LoCo airlines busting minima in LVP's at STN?
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Worldwidewolly:
Interesting comment in the Scotsman article:
"Thirty four flights to Stansted, including many Ryanair services, diverted to other airports because the visibility dipped to as low as 200 metres - less than that required for night landings at the airport.
But several flights - all of them believed to be Ryanair - landed anyway to avoid costly delays".
This is statement of fact as to why an action was taken. It suggests an illegal action and the reason for it. If no RYR a/c landed below limits it is an erronious statement bring the airline into undeserved disrepute. If the action did happen it suggests that the airline ordered its crews to break the law for commercial reasons. That sounds highly libellous unless proved. Given MOL's history of resorting to the courts and having judgement given against him, I would have thought this was an excellent chance for a victory.
What is he doing in repsonse to such a charge?
Secondly, given the publicised weak intervention of the F/O in the NYO case, & the rather stronger action of the F/O in the CIA, and subsequently no doubt the RYR's strong encouragement of good CRM at all times, what were the F/O's doing during all this time of making alledged illegal approaches? I understand the F/O is PF during an autoland. They have the TOGA switches in their control. The power of the index finger can be mighty indeed, or not.
Regarding pax finding their own way home from LGW: Is it not the case that a pax has a contract with a carrier to be transported, within reasonable time and comfort, from A - B. It is always the carriers responsibility to deliver the pax to the airport of destination. Refer back to a thread some months ago concerning RYR and diversions. RYR had issued an instruction to crews forbidding them to allow pax to disembark at the airport if diversion. No matter what the inconvenience to said pax they and their bags had to be delivered to contractual destination. How do you square this with the alledged report of their actions at LGW. This might be another case for a pax. v RYR. victory.
Interesting comment in the Scotsman article:
"Thirty four flights to Stansted, including many Ryanair services, diverted to other airports because the visibility dipped to as low as 200 metres - less than that required for night landings at the airport.
But several flights - all of them believed to be Ryanair - landed anyway to avoid costly delays".
This is statement of fact as to why an action was taken. It suggests an illegal action and the reason for it. If no RYR a/c landed below limits it is an erronious statement bring the airline into undeserved disrepute. If the action did happen it suggests that the airline ordered its crews to break the law for commercial reasons. That sounds highly libellous unless proved. Given MOL's history of resorting to the courts and having judgement given against him, I would have thought this was an excellent chance for a victory.
What is he doing in repsonse to such a charge?
Secondly, given the publicised weak intervention of the F/O in the NYO case, & the rather stronger action of the F/O in the CIA, and subsequently no doubt the RYR's strong encouragement of good CRM at all times, what were the F/O's doing during all this time of making alledged illegal approaches? I understand the F/O is PF during an autoland. They have the TOGA switches in their control. The power of the index finger can be mighty indeed, or not.
Regarding pax finding their own way home from LGW: Is it not the case that a pax has a contract with a carrier to be transported, within reasonable time and comfort, from A - B. It is always the carriers responsibility to deliver the pax to the airport of destination. Refer back to a thread some months ago concerning RYR and diversions. RYR had issued an instruction to crews forbidding them to allow pax to disembark at the airport if diversion. No matter what the inconvenience to said pax they and their bags had to be delivered to contractual destination. How do you square this with the alledged report of their actions at LGW. This might be another case for a pax. v RYR. victory.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Worldwidewolly:
Interesting comment in the Scotsman article:
"Thirty four flights to Stansted, including many Ryanair services, diverted to other airports because the visibility dipped to as low as 200 metres - less than that required for night landings at the airport.
But several flights - all of them believed to be Ryanair - landed anyway to avoid costly delays".
This is statement of fact as to why an action was taken. It suggests an illegal action and the reason for it. If no RYR a/c landed below limits it is an erronious statement bring the airline into undeserved disrepute. If the action did happen it suggests that the airline ordered its crews to break the law for commercial reasons. That sounds highly libellous unless proved. Given MOL's history of resorting to the courts and having judgement given against him, I would have thought this was an excellent chance for a victory.
What is he doing in repsonse to such a charge?
Secondly, given the publicised weak intervention of the F/O in the NYO case, & the rather stronger action of the F/O in the CIA, and subsequently no doubt the RYR's strong encouragement of good CRM at all times, what were the F/O's doing during all this time of making alledged illegal approaches? I understand the F/O is PF during an autoland. They have the TOGA switches in their control. The power of the index finger can be mighty indeed, or not.
Regarding pax finding their own way home from LGW: Is it not the case that a pax has a contract with a carrier to be transported, within reasonable time and comfort, from A - B. It is always the carriers responsibility to deliver the pax to the airport of destination. Refer back to a thread some months ago concerning RYR and diversions. RYR had issued an instruction to crews forbidding them to allow pax to disembark at the airport if diversion. No matter what the inconvenience to said pax they and their bags had to be delivered to contractual destination. How do you square this with the alledged report of their actions at LGW. This might be another case for a pax. v RYR. victory.
Interesting comment in the Scotsman article:
"Thirty four flights to Stansted, including many Ryanair services, diverted to other airports because the visibility dipped to as low as 200 metres - less than that required for night landings at the airport.
But several flights - all of them believed to be Ryanair - landed anyway to avoid costly delays".
This is statement of fact as to why an action was taken. It suggests an illegal action and the reason for it. If no RYR a/c landed below limits it is an erronious statement bring the airline into undeserved disrepute. If the action did happen it suggests that the airline ordered its crews to break the law for commercial reasons. That sounds highly libellous unless proved. Given MOL's history of resorting to the courts and having judgement given against him, I would have thought this was an excellent chance for a victory.
What is he doing in repsonse to such a charge?
Secondly, given the publicised weak intervention of the F/O in the NYO case, & the rather stronger action of the F/O in the CIA, and subsequently no doubt the RYR's strong encouragement of good CRM at all times, what were the F/O's doing during all this time of making alledged illegal approaches? I understand the F/O is PF during an autoland. They have the TOGA switches in their control. The power of the index finger can be mighty indeed, or not.
Regarding pax finding their own way home from LGW: Is it not the case that a pax has a contract with a carrier to be transported, within reasonable time and comfort, from A - B. It is always the carriers responsibility to deliver the pax to the airport of destination. Refer back to a thread some months ago concerning RYR and diversions. RYR had issued an instruction to crews forbidding them to allow pax to disembark at the airport if diversion. No matter what the inconvenience to said pax they and their bags had to be delivered to contractual destination. How do you square this with the alledged report of their actions at LGW. This might be another case for a pax. v RYR. victory.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RAT 5 from what I heard over the air, it was simply a case of the FR boys not being aware of (or having overlooked during their briefings) the increased minima - indeed there was dialogue on Brest Control frequency between an easyJet and two FR aircraft, both of whom diverted to LGW upon enlightenment!
I don't believe that there would have been any Company input on a decision to continue to STN, merely an "oversight" on the part of the crews. I know many FR guys at STN and they are a good bunch and certainly wouldn't knowingly breach the rules.
I don't believe that there would have been any Company input on a decision to continue to STN, merely an "oversight" on the part of the crews. I know many FR guys at STN and they are a good bunch and certainly wouldn't knowingly breach the rules.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RAT 5 from what I heard over the air, it was simply a case of the FR boys not being aware of (or having overlooked during their briefings) the increased minima - indeed there was dialogue on Brest Control frequency between an easyJet and two FR aircraft, both of whom diverted to LGW upon enlightenment!
I don't believe that there would have been any Company input on a decision to continue to STN, merely an "oversight" on the part of the crews. I know many FR guys at STN and they are a good bunch and certainly wouldn't knowingly breach the rules.
I don't believe that there would have been any Company input on a decision to continue to STN, merely an "oversight" on the part of the crews. I know many FR guys at STN and they are a good bunch and certainly wouldn't knowingly breach the rules.
Originally Posted by Fifty Above
EasyJet passengers were coached to STN; I listened to Swissport LGW read out a statement by FR that their pax would have to "make their own onward travel arrangements and contact customer service in the morning.
Do FR still sell the Stansted Express tickets from the cart in flight ? I would be particularly hacked off if they sold me one of these (non refundable) and then did a diversion.
Originally Posted by Fifty Above
EasyJet passengers were coached to STN; I listened to Swissport LGW read out a statement by FR that their pax would have to "make their own onward travel arrangements and contact customer service in the morning.
Do FR still sell the Stansted Express tickets from the cart in flight ? I would be particularly hacked off if they sold me one of these (non refundable) and then did a diversion.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: On the Camel's back
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Once again, the consequences of inadequate preparation time and operational back-up are coming home to roost. Once again the IAA are complicit in Ryanairs cutting of the margin to the bone, and beyond. Once again the IAA show they consider it possible to adequately and safely prepare for a duty day in 45mins, whilst completely ignoring the operation realities of the STN ops room in the morning. Once again the IAA ignore the impossibility to do so.
MOL has his agenda, to make money at all costs, which he does (not that I am defending him). The IAA have their agenda, which is to impartially regulate the safety of the operation. As usual, they have abdicated this responsibility. May the unthinkable never happen, but if it does, may the book be thrown at the IAA for such gross incompetence, irresponsibility and negligence.
MOL has his agenda, to make money at all costs, which he does (not that I am defending him). The IAA have their agenda, which is to impartially regulate the safety of the operation. As usual, they have abdicated this responsibility. May the unthinkable never happen, but if it does, may the book be thrown at the IAA for such gross incompetence, irresponsibility and negligence.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: On the Camel's back
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Once again, the consequences of inadequate preparation time and operational back-up are coming home to roost. Once again the IAA are complicit in Ryanairs cutting of the margin to the bone, and beyond. Once again the IAA show they consider it possible to adequately and safely prepare for a duty day in 45mins, whilst completely ignoring the operation realities of the STN ops room in the morning. Once again the IAA ignore the impossibility to do so.
MOL has his agenda, to make money at all costs, which he does (not that I am defending him). The IAA have their agenda, which is to impartially regulate the safety of the operation. As usual, they have abdicated this responsibility. May the unthinkable never happen, but if it does, may the book be thrown at the IAA for such gross incompetence, irresponsibility and negligence.
MOL has his agenda, to make money at all costs, which he does (not that I am defending him). The IAA have their agenda, which is to impartially regulate the safety of the operation. As usual, they have abdicated this responsibility. May the unthinkable never happen, but if it does, may the book be thrown at the IAA for such gross incompetence, irresponsibility and negligence.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
50above.
I was not implying any direct company input into the decision: I was observing that the article in the Scotsman might be interpreted in that way. I have absolute confidence that no crew would knowlingly bust the rules. The consequences are just too dire, not to mention the total break down in the professionalism of 2 pilots.
Camelhair:
We have heard on this forum many times about the lack of back up staff and printer breakdown etc in STN crewroom. In discussion with friends about this, and the 5 earlies roster of RYR, it would seem the 45 mins report time is due to most departures being around 0630. The max consecutive earlies before 0545 under IAA rules is 2, hence the 45 mins rule. Noww they can do 5 consecutive earlies, but with -1.00 they could not. He also said that crewing, when calling you out or giving changes, always give a report time of -1.00 because they know that if you come at -45 you will go late. HM!
I was not implying any direct company input into the decision: I was observing that the article in the Scotsman might be interpreted in that way. I have absolute confidence that no crew would knowlingly bust the rules. The consequences are just too dire, not to mention the total break down in the professionalism of 2 pilots.
Camelhair:
We have heard on this forum many times about the lack of back up staff and printer breakdown etc in STN crewroom. In discussion with friends about this, and the 5 earlies roster of RYR, it would seem the 45 mins report time is due to most departures being around 0630. The max consecutive earlies before 0545 under IAA rules is 2, hence the 45 mins rule. Noww they can do 5 consecutive earlies, but with -1.00 they could not. He also said that crewing, when calling you out or giving changes, always give a report time of -1.00 because they know that if you come at -45 you will go late. HM!
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
50above.
I was not implying any direct company input into the decision: I was observing that the article in the Scotsman might be interpreted in that way. I have absolute confidence that no crew would knowlingly bust the rules. The consequences are just too dire, not to mention the total break down in the professionalism of 2 pilots.
Camelhair:
We have heard on this forum many times about the lack of back up staff and printer breakdown etc in STN crewroom. In discussion with friends about this, and the 5 earlies roster of RYR, it would seem the 45 mins report time is due to most departures being around 0630. The max consecutive earlies before 0545 under IAA rules is 2, hence the 45 mins rule. Noww they can do 5 consecutive earlies, but with -1.00 they could not. He also said that crewing, when calling you out or giving changes, always give a report time of -1.00 because they know that if you come at -45 you will go late. HM!
I was not implying any direct company input into the decision: I was observing that the article in the Scotsman might be interpreted in that way. I have absolute confidence that no crew would knowlingly bust the rules. The consequences are just too dire, not to mention the total break down in the professionalism of 2 pilots.
Camelhair:
We have heard on this forum many times about the lack of back up staff and printer breakdown etc in STN crewroom. In discussion with friends about this, and the 5 earlies roster of RYR, it would seem the 45 mins report time is due to most departures being around 0630. The max consecutive earlies before 0545 under IAA rules is 2, hence the 45 mins rule. Noww they can do 5 consecutive earlies, but with -1.00 they could not. He also said that crewing, when calling you out or giving changes, always give a report time of -1.00 because they know that if you come at -45 you will go late. HM!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: right behind you
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VERY REAL WARNING
A Warning for anyone involved in landing below minima at stn.The IAA has the info.(minute by minute rvrs for the period in question) and is coming after you.To protect your livelihood.You have got to contact the IAA asap and your relevant pilot association.The IAA was conducting an audit that day in STN.This is not scaremongering,but ryanair management will throw you to the wolves on this one.
If you know of anyone involved do them a favour and pass on this message.
If you know of anyone involved do them a favour and pass on this message.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: right behind you
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VERY REAL WARNING
A Warning for anyone involved in landing below minima at stn.The IAA has the info.(minute by minute rvrs for the period in question) and is coming after you.To protect your livelihood.You have got to contact the IAA asap and your relevant pilot association.The IAA was conducting an audit that day in STN.This is not scaremongering,but ryanair management will throw you to the wolves on this one.
If you know of anyone involved do them a favour and pass on this message.
If you know of anyone involved do them a favour and pass on this message.