Just to clarify - it is only because the aircraft was carrying more people than it had seats for - which is a certification issue. If the aircraft is not in compliance with it's Airworthiness Certificate, the hull is probably uninsured - insurance for the pax is a separate issue, but likely to be a problem for the airline if the aircraft they are travelling in is not being operated IAW its certificate..

There is endless speculation here that presents itself as factual discussion. The insurance argument is a good example. I think if you take the trouble to inquire, you will find that the aircraft is insured, even if that offends predjudices against insursance companies, fellow pilots or whatever.

Deductions about the captain and the role of other crew members above are sometimes very speculative. We even have an authoritative, and seriously inaccurate account, from someone who apparent knows one of the crew. The entire content has become quite misleading.

We also have some quite precise, black and white, right and wrong types who think life is simple and that drawing a line in the sand is easy. Well, not always.

The post by Wig Wag above may, or may not, tell us something about this particular incident, but it most definitely tells us something very real about the "real world" occupied by an ever growing number of pilots.

GGV

The wholepoint about safety culture is that we as pilots and individuals have the ability and responsibility to ' draw the line ' in todays 'real world' !

If my (UK)employer tells/ hints/orders me to operate the aircraft outside safety guidelines I have and will continue to say ' no thanks'. I am well aware of the consequences that may arise from such decisions but decided a while ago to worry about that if and when it happens.

I too would take people in the toilet/aisles/ cockpit if we were evacuating a war zone for example, but flying paying pax around Europe? Come on!

This is what happened just for anybody who is unsure. I know all parties. The GRO base manager was dealing with the two crew who were at the bottom of the stairs. he dealt with the capt without the girls talking to him. He then left the flight deck and told the girls to go down to the back and go into the toilets and that the capt said it was ok. On taxing out the number 1 onboard while checking the cabin found the two girls in the toilet and went straight to the capt and told him what she had just found. he told her everything was ok and not to worry about it. The rest as they say is history.

Well Stan,

You say "The wholepoint about safety culture is that we as pilots and individuals have the ability and responsibility to ' draw the line ' in todays 'real world' !"

I was not saying that you would not, only that in an organisational culture which has gone off the tracks it is an exceedingly hard thing to do for mere mortals. The evidence is actually overwhelmning that most people keep a very, very low profile in such circumstances. The do so because they see what happens to those who do not.

I think that by simply making inquiries my statement can be established to be valid across a range of airlines and industries.

So, judging from the certainty of your reply, we will just have to agree to differ!

GGV

I agree, and the result is the decline of airline standards to unacceptable levels.

Mere mortals can make a difference. :ok:

GGV:

Well if you know better, or are able to correct inaccuracies, please feel free to do so!

Look, this is a rumor network, everything should be taken with a pinch of salt, but I found the post on the CC forum by jayo2002 (which I assume is the post you're referring to) at least moderately convincing & credible.

R1

Ranger one

As i stated in my last post that is what happened. If you have any futher questions feel free to ask

lod

Ranger One, I think this quote below is what GGV meant with an authorative but seriously inaccurate account:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the flight was fully booked out, and there was 2 staff occupying the flight deck J/seats, another staff member occupying the J/S beside my housemate, and then the 2 senior CCM's occupying the jacks! they werent ticketed at all... <snip> she assumed that they had taken seats. the headcount was done, and they cloed up... 130 pax, 3 J/S, and that was it. as they were not ticketed, they were not in the figures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

GGV

I doubt it.

In a recent incident where one of our aircraft flew with no emergency checklist, the major issue was insurance. An aircraft that is not operating in accordance with its certification documentation is unlikely to be insured, and that includes operating outside the MEL or having more pax than seats. I know this to be true. Now, perhaps you would like to quote from your employers insurance policy that specifically covers your aircraft in this situation?

Yes, and you have contributed some yourself.

That is only true for those without the character to enforce the rules. Who are you, as an employee, to decide which rules you will obey, and which you won't? Anybody with the slightest bit of management experience will tell you that people who will do that, will also very likely be fired at the first opportunity.

Aviation is, in most cases, extremely black and white. All the rules, minima, MELs etc are there to make your life simple - if you choose to obey them. There are still a few judgement calls, but not very many.

Whether or not you take passengers in the lavs doesn't even begin to qualify as a judgement call. The rule is clear, everybody concerned knows what it is, and if you choose to break it - especially these days - you deserve all you get.

Unfortunately, many captains choose to turn what should be simple yes/no decisions, into judgement calls. I have done the same, more than once. As I look back over my career, I am really very lucky to have never been caught out. I am a little more disciplined these days.

They had tickets but were never given boarding cards and they were brought down to the gate by the gro base manager who also was on the flight but he was in the figures and on the jumpseat down the back

What I would like to know is what will be the likely outcome of this for the captain in question, what is the worst, best, & most likely scenario.

I for one hopes the Authorities don't come down on him too hard.

Coco

In a couple of post s before someone said that he was called up to management to explain his delays even though the reason was technical. This kind of pressure must be put aside, because when something happens you can't defend yourself on those unwritten rules. The finest example is exactly this one. By trying to be friendly to his colleagues and to the company, this captain just lost his job. However, I find it very hard to get a kick on the butt when you have a sound reason to delay a departure, for example.
So, my two cents are, safety is paramount and no bean counter is willing to face in court by firing you for putting safety issues in front of commercial reasons.:*

GGV,

"There is endless speculation here that presents itself as factual discussion. The insurance argument is a good example. I think if you take the trouble to inquire, you will find that the aircraft is insured, even if that offends predjudices against insursance companies, fellow pilots or whatever. "

Would you care to explain why?

Well he's retired. Usually the CAA then leave you alone.

NN

Sleeve,

Yes, I agree with you, be sure. It is such a pity that it happened, IMHO, just the one lapse, but that’s the way it must be.

It’s true that in the service we were sometimes, at a lower level, able to get away with quite a lot, but woe betide us if we got found out and things had gone wrong. It is quite different in civvie street of course

*********.

I am sure the answer is yes, adversely.

Lots of very good points made, very interesting. Bet no-one ever, ever, tries it again though !

BTW, let's have no more of this bleating nonsense about him being such a decent fellow, 30 years, his boat blah blah blah. Nothing to do with anything at all. Get real and focus on the facts please.


oTd

The facts are ou Trek dronkie that the captains good nature & willingness to help stranded crew members out rather than having them stuck in an airport in the middle of no doubt nowhere with probably little facilities got in the way of his professional judgement. He made an error of judgement, he played loose with the rules. (I'd say he's far from the only one) however he's the one who got caught out, full stop!

As is said the captain was about to retire anyway & if Normal Nigel is correct that the IAA etc will leave him alone (does anybody else have opinions on this) , if that is so & from the other lowdown I've received but don't care to publicise hopefully all will be well that ends well. :)


Coco

Another case of - "Well he's a prat then"
 

If the Captain knew - then he is prat and deserves to be in deep :mad:!...if he did not know then whoever should have told him and didn't is a prat and should be in deep :mad:....and if nobody on the aircraft knew - then we are all in deep :mad: !!! 'cos next time they might be Islamic Militant Murdering Terrorists! armed with a razor blade!!

Sorry but if this had happened at Big Airways would we be onto the 13th page??

come on *professionals* stop going over the same ground over and over again, dropping in the odd ryanair bash at the same time.

It's happened [note the past tense], the pilot resigned [he wasn't sacked] the matter is being investigated both internally and externally and we must wait for the outcome.

basta ragazzi!

Just a word on insurance particularly hull insurance.
Most aircraft are owned by leasing companies and operated by the airline. The leasing contracts of course require that the aircraft is operated in accordance with all applicable rules and regulations.
However !!:D
If the airline with a $50m aircraft operated with some slight breach such outside the MEL or too many pass or whatever and then crashed do you think the leasing company would say "oh dear no insurance we will have to sue the airline who has just gone broke ?":O
The leasing companies basically insist on a hold harmless clause which they will get paid out regardless and they are named as "loss payees" so they money goes direct to them is does not pass go or even the operator.
Now of course the insurance company can sue the airline for the money back !!! and good luck:(

We probably would have been onto the 23rd page!

:p

An academic point I know, but if you are the FO presented with this situation what do you do?

GotTheTshirt

Thanks for the input on hull insurance it’s a topic that few pilots know much about.

I think that it would be beneficial to the pilot group if Pprune had information links similar in format that is available on the tech forum so that pilots could gain knowledge on topics such as insurance. It would certainly end the speculation, opinions that pass’s for facts on most threads and generally move the topic matter along at a higher level.

Coconuts, whilst your loyalty to your friend is commendable it unfortunately appears to have blinded you to the seriousness of the facts. IF he knew those people were on board then the very least he is guilty of is knowingly breaking the law. Oh hardly!!!!!! Girona is in Spain and from the photos I saw when I did a Google search it is far from being the back of beyond. Hardly justification for breaking the law!

Let me say right away that I would not under any circumstance (excepting an emergency war evacuation circumstance) agree to carrying anyone in anything but a proper seat.

I keep trying to figure out why this very experienced captain agreed to such a bizarre request. After all, if the two cabin staff involved had not got on the aircraft, the world would still have been there in the morning. The only result would have been that they would have had to spend some more money.

As it was, the captain ended up resigning and since the two ladies, who were not locked in the lavatories, refused to resign and they lost their jobs anyway.

What was the special pressure that persuaded this captain to throw common sense out of the window? Was there perhaps a deeper personal consideration that has as yet not been revealed that finally influenced his judgement?

I find the whole afair very sad but it would be interesting to get to the bottom of why he went along with the idea.

Well I met the captain in question (who was last year voted "Captain of the Year" no doubt a well deserved accolade) today & he's in great form, not a bother on him. You guys may have your knickers in a knot about this but he certainly hasn't, he's never been as happy in his life now that he's out of the dump. As for 'retirement' I'd take that with a grain of salt, the lovely captain has no more intention of retiring then the man on the moon, he intends to keep flying for many years to come. :ok:

Good on ya captain, thumbs up at O'Leary eh. Hope you have a wonderful time in your new job & that you're very happy. :D

Coco

Coconuts, why do you persist in posting such drivel?

just a question
 

In Ryanair,are non-operating crew allowed travel in the flight-deck??Thanks.

JW411 :ok:
The dude retired,..
bet ya he would have been canned before he said :"sorry".
"Nice" does not score you too many points these days. For a reason.


"...it would be interesting to get to the bottom of why he went along with the idea."

You've got to be joking!
You want to "get to the bottom" of IT ? ;)

While the captain kept fairly mum about it I was told by someone very close to him that there were mitigating circumstances.

1) "Firstly that these crew were due to report for duty next day & needed to get back that day."

2) "That these flights are always full from that destination at this time of year, there wouldn't have been one going till next day so he didn't have much leeway but to take them because they probably would have been faced with the same situation next day etc etc".

My main priority here is to protect the person in question & his privacy hence my perceived evasiveness.

Regards

Coco

Since when has 'mitigating circumstances' meant a Commander has discretion to break the rules (or his company force him to do it) - assume Irish CAA are no different to everyone else - and also avoid straight common sense on safety issues

Coco pls... :hmm:

Coconuts,
If this Captain is as you say a good friend of yours then he probably would be very grateful if you ceased from bringing up your constant arguments in his defence.
We all of us feel concern for anyone who has to lose their job. The gentlemen in question rightly fell on his sword to preserve his dignity and to stop any further witch hunts. He knew he was in the wrong and regardless of what you say there are no mitigating circumstances.
We all of us know the rules and we also all of us within professional aviation know that should we, in anyway, bend or break those rules and get caught then we have no choice but to resign or get sacked.

If he is such a great friend of yours do him a favour and let this thread go and let the man get on with his life.

I see FR made the Irish Independent (described as "air rage" in headline) for refusing to board pax due 732 door damage requiring 25 seats left vacant and not enough volunteers.

Damned if they do, it seems...

Coconuts, this would be fine if it were not for the fact that your actions contradict your apparent intentions. and There can't be too many newly employed ex-Ryanair pilots around can there, especially one who was voted "Captain of the Year"? If his new employer reads this and puts two and two together (it wouldn't take Einstein to do that) then you might well find you have cost your friend his new job and how will you explain that to him? Tell him you are sorry but you were only trying to defend him against his fellow pilots? A lot of comfort that would be to him.
You also appear to have forgotten one of the important rules of posting in here: that we do not make personal attacks on other posters. What happens on other sites is irrelevant here.

I think coconuts is just trying to defend a friend as we all would. The capt had resigned about 3 weeks before this happened anyway and was due to leave 3 or 4 days later so it was just as easy to leave a few days earlier

In answer to the question, what would an FO do if faced with that situation.... personally I'd refuse to fly. If the captain insisted, I'd get off- if necessary by the escape rope.
For the record, I am not exagerrating.

Coconuts

You should be aware that virtually every airline on the planet has a clause in their employment contract, relating to staff travel, that lays down fairly clearly that failing to return via a flight on a staff ticket is no excuse. If the flights were full, why did they think it was a smart move to try and go to Gerona on a staff ticket? There are absolutely NO mitigating circumstances in this case.

And, as others have mentioned, you are doing more to finger your friend, than to help him.

Got the Tshirt and Tan (insurance)

Firstly before I entered this discussion, I asked my father what the real story is. He spent 30+ at Lloyds as a broker dealing in - wait for it - aircraft hull insurance.

Not everybody leases - there are still several airlines around that own a large proportion (if not all) of their aircraft. In any case, the insurance is usually taken out by the airline as a requirement of the lease - and as has been noted - and yes the leasing company will get paid - but the airline will end up footing the bill. Some carry insurance for this event, and it is that which will not pay out. Why do you think an insurance company would take the risk, when any hull loss claim will be an automatic payout, regardless of fault? They must charge like wounded bulls to cover that risk.

Got The T-Shirt is quite correct - any leasing company or financier of an aircraft will usually require a clause known as 'First loss payee' to be in the lease or finance contract with the airline and in parallel they are named as 'first loss payee' in the insurance schedule that the airline has to take out to cover the mutually agreed minimum hull value of the aircraft - whereby as GTT correctly states if there is a payout the leasing company and/or financier will get paid first in preference to any other claimant i.e. the airline - that money is paid to them direct by the insurers company and does not get transferred via the airline or any other third party - this is 'First loss payee'

However where GTT is incorrect is that should for any reason the insurance not pay out because of violation of rules etc. etc. the insurers do not pay out to the 'First loss payee' either - a 'Hold harmless' clause can be a huge number of things but does not relate to this situation and in fact means that someone will protect someone else from being held liable 'held harmless' and the lessor/financier will require that the airline have a 'hold harmless' clause in the contract negating/protecting the former from any liability or action due to the use of their asset by the said airline - nothing to do with insurance payouts - if the insurance doesnt pay out no one gets paid and the lessor/financier will come after the airline for the money, plain and simple

In addition to that of course any leasing or finance agreement makes the airline 100% liable for the asset to the airline and if for example the insurance doesnt pay out, there is a shortfall or the aircraft just wasn't insured the airline is completely liable/responsible to pay the lessor/financier regardless

Whether an aircraft is leased or owned with the purchase being financed (a loan) by a financial institution is irrelevant - only where an airline has total 100% ownership of the asset (i.e paid in cash or paid off the loan) can they decide not to insure the hull - clearly then and only then it is their choice and their risk as it is solely their property (and i have never known it happen)

Think there appears some confusion there...but is thread creeping...

Hmm insurance is an interesting topic. If I recall correctly my airline used to split its insurance coverage. The hull insurance was kept in house and had its own contingent fund to fully meet its obligations. The labiality part was farmed out due to its potentially high payouts and was usually spread out among a multitude of insurance underwriters as no one insurance company would assume the risk alone. I understand this basket approach to insurance labiality is how all the majors do it.

That's right. One airline I worked for carried contingency insurance for some of the situations mentioned above.

I am fairly sure that an airline would not be permitted (by the CAA in the UK) to operate an aircraft without the hull being insured... they absolutely would not be able to operate without liability insurance for passengers, employees, and third parties (which costs more in any case).

As Boss Raptor says, there is no automatic payout by an insurance company to an aircraft lessor in the event of a hull loss. If the insurance company had a case for negligence or wilful damage by the airline (or its employees), they won't pay, and it will be up to the leasing company to sue the airline (which is what I was trying to say above).

The Silkair and Concorde crashes are good examples of what the insurance companies get up to when there is a whiff of culpability on the part of the airline...