Dutch TV reports on 'Ryanair pilots denominated alarm over safety'
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: hotel
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This are quotes from a private message a friend of mine got, a couple of months ago, after he posted some comments about FR.
and
I'm a journalist and am looking into the issue more generally, and would love to speak to a pilot about it. Would you be willing to have a chat?
I would be happy to speak to you anonymously - it's the information I am interested in, and I would not be identifying any pilots.
Last edited by sarah737; 29th Dec 2012 at 16:53.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: ...
Posts: 3,753
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOAC:
So when I actually steer the discussion in this thread into the direction of discussing legal fuel minima you then say:
Do you even know what you want BOAC?
Thats what I'm saying the planned route does not match the actual route which was evidently too optimistic. Thus not enough fuel was available. So I'm suggesting alternate route planning should have some slack, cause I think that in most cases the planned route won't be flown.
I think you are the one not understanding aircraft operations, its all about planning. Crap in crap out. And I think in most companies the alternate routes are just that, too optimistic. Especially on a nice day, cause what would cause diversions on a nice day: unexpected weather and airports closing for normal operations. Both likely leading to many aircraft diverting with minimum fuel.
Unless you know of a way (not involving a pan or mayday) to force ATC to let you fly the company planned diversion route, while everybody is diverting as well, you will quickly encounter a fuel pan pan or mayday in order to ensure that you do fly the planned route and land with 30min.
I quite agree, but they have not. That is where the effort needs to be, not in RY bashing.What would be a 'level playing field' by the way?
If your whole 'thrust' is about EU-OPS rules, why not start a new thread?
you did notice they were not flown, didn't you? Refer to mistake number 1.
I think you are the one not understanding aircraft operations, its all about planning. Crap in crap out. And I think in most companies the alternate routes are just that, too optimistic. Especially on a nice day, cause what would cause diversions on a nice day: unexpected weather and airports closing for normal operations. Both likely leading to many aircraft diverting with minimum fuel.
Unless you know of a way (not involving a pan or mayday) to force ATC to let you fly the company planned diversion route, while everybody is diverting as well, you will quickly encounter a fuel pan pan or mayday in order to ensure that you do fly the planned route and land with 30min.
Last edited by 737Jock; 29th Dec 2012 at 17:23.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: monaco
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sarah737,
In the case of this TV program the pilots involved were also identified by a notary and one even spoke openly, this is both about the people and the story as well.
In the case of this TV program the pilots involved were also identified by a notary and one even spoke openly, this is both about the people and the story as well.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh dear - this thread needs moving to spotters or JB really.
Anyway
- looks to me as if you have answered your own question. Yes - you TELL them you are setting off for the alternate. It is called 'command'. Safety comes first, ATC later. Their job is to provide the service. Assuming you have asked them first and they have refused, then you declare a Mayday.because you will be below F Reserve. It is not difficult.
Go on, be brave - start a thread on Safety CRM and QA about EUOPS fuel planning. I'm sure you will get interest.
Anyway
Unless you know of a way (not involving a pan or mayday) to force ATC to let you fly the company planned diversion route, while everybody is diverting as well, you will quickly encounter a fuel pan pan or mayday in order to ensure that you do fly the planned route and land with 30min.
Go on, be brave - start a thread on Safety CRM and QA about EUOPS fuel planning. I'm sure you will get interest.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: ...
Posts: 3,753
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Was there a questionmark BOAC? Kind of QED...
So your suggestion is to intercept the ILS without clearance and without declaring a Pan or a Mayday? Just do it...
Screwing up ATC's plan, possibly endangering other peoples lives in other aircraft, cause you are in command...
As I said the only possibility is to declare a Mayday. But to me it sounds a bit foolish to plan your alternate fuel with a mayday in mind. But thats exactly what overoptimistic alternate route planning does.
And from what I get that is pretty much what airlines are doing in Europe.
And yes EASA can do something about that!
You sound more like a spotter to me, command also extends outside your own aircraft.
So your suggestion is to intercept the ILS without clearance and without declaring a Pan or a Mayday? Just do it...
Screwing up ATC's plan, possibly endangering other peoples lives in other aircraft, cause you are in command...
As I said the only possibility is to declare a Mayday. But to me it sounds a bit foolish to plan your alternate fuel with a mayday in mind. But thats exactly what overoptimistic alternate route planning does.
And from what I get that is pretty much what airlines are doing in Europe.
And yes EASA can do something about that!
You sound more like a spotter to me, command also extends outside your own aircraft.
Last edited by 737Jock; 29th Dec 2012 at 17:40.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm afraid I have come to the conclusion that you are possibly a bit short of marbles. Who mentioned an ILS?
Care to add a little to your (empty) profile?
Care to add a little to your (empty) profile?
Last edited by BOAC; 29th Dec 2012 at 17:45.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: ...
Posts: 3,753
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
you TELL them you are setting off for the alternate. It is called 'command'. Safety comes first, ATC later. Their job is to provide the service.
Unless you know of a way (not involving a pan or mayday) to force ATC to let you fly the company planned diversion route
Btw telling them that you are diverting doesn't guarentee you will fly the planned diversion route. They will sequence you with all the other diverting traffic! They won't guarentee an overoptimistic fuel planning towards that alternate.
So you will need to declare a Mayday to guarentee that the fuel planning works. What if everybody does exactly that? How is ATC supposed to sequence 10 mayday aircraft all about to land with less then final reserve.
Care to add a little to your (empty) profile?
Saying random stuff like "its called, command" when nothing was asked in a rethoric question and not displaying any ability to make connections between various posts or recognizing sarcasm tells me a lot more about you. As do comments regarding me taking responsibility for others people's posts or even the dutch tv show.
If anybody is a bit short of marbles, it's you i'm afraid.
Last edited by 737Jock; 29th Dec 2012 at 18:42.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Stansted
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a permanent employee of Ryanair is true my t and c's are different from contractors and as I have said times before I dont go out of base at all, yes I pay for my medicals, hotac for sims, loss of licence, petrol money to sim centre but then I get £5000pa allowance to cover all the above on top of my basic salary and flight pay. But i dont get a no delay bonus as someone asked, such a thing doesnt exist. Dont give them ideas.
As for the fuel policy I dont believe its any different from any other airline in Europe however there is a perception among some of our pilots that their is some pressure from management. But not by me and most of friends in my base. I think some of this is a self fulfilling prophecy and if you hear it enough times from other pilots you start to believe it despite perhaps never having coming across it yourself.
Have management revamped the fuel policy - yes - but only to ask us to justify our extra fuel carried above the min instead of plus 300 above min. But thats it and all of a sudden we have a fuel issue in Ryanair.
The truth is that if someone asked me if I get treated well in Ryanair I would probably say no but then I can't say I get treated badly. Ryanair does what it says on the tin no more no less. Fixed roster, ok money, new planes but then I am not a contractor.
However the way I read that management treat out contractors which are now the majority is coming back to haunt them but its does us no favours when the rest of our own industry run us down. We are a safe airline with excellent training, high standards, new aircraft and good pilots. And I can assure you they are good pilots when you consider some of the s++t holes we fly. No radar, no ils, circling, snow covered runways and so on, it does sort the men from the boys despite what people may believe.
Wouldnt we all like to work for a major airline but we all can't and lets face it Ryanair, Easyjet, Norwegian, Air Berlin and the like wouldnt even exist if the legacy carriers hadn't underestimated the locos and opened a space in the market for them with their high fares and cartels. I think they all thought we would go the way of Laker. Not so.
But please dont confuse me with management. I am a professional pilot and do not accept second best from myself or any pilot I instruct or examine. We are not Ryanair management but you choose to assume we are like them. I repeat we are not...................
As for the fuel policy I dont believe its any different from any other airline in Europe however there is a perception among some of our pilots that their is some pressure from management. But not by me and most of friends in my base. I think some of this is a self fulfilling prophecy and if you hear it enough times from other pilots you start to believe it despite perhaps never having coming across it yourself.
Have management revamped the fuel policy - yes - but only to ask us to justify our extra fuel carried above the min instead of plus 300 above min. But thats it and all of a sudden we have a fuel issue in Ryanair.
The truth is that if someone asked me if I get treated well in Ryanair I would probably say no but then I can't say I get treated badly. Ryanair does what it says on the tin no more no less. Fixed roster, ok money, new planes but then I am not a contractor.
However the way I read that management treat out contractors which are now the majority is coming back to haunt them but its does us no favours when the rest of our own industry run us down. We are a safe airline with excellent training, high standards, new aircraft and good pilots. And I can assure you they are good pilots when you consider some of the s++t holes we fly. No radar, no ils, circling, snow covered runways and so on, it does sort the men from the boys despite what people may believe.
Wouldnt we all like to work for a major airline but we all can't and lets face it Ryanair, Easyjet, Norwegian, Air Berlin and the like wouldnt even exist if the legacy carriers hadn't underestimated the locos and opened a space in the market for them with their high fares and cartels. I think they all thought we would go the way of Laker. Not so.
But please dont confuse me with management. I am a professional pilot and do not accept second best from myself or any pilot I instruct or examine. We are not Ryanair management but you choose to assume we are like them. I repeat we are not...................
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: ...
Posts: 3,753
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe you Say Mach Number, but still it's up to the management to make sure there exists no perception of pressure amongst any of the pilots isn't it?
Comments like this from Stephen MCNamara (email with the dutch tv show) don't really promote this in my opinion:
Reporter - Mayday Mayday (first link - mailwisseling met ryanair
You even confirm yourself that some pilots feel this way, and the identity of these 4 ryanair pilots and their employment with Ryanair was legally confirmed by a Notary.
Having so many different pilot groups in one airline doesn't really promote unity. Some groups may feel very different then you as a long-serving permanent trainer.
Usually when there's smoke, there's fire...
Comments like this from Stephen MCNamara (email with the dutch tv show) don't really promote this in my opinion:
Reporter - Mayday Mayday (first link - mailwisseling met ryanair
The reason why your alleged pilots wish to hide behind anonymity is because there is no truth to their claims.
Why don’t you take steps to verify these claims with the independent IAA and stop wasting our time with what are clearly false and baseless accusations.
Anonymous claims cannot be taken seriously, particularly when they have no basis in truth.
You have offered no evidence to support your anonymous claims and therefore all you have quoted is falsehoods and rumours. We don’t respond to falsehoods and rumours.
Having so many different pilot groups in one airline doesn't really promote unity. Some groups may feel very different then you as a long-serving permanent trainer.
Usually when there's smoke, there's fire...
Last edited by 737Jock; 29th Dec 2012 at 19:07.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: ...
Posts: 3,753
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very true LYKA, but we should note that the beancounters believe that This statement:
is in fact not a best guess but an accurate amount.
They believe that the numbers a computer pumps out are actually the minimum fuel required, and they see their proof in extra fuel not being used.
When I change taxi trip and alternate fuel, none of this is extra fuel. But on the beancounters spreadsheet it shows up like this. A computer OFP is not neccessarily a legal OFP, crap in crap out as always.
The fuel they see as extra might just be the minimum required to make the flight legal. Unused fuel does not equal unneccessary fuel.
In order to protect the travelling public from overzealous beancounters and the harsh reality of fierce competition I can imagine that a margin of 15 minutes could be added to the alternate fuel as a legal requirement.
Painful maybe... But it would be equal to everybody.
The OFP ALTN fuel is always going to be a best guess, based upon planning factors (fuel req, route, altitude and weights).
They believe that the numbers a computer pumps out are actually the minimum fuel required, and they see their proof in extra fuel not being used.
When I change taxi trip and alternate fuel, none of this is extra fuel. But on the beancounters spreadsheet it shows up like this. A computer OFP is not neccessarily a legal OFP, crap in crap out as always.
The fuel they see as extra might just be the minimum required to make the flight legal. Unused fuel does not equal unneccessary fuel.
In order to protect the travelling public from overzealous beancounters and the harsh reality of fierce competition I can imagine that a margin of 15 minutes could be added to the alternate fuel as a legal requirement.
Painful maybe... But it would be equal to everybody.
Last edited by 737Jock; 29th Dec 2012 at 19:53.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the crew felt they couldn't make a reasoned argument to their management for taking EXTRA fuel (I.e., more than OFP+300).
FR2054 plog was 5887kgs they took 6500kgs. 600kg extra.
FR5998 plog was 8917kgs they took 9200kgs. 300kg extra.
FR5389 plog was 11,828kgs they took 12,720kgs. 800kg extra. .
FR5998 plog was 8917kgs they took 9200kgs. 300kg extra.
FR5389 plog was 11,828kgs they took 12,720kgs. 800kg extra. .
Jeter des perles aux pourceaux?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: ...
Posts: 3,753
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd be careful about being prescriptive as it typically would not take into account differences in flight planning methods, operational capabilities, available infrastructure, or the operational requirements of aircraft. Moving to a statistical based fuel planning approach offers, IMHO, a greater level of operational realism without removing the CMD from the decision making.
Operational reality is that the majority of flights get direct routings and don't have to hold at destination and land at the first attempt. So they use less fuel than planned. Statistically speaking that is.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: FUBAR
Posts: 3,348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To really understand the "situation" please read the thread (currently just above this one) "Fog overwhelms BCN 23RD Dec"
If you ever arrived in BCN/MAD/anywhere in Spain ( + Italy etc) in cr@p wx this will be old hat to you. . . . but, I would read this before you start casting doubts on the RYR crew that evening.
If you ever arrived in BCN/MAD/anywhere in Spain ( + Italy etc) in cr@p wx this will be old hat to you. . . . but, I would read this before you start casting doubts on the RYR crew that evening.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: ...
Posts: 3,753
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Captplaystation I Fly there very often. Pretty much described an Atc event in post 69.
Flying in northern europe is very different then southern europe, it just ain't as slick when things get busy. This is a realistic ATC environment requiring additional fuel on even the best day imho.
I hope that ATC in these countries is a valid reason to take extra fuel in all company's. If there is such a thing as a "valid" reason.
Flying in northern europe is very different then southern europe, it just ain't as slick when things get busy. This is a realistic ATC environment requiring additional fuel on even the best day imho.
I hope that ATC in these countries is a valid reason to take extra fuel in all company's. If there is such a thing as a "valid" reason.
Last edited by 737Jock; 29th Dec 2012 at 21:09.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This thread is becoming more 'Alice in Wonderland' with every post.
- now you are saying you didn't say that? Which 'AF prob40 TEMPO' are you on about then?
Was that a white rabbit I just saw?
Originally Posted by Lyka
I still struggle with the fact that based on the information and supportive evidence these crew had (TAF's, NOTAMS etc), the crew felt they couldn't make a reasoned argument to their management for taking EXTRA fuel (I.e., more than OFP+300). The fact that the TAF may have said PROB40 TEMPO etc doesn't mean there isn't a risk of deviation from the OFP assumtions that needs to be mitigated in some way (change of ALTN, extra fuel etc).
Was that a white rabbit I just saw?
Last edited by BOAC; 30th Dec 2012 at 12:14.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Suitcase
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps some who have more knowlage of ths incident would like to comment on the rumour that one RYR aircraft was kept in the hold dispite requests for a diversion for so long that the captain had to tell ATC that he was compelled to take up a heading to the diversion airfield without ATC clearance.
I have no personal comment on this incident to add, and instead invite others to read the report including the conclusions from the IAA. Both the facts of these incidents and the report by the IAA should be read carefully and not just skimmed over. Beware of those who may like to build "strawman" arguments in order to lead others down a wrong path and hence to false conclusions. Some people and organisations are skilled at manipulating facts in order to masquerade at honesty, when in fact it is simply a smoke-screen presented to divert attention from the actual issue.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOAC are you saying you would have done the same then ?
Really ?!!!
Looking at the above figures, the FR5998 took just 283 kg extra into a known busy TMA at a major airport on a night with extensive FORECAST thunderstorm activity.
And as 737Jock says :-
Lyka - what are you talking about?
Quote:
FR2054 plog was 5887kgs they took 6500kgs. 600kg extra.
FR5998 plog was 8917kgs they took 9200kgs. 300kg extra.
FR5389 plog was 11,828kgs they took 12,720kgs. 800kg extra. .
If some of you looked at the facts you will realise they took enough fuel.
Quote:
FR2054 plog was 5887kgs they took 6500kgs. 600kg extra.
FR5998 plog was 8917kgs they took 9200kgs. 300kg extra.
FR5389 plog was 11,828kgs they took 12,720kgs. 800kg extra. .
If some of you looked at the facts you will realise they took enough fuel.
Looking at the above figures, the FR5998 took just 283 kg extra into a known busy TMA at a major airport on a night with extensive FORECAST thunderstorm activity.
And as 737Jock says :-
I wonder what everybody else took? All those aircraft that didn't declare a Mayday
Last edited by Aldente; 30th Dec 2012 at 07:23.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aldente - since you ask, I cannot answer that question. I would review my 'excess' fuel decision based on company policy. It is worth reading Rat 5 post #61 if anyone bothers to look at preceding posts. Had I been 998, unless I had 'acquired' a reasonable excess en route I would have been kicking and screaming to go to my div. Since 998 diverted with 2900kg (around 8-900kg more than flt plan) but landed just above F Reserve, I assume it did, but got caught up in the Lan Chile fiasco - but I cannot fault their decision making. No-one normally plans on a regular basis for what happened at MAD/VLC.
To amplify: If I am 'expected' to take plog fuel I would try to do that, on the understanding that the company would prefer me NOT to hold at destination but to make an early diversion, possibly even before arrival at dest, with all the associated costs and disruption to schedules etc. I do not know RY's policy on this, but I repeat - you do not need 'extra' fuel for holding at destination if you do not intend to do that and any diversion decision made and executed before finals would always have significant excess fuel for the ensuing diversion issues..
Now then, in my last two companies before retirement in which my fuel decisions were never challenged, I would, on a 737-8 on that evening, probably have taken around 1000-1200 more as a ball-park figure with every intention of burning that in a (30 min) hold or the g/a that would be likely since those companies preferred passengers at destination.
There will, of course, be occasions when even with 2T extra, in some situations pilots might burn that in a g/a and/or hold and still finish up diverting. (NB Not normally me, as I would probably have legged to to a div early to get the bowser/handling/coaches etc first).
I repeat - the 'sin' is not to take 'insufficient' extra fuel, but to do the wrong thing with what you have got.
I am no longer bothered by aircraft fuel decisions, but some posters seem to be very exercised by the rules and regs. It is time for them to put up or shut up both 1) here and 2) in the real world.
1) Start a serious thread to campaign for a change in EUOPS fuel policy and work through your pilots' union for the same. [Don't have one? See 2)]
2) If you consider your company fuel policy is 'dangerous', report it to the regulator or if you feel you cannot 'risk' that, find a better company
If you do neither, stop whinging here.
To amplify: If I am 'expected' to take plog fuel I would try to do that, on the understanding that the company would prefer me NOT to hold at destination but to make an early diversion, possibly even before arrival at dest, with all the associated costs and disruption to schedules etc. I do not know RY's policy on this, but I repeat - you do not need 'extra' fuel for holding at destination if you do not intend to do that and any diversion decision made and executed before finals would always have significant excess fuel for the ensuing diversion issues..
Now then, in my last two companies before retirement in which my fuel decisions were never challenged, I would, on a 737-8 on that evening, probably have taken around 1000-1200 more as a ball-park figure with every intention of burning that in a (30 min) hold or the g/a that would be likely since those companies preferred passengers at destination.
There will, of course, be occasions when even with 2T extra, in some situations pilots might burn that in a g/a and/or hold and still finish up diverting. (NB Not normally me, as I would probably have legged to to a div early to get the bowser/handling/coaches etc first).
I repeat - the 'sin' is not to take 'insufficient' extra fuel, but to do the wrong thing with what you have got.
I am no longer bothered by aircraft fuel decisions, but some posters seem to be very exercised by the rules and regs. It is time for them to put up or shut up both 1) here and 2) in the real world.
1) Start a serious thread to campaign for a change in EUOPS fuel policy and work through your pilots' union for the same. [Don't have one? See 2)]
2) If you consider your company fuel policy is 'dangerous', report it to the regulator or if you feel you cannot 'risk' that, find a better company
If you do neither, stop whinging here.