the grim repa]

A Latin scholar he may be,but mathematician he ain't.

130 aircraft,1500 pilots and 1000 flights per day(except on christmas day) = pilots who fly 18hrs per week.Hmmm!

[olegmurphy]

Leo, maybe a trip back to the books is in order.
The cvr has a 2 hr loop on the 800 that you profess to fly.

[akerosid]

FCO incident

This week's Flight (and some comments on this thread) refer to a "near disastrous unstabilised approach at FCO in stormy weather" on 7/9/05.

In general terms (and I appreciate that an investigation is still under way) what happened here?

[fireflybob]

I have tried to steer clear of this debate but cannot resist.

There are two ways to get the tallest building in town - you can build your own or knock somebody else's building down, metaphorically speaking. I am sure that the continued "success" of Ryanair is rattling many cages in the "establishments" and it is almost natural that they will attempt to knock it down, especially when "normal" working practices are being changed or questioned.

Does that mean that all is rosey in the garden? Quite obviously not since change can sometimes be painful. However notwithstanding that safety in aviation is paramount, the whole culture of our industry, whether we like it or not, is changing so rapidly I am tempted to say "You ain't seen nothing yet!". This does not mean I agree with everything that is happening and that, as pilots, we should not fight for what we believe is right and proper but I do think we need to get some perspective. 25 minute turnrounds, for example, are not intrinsically unsafe in "normal" circumstances. Show me a pilot of experience who has not screwed up at least one approach! (Remember the BA 747 at Nairobi that came within a few feet of the ground before executing a Go Around many years ago?).

We need to embrace change and negotiate a "win-win" situation even if the other parties appear to be being "unreasonable".

[Bearcat]

Captpaddy says

"The fact that Ryanair shareholders expressed utter confusion when their darling company declared a hostile takeover bid for Aer Lingus"



Utter confusion is a far fetched....concern in some financial camps would have been expressed.

That concern has been softened since their share price has risen from 8 euro ish to over 12 euro in the intervening period.....money talks.

If the commision reports backs with a positive result for FR with some crippling stipulations I still believe they'll have AL eventually.....

[captainpaddy]

Poor Leo,

I must say I am somewhat jealous of your apparent belief in all things blue and yellow. It must be quite comforting to have no ability whatsoever to see the wood for the trees. Every argument is a carbon copy of the news you give to your shareholders. Profits are up. Passenger numbers are up. All must be well.

Or perhaps that is why you are here? Is it possible that real reason that the boss of Europe’s roughest airline has decided once again to swap posts on a 'rumour network' on the internet with anonymous unproven pilots, is because he see the potential threat?

Aviation is a unique industry. Almost every other consumer driven business on this planet involves Joe Bloggs deciding he wants something and going to a shop, catalogue or website and picking what he wants, paying for it and walking away with it in a bag or waiting patiently for the delivery boys knock on the door. However, for so many the prospect of a flight from A to B is daunting. There is no catalogue. There is no shop. You can not see what you pay for. The simple reason being that the average Joe Bloggs doesn't know how aviation works. And nor should they for it may take years of training and large amounts of funding to develop peoples knowledge to an acceptable level. Like pilots for example. Or Cabin Crew. Or a very small number of other aviation professionals who know the effects of corporate bullying can be detrimental to safety, know that an excessive pressure on time keeping can lead to mistakes, know that just because the rule says a duty is legal doesn't necessarily make it a good idea. No, no, the public have only price, service and their limited working knowledge of how aircraft fly to choose from.

The real threat to you I dare say, is that you recognise that this forum provides an outlet for those who understand aviation. Some may not be experts, some, like me, may be inexperienced, some may just be downright vindictive. But the vast majority are honest, knowledgeable and concerned. You see, and quite wisely I might add, that 17,000 views and well over 100 posts means trouble for Camp Ryanair. Unless of course you can inject the appropriate amount of dribble and statistics to mask the concerns of so many so that Joe Public will avert their attention back to price, service and their limited working knowledge of how aircraft fly.

Credit, of course where credit is due:

It would be difficult to disagree with the theory that when it comes to understanding consumer desire, economics and financial planning, you are unrivalled. You have an impeccable record in continuing to deliver consistent growth and return to your shareholders.

It would be equally difficult to disagree that Ryanair's expansion is not second to none. The potential for future growth seems as of yet uncapped. In this respect it is the envy of many a fellow CEO.

But what about all the other areas of "management" that would feature in any honest results table? What about...

The fact that Ryanair has the worst record of any company in terms of morale and staff contentedness. As shown by repeated attempts by your staff to have courts look after their concerns.

The fact that Ryanair has alienated the majority of their workforce, even beyond those represented by the dreaded pilot unions. Such as Ops staff who shred paperwork and 'lose' company property because of they way they are treated during the brief time they are employed prior to their resignation. Like the droves of dispatchers who move on because of ridiculous work practices on the ramp.

The fact that Ryanair recently has the worst record for time taken to refer incidents to the investigating body as required by law.

The fact that Ryanair shareholders expressed utter confusion when their darling company declared a hostile takeover bid for Aer Lingus.

The fact that Ryanairs only method of providing passenger opinions is by misrepresenting statistics. Like claiming that having a larger passenger number than another airline is being "voted" favourite. Like saying having a lower number of lost bags per 1,000 than some other airline is being "voted best for customer service". Simply because other true polls don't agree.

Yes, I can see how a little educated discussion could really expose all of these things. I also can see how it could affect Ryanair's business going forward. I really can't blame you for wanting to come on this forum and fight your corner. Damage limitation I think they call it.

Joe Public doesn't care about how things work. Joe only cares about price. You figured that out long ago. But, unfortunately if Joe thinks he may be in danger on the way, he doesn't see it as much of a bargain anymore. That is why you are here.

The truth is that we all feel that there is a serious risk to flight safety as a result of your efforts. You refuse to accept that fatigue is prevalent in Ryanair because your conscience quite rightly wants to stay removed from the possibility. If it all goes wrong, I expect you will plead ignorance. Perhaps you won't be lying.

Although any boss who states that 2 hull loses are financially weatherable must be considering the possibility. Surely who have some working knowledge of the last 30 years of aviation? Surely you know that the worst aviation accident in history was caused in part by the need to meet the constraints of Flight Time Limitations and commercial pressure? So how can you possibly say that so many of your pilots who say fatigue is a problem are wrong? I suppose if you've met the legal requirements (I'm awaiting your response to say "we far exceed the requirements....") all must be well.

And before you say "if pilots don't like it why do they continue to work for Europe’s biggest airline where they’re earnings are over three billion euro per year....". They stay because they have lives, families, kids in schools, mortgages, loans, etc. But you wouldn't be too worried about any of that I suppose. You could pick up sticks any time you like.

You really must realise that by becoming involved in these discussions you only serve to give us all credibility, where before we perhaps were just idle minds with nobody to point a finger at.

So,

Thank you very much Mr O'Leary.

[captainpaddy]

Sorry, the posts are a little out of order as I inadvertantly deleted my original!

Bearcat,

I have tried to be careful not to attempt the pointless excercise of challenging Ryanairs financial performance. In my mind most of the recent share price growth is the result of improved forecast and actual profits and new base announcements. All the same, their financial strength has nothing to do with this thread. I was referring to the fact that Ryanair were out of touch with their shareholders wishes.

Just for what it's worth, with 46% of shares tied up and out of reach already, Ryanair need control of 93% of all shares remaining. While obviously not impossible, it is highly improbable.

[The Real Slim Shady]

Faire d'Income
May I commend you on your obvious intelligence: a tangible grasp of Leo's arguments indicates your comprehension of English, yet, your prejudices and raging belief that your opinion, not fact, please note, holds any water when you are patently incapable of validating your claims, does let you down somewhat.

You claimed that my statement about Ryanair being subject to audits and SAFA inspections was

utterly false

. If that isn't is a clear, concise statement of your much vaunted opinion, perhaps you have had the opportunity to reflect and have accepted that, indeed they are audited and inspected as all JAA carriers are. Of course, if you still insist that your are 100% correct and I am 100% wrong, perhaps you would be kind enough to present some valid evidence to back up your allegation.

I do, however, detect a softening in approach as I have progressed from "not being a pilot" to being "unlikely to be a pilot" ! Keep this up and in 3 or 4 posts you could be of the opinion that I'm the Chief Pilot!!!

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.

I reiterate: the Operations Manual contains procedures. The rules are laid down in JARs. The very first parargraph of JAR Ops 1 spells this out:

JAR-OPS Part 1 prescribes requirements
applicable to the operation of any civil aeroplane for
the purpose of commercial air transportation by any
operator whose principal place of business and, [if
any, its registered office] is in a JAA Member State

If you open your own company Ops Manual A, or Volume 1 and turn to Section or Chapter 8, the nomenclature varies by company, you will find that it is titled "Operating Procedures": this is a copy of the first paragraphs from the FR Part A,Chapter 8. It is probably no different to your company manual.

8 OPERATING PROCEDURES
8.0 General Operating Procedures
8.0.1 Objectives
8.0.1(a) Our primary operations objective is to conduct our air transport activity safely. It
is also Ryanair policy that Flight Operations shall be conducted efficiently and
punctually. This policy devolves on Flight Crew as their basic duty.
8.0.1(b) Commanders and Co-Pilots are required to adhere to the policies and directions
contained in the Operations Manual.

Note however, the use of the phrase "policies and directions"; not rules and regulations.

So willl you accept that Ryanair operate to the rules and regulations, but may have different policies and procedures?

One of those being the "landing gate"; this is a procedure which requires that the aircraft approach is stabilised at 500ft VMC and 1000ft IMC. I believe that bmi, and probably BA, also have a 500ft stabilised gate. The only modification to this policy / procedure which Ryanair use is a "500 -Continue" or "500 - Go Around" call. Your company " procedure" may be to call " Decide" at DA or DH; another company "procedure" may be to call " minimums" a third may decide that their "procedure" - to comply with the JAR "rules" will be to call "Land" or "Go Around".

Turning to the question of Inspectors flying as Commanders. If the airline and the Inspector have agreed that the Inspector may "fly the line" to remain current and operate as a Commander, that is quite different to flying on an inspection flight where the jumpseat would be occupied and the Inspector would be an observer.

If the Inspector has to regain his / her currency a flight with a TC or sim session would be in order, as per JAR "rules".

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?

Not at all. I was merely using the situation as an example. The hierarchy of rules, regulations and requirements form the umbrella. This can range from ICAO to IATA to JAR, EASA, State law to National requirements. The approval of the Operations Manual is predicated on the procedures and policies being at least as restrictive but not less restrictive than the regulations.

This where the 500ft procedure falls: it is more restrictive than the regulation, hence it is acceptable to the Authority. The example I used of the 100ft Cat 1 DH/DA is not and hence is not permitted as a "procedure".
As to refuelling procedures, an extract from the JAR is reproduced here:

[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;]

Note the phrase "other suitable means". Ryanair management obviously decided, or the IAA decided, that the "other suitable means" previously utilised, in accordance with JARs required a review in the light of incidents reported or recorded. In that review the company or Authority is quite at liberty to impose a more specific instruction which meets the JAR. In this instance Ryanair decided that a member of the flight crew should supervise the refuelling whist in communication with the other crewmember via the interphone. The JAR always was complied with; the "procedure", or Acceptable Means of Compliance, was just different.

Your amazement was probably a result of scant knowledge of the rules and regulations, but an intimate reliance on your own "company" procedures.
You will, I trust, accept that there is more than 1 way to skin a cat, and acknowledge that FR are bound by the same rules and regulations. The procedures just differ slightly in achieving compliance.

[curser]

@ R.S.S.
You are wrong, your ops manual is the law, your policies and directions are rules and regulation and you had better adhere to them.
now back on topic....

[Two's in]

Interesting that no-one has mentioned the strategy of short turn-arounds was effectively developed by Southwest Airlines (and emulated by many) and very few LCC's here seem to think 25 minutes is some unattainable Holy Grail, but is indeed the secret to success. It also appears that SWA have reached a far more desirable position in terms of the managment/staff realationships than those of other LCC's, but then again, maybe you get out what you put in.

[GGV]

After a quick look through this entire discussion three things strike me.

First, a Chief Pilot who makes a statement in which he appears to demonstrate ignorance of the impact of deficient lighting on low visibility proceedings (post # 85) - with not a comment from anybody!

Second, a Hairy Camel whose post was completely off subject. While it was vintage Leo, it is worth reading his contributions in the light of the violence of his point of view. Anyone who has personally been on the receiving end of MOL's vitriol may sense an identical ideological orientation. Which raises the question as to why such an intervention took place.

Unions have nothing to do with the particular characteristics of the events giving rise to this discussion. There is a definite sense in Leo's post that unions were responsible for these matters being publicly identified. But if you look at it, this seems rather unlikely - since other events gave rise to these things coming into the media, most particularly Flight's reaction to the publication of a report of an AAIU investigation. (Not to mention the fact that something around 1,500 pilots have receive a copy of the "leaked" Board document many months ago).

Finally, the entangling of the "union bashing" and the safety issues has worked to a degree in muddying the waters and discussion.

Let's be absolutely clear about this. No matter what the truth of the matter, the position of Flight is more than reasonable. All they have done is to state the very obvious, which I take to be the following: there are grounds for being very suspicious that all is not well with safety management in Ryanair. An appropriate investigation of the many, many signs and clues of dysfunction in Ryanair is long overdue.

The responsibility for taking action lies with the Board of Ryanair and the IAA. The former clearly find the threat of dismissal to be a satisfactory safety management tool.

The IAA ... well what do they think? Does anyone know? Could they really think, like Leo, that this is all caused by unions? If so, they live on a different planet from me. There are not just whiffs of smoke here, there is a lot of smoke.

[RYR-738-JOCKEY]

[QUOTE][/@ R.S.S.
You are wrong, your ops manual is the law, your policies and directions are rules and regulation and you had better adhere to them.
now back on topic....QUOT
???? Are you for real? I believe you are just trying to make a point regarding the importance of adhering to your ops manual, but you have lost the plot if you regard it as being the law.
Rules, regulations, requirements, company policies. That is the order of it. Of course sticking to your ops manual will keep you out of trouble, but it does not by any means form the basis of other documentation.

[curser]

jockey, we are way off topic. I prefer short posts and in my last my point was poorly made. I could write for days, wearing down my fingers and boring you, trying better to explain myself or just say your own point is well made, which it is. now back to the others.

[old,not bold]

Quote from way back in this thread.....

"It is not unknown for an IAA audit to consist of an IAA officer flying as the Captain of a line flight with only a Ryanair co-pilot in the cockpit."

Various comments have followed about this particular, and peripheral, aspect of the thread's main subject.

However, it is such a devastating assertion, if true, that it would be good if someone who really knows what he/she is talking about would confirm or deny it authoritatively.

There are so many issues that it raises (discipline, control, insurance, validity of the inspection/audit, etc etc etc) that I suspect and hope that it simply cannot be true.

Is there a confusion with the very necessary flying a FOI does to keep current? That has been suggested.

Anyone out there know the definitive answer?

[The Real Slim Shady]

Old,not bold

Relax. The inspector occupies the jumpseat on an inspection flight.

[Carmoisine]

Thomas Coupling IN response to Post 76 of yours :

when I fly with Ryan Air

I don't mean to be a pain in the arse and you are not the only one, but please it is Ryanair not Ryan Air neither is it RA their code is FR. Not important but one of two factually incorrect points in your post.

Add to this the fact that they landed at the wrong airport not so long ago and shortly before that, misidentified the wrong airfield on finals....and now this news report, what is going on?

If you refer to an incident in Derry, Ryanair did not land at the wrong airport, but a sub chartered Airbus from Eirjet (R.I.P) did. They were an independant airline who flew Airbus' and had nothing to do with Ryanair.
As for the hard landings then yes, I would agree. Our Chief Pilot wrote recently :

The Ryanair incidences of hard landings have reached an unacceptable level to the extent that Ryanair is now in discussion with both the IAA and Boeing on the issue.
While it is accepted that trainee pilots will occasionally misjudge a landing resulting in a “firm” arrival during Line Training it is not acceptable for a Commander to test a relatively inexperienced co-pilot in adverse conditions.
I want to bring your attention to the requirements in this regard in Operations Manual

So it would appear that a problem officially exisits. It is my opinion (As a relatively fresh F/O) that a number of problems contribute to these. In no particular order:

• Lots and Lots of very Green F/Os online in the last year or two. I made an arse of a landing shortly post training and had a Captain take over in the flare. Maybe the hard landings happen to Captains with slower reactions?

• Short runways. We have airfield briefings which state "Caution, approaching 737-800 landing limits." When you have 10,000ft of runway at major airports maybe you can hold off for a while longer to smooth the touchdown. At Carcasonne you bang it on the markers.

[old,not bold]

Old Slim Shady

Thanks for that; I know that it is normal practice - to say the least - for an FOI to occupy the jumpseat. It would be impossible any other way, of course.

But some-one, who sounded as if he/she knew, made an astonishing assertion that IAA F.O. Inspectors have flown as Captains on Ryanair with only a First Officer, and implied that this was while attempting to carry out an inspection, or audit.

This now needs to be denied, rather more specifically, conclusively and authoritively than you did it, if untrue. Can you do that?

[Jambo Buana]

Carmoisine,

You should not treat any runway differently in terms of your touchdown technique. It is exactly what you say that may cause a heavy touchdown!

Brdgs

[757manipulator]

Ahhhh Leo, on another planet as usual..

Your enlightened accusation of the Flight editorial department makes me laugh.....they are hardly a publication that have a history of courting controversy

As is stands, it is a monument to unfair and misrepresentation journalism from a man who is supposed to know much better. Learmont has had unprecedented access to Ryanair, a fact he conveniently neglects to mention. He has been invited as a guest to the very heart of the operation, poked his head under ever skirt, looked under every rug, and is even to attend our final Flight Safety Roadshow in Liverpool later this month, and this is the sort of tawdry, misleading hack journalism that results. Other boardrooms beware!
It is, of course, perfectly fair and reasonable to closely examine these events. It is appropriate to view them within the context of a rapidly expanding airline involved in the LoCo business operating around 1000 flights every day. That’s a lot of flights since July 2005, Mr. Learmont, and you’re writing about four approach events. Four out of many hundreds of thousands!

And your point? he IS a journalist

It is a vulgar and offensive notion unbefitting a publication with the reputation of Flight International.

Or it is a product of the skirt lifting, and unprecedented access shown to Mr Learmont that you seem to be at such pains to point out

Mr. Fine, there IS no such atmosphere.

Oh Hail Caesar! you have spoken, your word is law.....

[Leo Hairy-Camel]

Real or Perceived?

Let's be absolutely clear about this. No matter what the truth of the matter, the position of Flight is more than reasonable.

Do you really think so, GGV? I don't.

there are grounds for being very suspicious that all is not well with safety management in Ryanair. An appropriate investigation of the many, many signs and clues of dysfunction in Ryanair is long overdue.

Lets all think about that for a moment.
The current issue (6-12 February, 2007) of Flight International has on its cover the rather immodest headline “Ryanair back under safety spotlight” in big red letters on the front cover. Flick over to page three, and there under the title “The wrong approach” is a shabby little piece written by David Learmont (one grows accustomed to his ‘style’ over the years) asserting that “questions need to be asked” and pointing an accusatory finger, not for the first time, at the Irish Aviation Authority. What slovenly journalism!

We’re not finished yet, though. Another flick takes us to the very next page where the bard of Quadrant House goes on about a day in April of last year where some company aircraft were allegedly involved in landing events involving unusually increased RVR minima due to runway lighting degradation. Three flicks more and we land on page 11 and the lurid headline “Ryanair approaches probed again”. This time we’re treated to a pictorial extravaganza of the Cork incident. To finish off this week’s ‘balanced’ journalistic foray into Ryanair, we’re told that the Cork incident is one of four since July 2005 in a sidebar entitled “Unstablised arrivals in the spotlight”.

That makes one highly subjective and intentionally provocative headline, and four separate articles negatively dedicated to Ryanair in one issue. Embrace for a moment that the recent Supreme Court case was widely expected to go the way of IALPA, and this week’s issue would surely have been a slam-dunk fiesta of anti-Ryanair sentiment. Coincidental timing? Really? Headline and four articles in one issue? Hmmmmm.

As is stands, it is a monument to unfair and misrepresentative journalism from a man who is supposed to know much better. Learmont has had unprecedented access to Ryanair, a fact he conveniently neglects to mention. He has been invited as a guest to the very heart of the operation, poked his head under ever skirt, looked under every rug, and is even to attend our final Flight Safety Roadshow in Liverpool later this month, and this is the sort of tawdry, misleading hack journalism that results. Other boardrooms beware!

It is, of course, perfectly fair and reasonable to closely examine these events. It is appropriate to view them within the context of a rapidly expanding airline involved in the LoCo business operating around 1000 flights every day. That’s a lot of flights since July 2005, Mr. Learmont, and you’re writing about four approach events. Four out of many hundreds of thousands!

Is it reasonable to consider 4 flights out of many hundreds of thousands as being suggestive of some as yet unprobed human factors aspect of the low cost operation that is worthy of further examination? Perhaps. Is it reasonable to suggest the IAA is the sole arbitrator of such an enquiry? No. Is it reasonable to conclude, as Learmont has evidently done, twice, that we at Ryanair are hiding a flawed, Dickensian operation behind the skirts of a compliant regulator? Certainly not! It is a vulgar and offensive notion unbefitting a publication with the reputation of Flight International.

Not surprisingly, Learmont is not alone, though. The owner of this website has recently posed the question:-

What are the pressures on the commanders if there is an inherent atmosphere of intimidation or bullying from the corporate management for delays that cannot be satisfactorily explained

Mr. Fine, there IS no such atmosphere. Can it be that even you, to whom we here all owe so much, have permitted your cognitive skills to be bruised by such blatant union ballyhoo? Intimidation and bullying, if they exist at all, are to be found at the hands of IALPA and their press-gang recruiting methods. What would you say, I wonder, about the unsavoury spectacle of new entry cadets working through their line training, and new DEC’s alike, being lassoed, brainwashed and told to sign on the dotted line "or else" without so much as five minutes experience of the company to formulate their own points of view?

In the light of such slovenly reporting and decidedly tabloid instincts as Flight International has displayed this week, is there any wonder?