Ryanair secrets?
Grafity
I was at an Gasci meeting with AAIU present and the gentleman concerned was part of the forum...a true gentleman but knew very little of the discipline that he was investigating...whilst I tried to eductate all parties it was an absolute waste of time and his subsequent report was published with known inaccuracies.
Another member was blocked from input into a serious accident as he believed the accident was due to IAA policies. he also alledged that the IAA had some responsibility in the death of a father and son whose aircraft exited controlled flight ...they could have used their ballistic recovery system except they had been told that it was not approved and had to be disarmed.
I was later informed of the alledged politics involved some members of the IAA who decided that by putting a case forward for interfering in other disciplines they would increase their department size and salaries....having convinced the dept of Transport the subsequent budget cuts left them with more work that they wanted..
As far as Cork and Manx is concerned after a Boeing 720 or 707 accident around 1970 at EGKK the Brits instituted approach bans....Manx made three approaches below limits and if they hadn't crashed I doubt if the IAA would have done anything.
Wouldn't comment about EASA..as know very little except that their FDR policies are contrary to aviation safety.
Must bow to your supperior knowledge of the 160hours...what I was told at Weston and assumed correct as met a FR pilot already checked out on line with
220+ plus hours.
As to you "acquaintance" in licencing ..have a letter signed by him...total stitch up and whilst he was signing it had to deal with a two faced Brit who sent a female secretary out with a pack of lies to get my details ....talk about a pair of ......
I was at an Gasci meeting with AAIU present and the gentleman concerned was part of the forum...a true gentleman but knew very little of the discipline that he was investigating...whilst I tried to eductate all parties it was an absolute waste of time and his subsequent report was published with known inaccuracies.
Another member was blocked from input into a serious accident as he believed the accident was due to IAA policies. he also alledged that the IAA had some responsibility in the death of a father and son whose aircraft exited controlled flight ...they could have used their ballistic recovery system except they had been told that it was not approved and had to be disarmed.
I was later informed of the alledged politics involved some members of the IAA who decided that by putting a case forward for interfering in other disciplines they would increase their department size and salaries....having convinced the dept of Transport the subsequent budget cuts left them with more work that they wanted..
As far as Cork and Manx is concerned after a Boeing 720 or 707 accident around 1970 at EGKK the Brits instituted approach bans....Manx made three approaches below limits and if they hadn't crashed I doubt if the IAA would have done anything.
Wouldn't comment about EASA..as know very little except that their FDR policies are contrary to aviation safety.
Must bow to your supperior knowledge of the 160hours...what I was told at Weston and assumed correct as met a FR pilot already checked out on line with
220+ plus hours.
As to you "acquaintance" in licencing ..have a letter signed by him...total stitch up and whilst he was signing it had to deal with a two faced Brit who sent a female secretary out with a pack of lies to get my details ....talk about a pair of ......
Last edited by blind pew; 13th Aug 2013 at 10:14.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I read some correspondence on this issues you're talking of and they were a disgrace. As the saying goes it's very "Irish." There's a lot of a good people in Ireland but unfortunately it always seems to be the idiots that make it to the top.
I think if we bring this back on to point. If you take GASCI as an example, there's 12 different groups seeking representation in Ireland and that's only GA. There's probably a few professional pilot unions as well. If you look at the states for GA you have AOPA, 1 organisation big enough to deal with the regulators and properly protect pilot issues. I'm pretty sure it's the same story across Europe. Having hundreds of groups on their own little mission does nothing for anyone, only fill a few egos. We need something big enough and structured to cover all pilots from GA up to 380s, with one voice.
As I've said before, I don't agree with EPAs attack on Ryanairs safety record because it simply doesn't wash. If you have an issue with Ryanair deal with that issue directly. If the EPA had real concerns about safety, it would be taking a much more focused look at the likes of Air France and it's horrendous safety record of late.
However, as much I disagree with there current tactics, I think it's justifiable to get behind them. They seem to have a good organisational base already. Maybe if everyone rolled in behind them they would gain the financial backing as well as a stronger mandate when going to EASA and the EU Commission.
I think if we bring this back on to point. If you take GASCI as an example, there's 12 different groups seeking representation in Ireland and that's only GA. There's probably a few professional pilot unions as well. If you look at the states for GA you have AOPA, 1 organisation big enough to deal with the regulators and properly protect pilot issues. I'm pretty sure it's the same story across Europe. Having hundreds of groups on their own little mission does nothing for anyone, only fill a few egos. We need something big enough and structured to cover all pilots from GA up to 380s, with one voice.
As I've said before, I don't agree with EPAs attack on Ryanairs safety record because it simply doesn't wash. If you have an issue with Ryanair deal with that issue directly. If the EPA had real concerns about safety, it would be taking a much more focused look at the likes of Air France and it's horrendous safety record of late.
However, as much I disagree with there current tactics, I think it's justifiable to get behind them. They seem to have a good organisational base already. Maybe if everyone rolled in behind them they would gain the financial backing as well as a stronger mandate when going to EASA and the EU Commission.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: In transit
Age: 70
Posts: 3,052
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
........ Spanish Air Traffic Controllers ........... we all know they can speak English, they simply choose not to do so.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: In transit
Age: 70
Posts: 3,052
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ryanair takes legal action against Channel 4
13 August 2013
Ryanair has issued a strongly-worded statement rejecting the ‘false and defamatory claims’ made by last night’s Channel 4 Dispatches programme.
Ryanair: Secrets from the Cockpit made a number of claims about the airline’s safety standards by pilots who wanted to remain anonymous.
When asked why they did not speak out publicly, one pilot told Dispatches it was because the majority were employed on ‘zero hours’ contracts, which meant they only got paid if they actually flew.
But Ryanair said the programme wrongly impugned and smeared its safety record ‘based on nothing more than anonymous hearsay claims made by individuals whose identity was concealed, and/or by representatives of pilot unions of Ryanair’s competitor airlines masquerading as a Non Ryanair Pilot Group [NRPG]’.
According to the carrier, the interim council of the NRPG comprises four pilots/union leaders who work for KLM, Aer Lingus, Air France and Southwest Airlines – people who have ‘no insight, credibility or objectivity in commenting upon Ryanair’s safety’.
Ryanair’s Robin Kiely added: ‘Ryanair rejects these failed attempts by C4 Dispatches and/or European pilot trade unions to denigrate or smear Ryanair’s outstanding 29-year safety record in an attempt to promote their 20-year failed campaign to obtain union recognition in Ryanair.’
He said that because Dispatches had based its programme around ‘the bogus results of an unreliable, fabricated survey prepared by the European pilot trade union club’, Ryanair had instructed its lawyers to issue legal proceedings against Channel 4 for defamation.
‘Ryanair looks forward to this matter being resolved in the courts and the safety of Ryanair’s operations being thoroughly vindicated since the IAA [Irish Aviation Authority] has independently confirmed ‘Ryanair is on a par with the safest airlines in Europe’and the C4 Dispatches programme has produced no shred of evidence to undermine this independent verification of Ryanair’s outstanding safety,’ Kiely concluded.
13 August 2013
Ryanair has issued a strongly-worded statement rejecting the ‘false and defamatory claims’ made by last night’s Channel 4 Dispatches programme.
Ryanair: Secrets from the Cockpit made a number of claims about the airline’s safety standards by pilots who wanted to remain anonymous.
When asked why they did not speak out publicly, one pilot told Dispatches it was because the majority were employed on ‘zero hours’ contracts, which meant they only got paid if they actually flew.
But Ryanair said the programme wrongly impugned and smeared its safety record ‘based on nothing more than anonymous hearsay claims made by individuals whose identity was concealed, and/or by representatives of pilot unions of Ryanair’s competitor airlines masquerading as a Non Ryanair Pilot Group [NRPG]’.
According to the carrier, the interim council of the NRPG comprises four pilots/union leaders who work for KLM, Aer Lingus, Air France and Southwest Airlines – people who have ‘no insight, credibility or objectivity in commenting upon Ryanair’s safety’.
Ryanair’s Robin Kiely added: ‘Ryanair rejects these failed attempts by C4 Dispatches and/or European pilot trade unions to denigrate or smear Ryanair’s outstanding 29-year safety record in an attempt to promote their 20-year failed campaign to obtain union recognition in Ryanair.’
He said that because Dispatches had based its programme around ‘the bogus results of an unreliable, fabricated survey prepared by the European pilot trade union club’, Ryanair had instructed its lawyers to issue legal proceedings against Channel 4 for defamation.
‘Ryanair looks forward to this matter being resolved in the courts and the safety of Ryanair’s operations being thoroughly vindicated since the IAA [Irish Aviation Authority] has independently confirmed ‘Ryanair is on a par with the safest airlines in Europe’and the C4 Dispatches programme has produced no shred of evidence to undermine this independent verification of Ryanair’s outstanding safety,’ Kiely concluded.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ryanair secrets?
When it comes to the regulator, ask yourselves this: If somehow RYR was going to shut tomorrow, how many Irish Aviation Authority employees would be out of job? How much has the IAA grown since RYR spread its wings properly (last 15 years)?
Regarding RYR's claims of a 29 year old safety record, surely one has to factor what RYR was in 1991 and what it was in 2008!
Finally, I'm convinced that nothing will change unless at least 2 or 3 fatal accidents occur. Not only by RYR, but by other operators. It will be the only way various practices if late will be properly addressed. I OBVIOUSLY not wish for it, but there is no other way for malpractices to be proven. No blood-no change. They will wave the "safety record" flag.
I have been driving through the red traffic lights for 6 months now. Have not crashed with anyone. Had a couple of close calls but my record is impeccable.
Regarding RYR's claims of a 29 year old safety record, surely one has to factor what RYR was in 1991 and what it was in 2008!
Finally, I'm convinced that nothing will change unless at least 2 or 3 fatal accidents occur. Not only by RYR, but by other operators. It will be the only way various practices if late will be properly addressed. I OBVIOUSLY not wish for it, but there is no other way for malpractices to be proven. No blood-no change. They will wave the "safety record" flag.
I have been driving through the red traffic lights for 6 months now. Have not crashed with anyone. Had a couple of close calls but my record is impeccable.
Wrong on the first point ortex..they will find some other way to protect their jobs....perhaps regulating kite surfing and children's balloons, followed by bouncy castles...just as the marine and fisheries lot are doing with pleasure craft....
Last edited by blind pew; 13th Aug 2013 at 12:14.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 302
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I thought it was a good item, and even, for balance mentioned that ryr pilots had free reign to add fuel provided they gave a reason in writing to back it up. They even included a clip of MOL banging on about something. As a lover of free publicity he can hardly pick and choose which bits are acceptable for public consumption.
I, too can't wait to see what they will object to in court.
As someone near the start of the thread said, it's a shame Peaprune is far more censorial with people's comments.
This is particularly so when the Bongo Bongo thread on Jet Blast about Dr Godfrey's Foreign Aid rant, has allowed the "send the
back" brigade to bray away merrily.
I, too can't wait to see what they will object to in court.
As someone near the start of the thread said, it's a shame Peaprune is far more censorial with people's comments.
This is particularly so when the Bongo Bongo thread on Jet Blast about Dr Godfrey's Foreign Aid rant, has allowed the "send the
back" brigade to bray away merrily.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Aloft
Age: 46
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Grafity,
I agree with you on your points. We, as a pilot group, tend to be our own worst enemies and management can and does capitilize on this. This is why I am working on an exit strategy from the industry as I only see things getting worse. Part time MBA will be done by next spring and I am out.
I agree with you on your points. We, as a pilot group, tend to be our own worst enemies and management can and does capitilize on this. This is why I am working on an exit strategy from the industry as I only see things getting worse. Part time MBA will be done by next spring and I am out.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Midlands
Age: 66
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I was rather disappointed when I watched his programme. It all seemed rather thin. As Beamer said it tended to 'feature the presenter rather than the subject'. I would agree with that.
This is a very serious subject and the programme spent far too much time focusing on the presenter and his anonymous (actor voice over) 'guests' instead of concentrating on the facts. Facts that can be corroborated and not made from silhouetted figures with very actory voice-overs. Oh and the hats. Hats on all of the time. I didn't know Ryanair were a hat-wearing outfit. A classic mistake I think in a potentially serious film. But it wasn't that serious was it. They didn't seem to know the difference between a black box (FDR) and a CVRs. Or how easy it is to erase their contents.
Does anyone know how many other aircraft in the past year have landed at european airfields with minimum fuel reserves or less. Quite a lot I would have thought, especially when fog persists at the destination or there are serious levels of CB activity - which of course there are in the summer months in southern Europe. We all know how much expected arrival fuel diminishes as runway in use is changed at the last minute due wx etc
So why concentrate on Ryanair. No I don't work for them, never have done and probably never will do.
The problems over fuel and its increasing costs affect every airline. No one wants to waste it or to carry too little and as a professional pilot you don't want to carry too much. However, in the case of poor weather it is obvious that you may need to carry more than the legal minimum. That is just good airmanship and let us not forget that it it the Captain's legal responsibility to decide on the departure fuel, not the airline's. If a pilot can not handle that responsibility then they should not be in the LHS.
The main point here is that it is an industry problem, not just a Ryanair problem. The relevant authorities have the ability to do something constructive about this and they don't. Now why is that? I would like to have seen a few of the regulators questioned about their views and how they can assist with protecting employees in this sort of situation and, more importantly, help to make flying safer in the crowded skies over Europe. As Heathrow Director sensibly pointed out, what happens when the first of the diverted aircraft (on minimum, but legal fuel reserves) lands and then bursts a tyre while still on the runway? Where does everyone else go then?
This programme was a missed opportunity that concentrated on easy targets. It should have involved other professional/political contributors (aside from ATC and pilots) who could have provided a more objective view and hopefully more constructive views on the way ahead.
To have spent so much time concentrating on the presenter's chic attire and those dreadful pilot's hats, all gave an impression of a very slight affair. Hardly the result of a polished piece of investigative current affairs.
This is a very serious subject and the programme spent far too much time focusing on the presenter and his anonymous (actor voice over) 'guests' instead of concentrating on the facts. Facts that can be corroborated and not made from silhouetted figures with very actory voice-overs. Oh and the hats. Hats on all of the time. I didn't know Ryanair were a hat-wearing outfit. A classic mistake I think in a potentially serious film. But it wasn't that serious was it. They didn't seem to know the difference between a black box (FDR) and a CVRs. Or how easy it is to erase their contents.
Does anyone know how many other aircraft in the past year have landed at european airfields with minimum fuel reserves or less. Quite a lot I would have thought, especially when fog persists at the destination or there are serious levels of CB activity - which of course there are in the summer months in southern Europe. We all know how much expected arrival fuel diminishes as runway in use is changed at the last minute due wx etc
So why concentrate on Ryanair. No I don't work for them, never have done and probably never will do.
The problems over fuel and its increasing costs affect every airline. No one wants to waste it or to carry too little and as a professional pilot you don't want to carry too much. However, in the case of poor weather it is obvious that you may need to carry more than the legal minimum. That is just good airmanship and let us not forget that it it the Captain's legal responsibility to decide on the departure fuel, not the airline's. If a pilot can not handle that responsibility then they should not be in the LHS.
The main point here is that it is an industry problem, not just a Ryanair problem. The relevant authorities have the ability to do something constructive about this and they don't. Now why is that? I would like to have seen a few of the regulators questioned about their views and how they can assist with protecting employees in this sort of situation and, more importantly, help to make flying safer in the crowded skies over Europe. As Heathrow Director sensibly pointed out, what happens when the first of the diverted aircraft (on minimum, but legal fuel reserves) lands and then bursts a tyre while still on the runway? Where does everyone else go then?
This programme was a missed opportunity that concentrated on easy targets. It should have involved other professional/political contributors (aside from ATC and pilots) who could have provided a more objective view and hopefully more constructive views on the way ahead.
To have spent so much time concentrating on the presenter's chic attire and those dreadful pilot's hats, all gave an impression of a very slight affair. Hardly the result of a polished piece of investigative current affairs.
Last edited by 8eyes; 13th Aug 2013 at 13:58.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I didn't know Ryanair were a hat-wearing outfit. A classic mistake I think in a potentially serious film
Last edited by Aldente; 13th Aug 2013 at 14:03.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Midlands
Age: 66
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speed Of Sound
I take your point, but not sure how relevant it is. This type of programme is not aimed at a mass market; it's average viewing figures are below 1 million, in some cases well below that. Underestimate your audience at your own peril - and they have done at times it would seem. Ryanair will not be the first to sue C4, even ITV themselves threatened to sue them not so long ago.
You don't have to be a rocket scientist to be interested in space travel - it is how you present the information that is a key to its success, not necessarily the information itself.
I take your point, but not sure how relevant it is. This type of programme is not aimed at a mass market; it's average viewing figures are below 1 million, in some cases well below that. Underestimate your audience at your own peril - and they have done at times it would seem. Ryanair will not be the first to sue C4, even ITV themselves threatened to sue them not so long ago.
You don't have to be a rocket scientist to be interested in space travel - it is how you present the information that is a key to its success, not necessarily the information itself.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: FUBAR
Posts: 3,348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BARKINGMAD Post#24,
I had wondered the same thing myself & asked the same thing on another Ryanair thread once (and even in a separate thread ) only to have it deleted
Difficult to believe after all this time that the Italians have not finished their investigation.
Very strange as apart from a few crm issues in the Right Hand Seat, & an allegedly tardy decision about possible evacuation, I don't think there was anything that would have reflected badly on them. . . . even MOL can't control the starlings.
I had wondered the same thing myself & asked the same thing on another Ryanair thread once (and even in a separate thread ) only to have it deleted
Difficult to believe after all this time that the Italians have not finished their investigation.
Very strange as apart from a few crm issues in the Right Hand Seat, & an allegedly tardy decision about possible evacuation, I don't think there was anything that would have reflected badly on them. . . . even MOL can't control the starlings.
... Fuel emergencies happen, mainly due to congestion at destination airport (weather, single runway operation, congested airspace etc etc)
Do they feel so pressured that they cant put on 20 mins EXTRA holding for such a murky forecast?
Is their commercial pressure so great (perceived or otherwise) that they felt compelled to stay at MAD until the last possible minute thereby arriving at VLC with minimum reserve fuel?
Why didnt they listen to everyone else diverting to VLC and think, Hmmm, better not leave it until the last minute before we go there?
Whats it called again ....... AIRMANSHIP!
Difficult to believe after all this time that the Italians have not finished their investigation.
"Italian “Agenzia nazionale per la sicurezza del volo” (ANSV) informs that next week, from 9 to 13 February 2009, at GE Aviation facilities in Cardiff (Wales - UK) will be performed the engines teardown. Aim of the activity, which will be conducted under the control of ANSV officials (head of Investigation Department and the investigator-in-charge), is to verify in details the damages suffered by both engines in order to better understand the engines performance following the birds ingestion (as much as 90 starling impacted against aircraft structure).
Representatives of all air accident investigation boards involved in the ANSV technical investigation, conducted as per Annex 13 ICAO procedures (NTSB, BEA France, AAIU Ireland), will be attending the operation, together with personnel from the operator, FAA, EASA, Boeing and the engine manufacturer (CFM).
As much as 20 people will be attending the operation; there is such similarity with the A320 which ditched into the Hudson River on January 15th, 2009.
Being the same engines involved in both events, the teardown activity is of utmost importance in order to gather data as to see whether any commonality may exist between the two events."
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Berks
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having read previous postings about Ryanair pilots doing all they can to keep to their schedules and speed up their turnaround times with fast taxying and canny use of runway entries and exits, my strong suspicion is that the "fuel emergency" operational procedure and the frequency that it seems to be used is there to get them in ahead of other airlines. That said I'm sure other airlines use the same trick.
On the fuel uplift point though, I thought it was safe airmanship to have enough fuel to get you to your destination OR your alternate, including a hold of 5-10 minutes, and still have 30 minutes reserve on landing. So O'Leary's policy of getting pilots to justify higher fuel loads seems counter to this.
On the fuel uplift point though, I thought it was safe airmanship to have enough fuel to get you to your destination OR your alternate, including a hold of 5-10 minutes, and still have 30 minutes reserve on landing. So O'Leary's policy of getting pilots to justify higher fuel loads seems counter to this.