Away for a day and it's gone
 

What happened to the Ryanair thread regarding Cat 3 ops at stansted?

Must have hit a nerve somewhere.

the iaa wanted it removed as it coulnt take all the pressure from the caa over it....
in hindsight I apolologised in jest to the lawyers for the post...why the frig should? if what is alleged what happened actually happened heads will have to roll somewhere.

:} :E Well said.

For the time being the thread in question has been removed at the request of Ryanair's lawyers due, according to Ryanair, false and inaccurate allegations which include "That on 24th April 2006 Ryanair crews were accepting approaches and landing at stn in RVRs of 200 metres at night with no centerline and no touchdown zone lights working." and "That Ryanair aircraft crews made CATIII and/or CATII approaches and landings at Stansted in RVR's below the minimum RVR".

Whilst the IAA are undertaking an investigation into these allegations and the fact that there were suggestions in the thread to the effect that Ryanair management places undue pressure on its pilots and that passenger safety is compromised because of this, they are confident that such statements are false and highly damaging to Ryanair. I have removed the thread until such time, as and when, any evidence to back up the allegations is received.

Some posters, the grim repa in particular, according to the lawyers, use this website as a vehicle to make malicious, damaging and defamatory statements about Ryanair. Whilst I and the other mods do our best to keep an eye on what is posted, individual posters must take responsibility to make sure that what they post is factual and not deliberately manufactured for the purpose of defaming or damaging anyone or any company. If anything is posted that is deliberately or obviously false then we take measures to remove it immediately. At other times, the content may not be obviously, deliberately false and until it is brought to our attention that it is so, it may remain and be discussed. There can be no one that hasn't noticed the 10 year old statement that appears at the bottom of every page on PPRuNe that states: As these are anonymous forums the origins of the contributions may be opposite to what may be apparent. In fact the press may use it, or the unscrupulous, to elicit certain reactions.. With that in mind, we have always respected objections where there was any doubt about the validity of allegations made on here.

Ryanair has a record of going to court over anything that they feel is claimed to be unfair criticism and one thing that they rightly are very sensitive to is allegations that Ryanair is an airline that does not operate to the highest safety standards. As they have very deep pockets, not many people can afford to dispute them when any allegations do arise, including myself here at PPRuNe, but it would appear that many people think PPRuNe is the only platform where they can at least raise their allegations. Well, that is not the case and if they are so sure of their convictiuons they should use the regulated channels that are available to them. One thing we try to make sure of here on PPRuNe is that any allegations are not just malicious muck raking by interested competitors or disgruntled employees of Ryanair.

In relation to the original thread, no one has disagreed with the point that the night time fall back to 550 meters visibility due to no centerline lighting being available was in place. There has been no hint that the options to change the work in progress limitations had been used that night.

Additional recorders should have been switched on at any point RVR's were being issued and extra logging requirements for the SRG should have been initiated. However, there are wrinkles in the law where, due to timing of calls from ATC, a 'look-see' can be taken as long as the reported RVR is above the company and JAR minimum before reaching the outer marker or equivalent approach ban point. As long as the reported RVR was above the minimum for the type of approach being made and the landing runway and airport facilities available when the aircraft reached the outer marker or equivalent point, a landing could be made at the commanders discretion if, in his or her opinion the perceived actual visibility was better than the reported visibility during periods of declared low vis operations. The extra recording and logging comes into play in any subsequent enquiry for the LVP periods.

On the night in question, the overwhelming proportion of flights diverting suggests that LVP's were not only in operation but that arriving pilots were fully aware that the centre line lighting issue simply made it not worthwhile hanging around hopefully waiting for the vis to improve significantly. In light of that, the allegations made on here about breaches of the regulations were valid and the IAA must agree as it has decided that it is worth investigating. Should there be no evidence to support the claims that safety regulations as they relate to operation of aircraft in low visibility operations were breached then we are prepared publish the fact and give equal time to restate that Ryanair only operate their aircraft to the highest safety standards and regulations.

Boo moderators, boo! Or should I say, ****, ar5e............drink!:8

Posts such as that posted by Fish Out of Water "Boo moderators, boo! Or should I say, ****, ar5e............drink" are not only stupid and childish, but undermine the integrity of PPRuNe and, as anyone with a modicum of intelligence can deduce, the very carfully-written post made by Danny immediately above.

The incidents in question should be easily proven/disproven by reference to records made by the airport on the date in question. It is therefore entirely reasonable that the thread was removed whilst the IAA makes its investigations.

However, the activity of Ryanair's lawyers would seem to do little to improve the perception many might have of the airline, it has to be said. A simple "We are co-operating fully with the IAA's investigations and will, of course, take any appropriate action should it prove necessary once those investigations are complete" from Ryanair would surely have been a more reasonable way of defusing the situation?

Incidentally, the thread provoked a very interesting professional discussion amongst professional pilots at an aerodrome I visited last week. We were not discussing any specific airline as such, more the knock-on problems caused by schedule disruption whenever an airport (the one we were discussing was FRA) cannot maintain its everyday movement rate (particularly when the airport is a major hub for the operator) - and whether such commercial problems were a factor which might increasingly influence the Commanders' decisions, now that there is so little margin in the way airline rostering and scheduling is run right to the limit in European short haul operations.

Kudos to Danny for taking the proper course of action due to the circumstance.

PPRUNE must live to allow open discussion amongst those interested in aviation.

Waiting for all records and a proper investigation to happen will allow a bit of truth to come out. Once the truth is out I am sure we will be able to comment on it .

If the truth says things were legal and safe, fine!

If the truth says otherwise, ppruners' will be able to say so.


RVR readings will be checked and published eventually as will times of landing/approach clearance and the like.

the truth shall set you free.


just wondering how many airports there are in England with CAT3c mins (seperate question please)


jon

I have no problem with the moderators action. However just to remove it hoping that no one will notice is not acceptable.

Perhaps the thread should remain with all the posts removed and just a single post remaining (from the moderators) explaining their action.

Plenty of options to choose from.
 

JonDC9, I can think of 5 airfields off the top of my head within 100nm radius of STN that are CAT III capable.

Regarding the wider topic, I think all the facts will be put in the public domain sooner or later. This sort of thing can't be hushed up completely.

Danny,

Well said re the FR thread.

Suggestion - links somewhere to the Totalise vs. Motley Fool case reports so that posters can be reminded of their responsibilities.

Well said Danny...a nice clear explanation.

I don't know about anyone else but..
Last time I looked we lived in a country with freedom of speech (unless you upset emperor Bliar)..so it seems a little off-hand that those with more money than others can effectively buy silence with threatened expensive legal action.

I do not agree with the removal.
 

Sorry but I do have a problem with the removal of the thread (the thread itself being immaterial to me). I think when you go through the posts on pprune, almost nothing meets up to any journalistic standard. And any news outlet quoting from pprune better do a lot more digging than just quoting directly from the forums. If on the other hand the press uses it as a jumping off point in their own research all the better. My view of pprune, is of people, venting, expressing an opinion, or relaying something they feel is noteworthy. I am far removed from the UK scene, couldn’t care the least of what happens at Ryanair, Easyjet or BA for that matter. But I do follow our industry enough to realize that Ryanair is using unusual business practices that might not stand the light of day. This pprune episode is just another worrying element in their way of doing things.
If the influence of Ryanair (or its leader) extends as far as being able to convince Danny and his people to pull things off their website, I believe we are moving down a very slippery slope. The pprune folks better realize that if they want to built their business, and retain their relevance to us, these sort of things shouldn’t be happening. Pprune is used by people in, or interested in the business of aviation. Pprune does not broadcast over the “public” airwaves. You don’t just happen to come upon pprune, you search it out. If we start holding all posts to a higher (say, journalistic) standard not much will be left on the forum.
As a matter of fact, there have been things posted about my airline that were at the least badly informed and at most liable. I respond when I feel I can bring relevance to the discussion, or ignore it if I can’t. But it would never enter my mind to bring it to the attention of my company’s executives and have them take action. It is an anonymous forum for crying out loud.
If the UK is not the place it once was for freedom of expression, it might be time to pull the website host from there, and incorporate it in a place where those values are still honoured. In other words use the Ryanair model. Most of their business is on the UK, but they incorporated in Ireland, because they are more receptive to their “concerns”.
It is a sad day to me, that pprune has been compromised. I would have gladly contributed to a defence funds to fight this nonsense.
I hope I have made my point.
Greetings O.

Oh for gawd's sake -

haughtney - you live in a capitalist society!! The guys with big bucks tend to win!

IMHO Danny was quite right to tug the thread -- I'm amazed it lasted as long as it did. He's provided you with an eloquent post to explain why he pulled it. He needn't have done. He's the boss. What he says goes.

I have no axe to grind with FR. I've only flown them once, they were fine. I've seen loads of posts criticising them and am sure that many have substance. So what?

As someone who has been on a course about libel laws (I write reports for my house) there was stuff appearing on that thread which overstepped the line and -- deep pockets or not, bullies or not -- I'm not surprised that the men in wigs stepped in.

The original title of the post was a legal no-no. I reported it to the mods and it was changed.

Whatever happened on this foggy night is being investigated. Maybe I'm being naive, but I don't think this is being going to be swept under the carpet.

Edited to add I've just seen Otterman's bizarre rant. Matey, if you don't like it, set up your own Web site with your own money. Allow any anonymous poster to have what could be libellous pops at a commercial organisation.

You'd last a couple of days at best.

It's not journalistic standards it's LEGAL standards!!

Cheers.

Otterman - - it is not 'compromised'. It is simply that a legal objection has been raised to posts that have no supportive fact. Put yourself on the receiving end of such. How would you feel?

Now, if hard evidence can be located/provided eg insufficient RVRs against times, landing times etc, I would expect the legal threat to be withdrawn, and as Danny has said Please also read the preceding post by 'angels'.

Very true...Im not disputing that..which is why we are SUPPOSED to have a fair and balanced legal system (I know money talks..but bulls**t outta be able to walk)

With respect BOAC
I disagree..this is a rumour sight, it IS compromised, effectively PPrune (Danny etc) is being gagged and censored by those who have more resources..(read his post again he says as much) hardly a state of impartiality. This is the whole essence of this sight, a place where one can air thoughts, opinion, rumour etc.. without this freedom whats the point?
I'm sure Ryanairs' lawyers would argue that ANY negative speculation/rumour is defamitory...again more censorship by chequebook.

haughtney - I'm knackered mate, but you don't really get it. Just because the word rumour is in the site name doesn't mean you can present rumour as fact.

That is what the original post did.

And you can also get hit with a libel suit for spreading rumours, so beware!

I agree with Haugtney, there has been a compromise of PPRUNE, but given the size of the readership of this site and the important role it now plays as a global relayer of news and opinion within the industry - whether said opinion is bullsh*t or not - it is hardly suprising that things like this should happen. The last major FR thread regarding the lads who landed at somewhere other than Derry was directly quoted by the BBC on national news. They even went as far as to show a computer screen with a post on it that they directly quoted, and I would add it was quoted out of context and its meaning was twisted to fit the angle the report was coming from.

I don't see what option Danny had. He explained it carefully enough. As someone else said, this issue isn't likely to be swept under the carpet. A site such as pprune, for the aforementioned reasons, makes any such event by any operator instant industry wide news, difficult to sweep away quietly, and the depth and diversity of readership here means that news travels fast - certainly fast enough to make legal gagging an unwanted fixture now. I guess pprune has become a victim of its own success.

As a suggestion, another forum I frequent has an area where Mods only can post telling all users when someone has been banned, for how long for etc perhaps brief reasons (i. e. complete idiot etc). Also all threads that are removed will also state why, unless of course the original poster removed it, in which case it disappears into thin air. This is at the top of the forum listing page, so for Pprune above rumours and news, and would also allow mods to post warnings, depletion of services (no notam action available:E ) etc.

Just a thought to save confusion

TS

The real worry here is that Ryanair have seen fit to issue a veiled threat to Danny and pprune. As has been said much has been said about other airlines. If Ryanair are worried about such threads on pprune then they clearly have got concerns about the legal implications of what happened on that foggy night. :hmm:

Just a quick note to Otterman
 

No comment on the material points raised in this thread, but:

Otterman is fooling himself if he thinks that the Common Law (and the rest of the British legal system) affords too much protection to freedom of expression.

Unlike our septic friends across the water, there's no constitutional right to freedom of speech in English law. Hence the English laws on libel and slander (defamation to those of us from Down Under) are fairly strict!

Once the moderators of a thread on a recognised website have received a legal complaint, there isn't much they can do but remove any material which may contain a defamatory imputation or else the publishers of the material (which inlcude the owners of the site) become liable for any such defamatory comment.

However, don't disagree that a statement that a thread has been removed as a result of a legal objection (similar to a retraction in a published newspaper) would be appropriate in such a situation.

Cheers

KP

woodpecker
 

An excellent idea woodpecker, hope the mods approve.

:ok:

From my philosophical point of view:
I think the thread should not have been removed. If the lawyers of Ryanair disagree, they are free to post their view on this board. This board is about discussion and opinion. There's i.m.o. a clear disclaimer below each page, this BB is clearly not resposible for the contents of what is posted.

Then again I am unfamiliar with British/Irish law. Maybe it would have been sufficient to remove the name Ryanair from the discussion regarding libel and slander?

From my practical point of view:
I personally don't care too much what happens with Ryanair, and wouldn't be interested in taking any hits from this. This could ofcourse work as a precedent for future disputes.

Unfortunately, that's not the case. If PPRuNe allows defamatory material to remain, it could get sued. And that could be the end of PPRuNe.

There's no such thing as complete freedom of speech, and we would do well to remember it. Danny's long post leaves up and visible everything one needs to know about the incident for the time being.

I am sure you are correct in what you say, but since Ryanair has the possibility to post their own story, I'd expect this BB itself not to be guilty of libel/defamation since it is assisting both sides in expressing opinions.

Yes, the problem is it's the legal point of view that counts and Danny has little practical choice.

As they say, "Trust me, I'm (on this one) a professional" :)
(No, no, not a lawyer, I run a largely web-centred computing and hosting company!)

Cheers,

Rich.

(IMHO) no need to discuss further. Danny has done the sensible thing and the original intention (as I hopefully understand it) has been achieved in that the appropriate authorities are looking at the allegations.

As Danny has said, the outcome will become known - either way - on the BBS. If allegations untrue, then, quite rightly, a post will be made to that effect. If allegations true, then I guess we'll all have a field day.

Personally, I hope it will turn out to be a storm in a teacup, with "European Aviation" coming out "smelling of roses", if not then we will all (by implication) suffer - not just the airline concerned.

I can't believe how naive some of you are being. You cannot post unsubstantiated allegations on the internet and imagine that because the section is called 'Rumours and News' you can say what you like. Libel laws are getting increasingly restrictive, and it will be Pprune as well as the individual poster who carries the can. And if you think you are 'anonymous', then think again, you can be traced, and I know just someone who is likely to set the lawyers onto you! I am frequently astonished at the allegations some people make on this board, and believe a few examples will be made of them soon, and rightly so. Because Pprune would also carry the can, it is only right the owner of the board has the option of censoring. As said, if you don't like it, go elsewhere.....and take your legal complications with you!

There was a recent case of a person being "Slated" on a "Chat Room" taking the "Slater" to Court........AND WINNING.
Rock on Danny :ok:
watp,iktch

Whilst I can see that there is no dount that under the threat of legal action the thread had to be pulled, I have a couple of comments:

If these alleged incidents are proven to be false it certainly does not prove that FR "operate their aircraft to the highest safety standards and regulations", this would apply to any airline. So, Danny, apart from the fact that this is your train set, I do not comprehend why you have made this undertaking?

I think that everybody should perhaps ask themsleves why there are so many of these sorts of allegations made about one particular airline.

exSimGuy

[quote](IMHO) no need to discuss further.[/quote]

Quite the opposite, this most definitely needs to be discussed. Whether censorship is justified or not it must not go unchallenged, lest we should end up in a Totalitarian state, (or maybe even a Theocracy!)

[QUOTE=fmgc]exSimGuy

It's a very common mistake that free speech in a forum means just that. It doesn't. Period. Nothing to do with dictatorship.

Two things to be considered.

First of all, all of us here are guests in this forum, as in any other. The owner of any forum has evey right to remove posts he deems damaging or just not compliant with his policies.

Secondly, any forum owner can and will be held responsible by anyone who feels his rights have been violated by posts in a forum. Therefore, removal of such threads pending investigations is necessary to protect the owner and with him the forum as a whole.

I think Danny has said it clearly and in a very eloquent post. So let's wait and see.

OK, lets not discuss it then!!!:confused: :confused:

Who gives you, ExSimGuy or anybody else for that matter the right to say "no need to discuss further"?

Anyway, AN2, I think that I need to reassert that I fully support Danny's decision lest your post should cause other less fastidious readers such as yourself in misrepresenting what I have said.

Actually, it sounded like an OPEN and DIRECT threat. :=

If you think that anyone wants to be sued for libel, then it means that they work for Private Eye (a satirical magazine, published in the UK) and anyone who wants to keep their hobby and not allow a court judgement to infect the rest of their life, will follow the law of the land.

From a Professional Philosophical point of view,
there is a distinction between statements of opinion and statements of fact. Statements of opinion propose (but, unlike arguments, do not seek to demonstrate) interpretations for facts. For example, an opinion would be, "I like the colour green". (A demonstration would be: when shown photographs of 40 pretty women, each with her eyes colored blue, green and brown, the synapses in the section of my brain associated with pleasure were 200% more active when presented with green eyes. Therefore I like the color green).
A statement of fact makes a claim about external reality. "Yesterday, there was a sea battle".

As pointed out earlier, allegations of fact also have legal significance. This is particularly true in a board like this one which is purportedly by and for professionals, yet anonymous and available to all (Welcome to one of the problems of the internet).

So take safety. A favorite jab against low-cost carriers is that they skimp on safety: or rather, management pressure on cost-savings initiatives often induces other parts of the company to take measures that are detrimental to safety. Is it justified? Sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't.
Making matters worse, there are conspiracy nuts and company axegrinders who routinely post negative material against particular companies, airports, and agencies.

But while this may be a "bull session" for pilots, it is, at least till now, a forum open to all, and occasionally cited explicitly in the press. People are reading these discussions and formulating opinions about who to fly with. Most of the time, you can assume that readers are critical: they know unsubstantiated BS and bitter employees when they see them. But if they get facts -- well, that's watercooler material tomorrow. And for Low Cost Carriers, since Valujet, if not long before, the public has been fed the suspicion that low prices=substandard safety. The most dangerous lies are the lies that support commonly-held beliefs; and, incidentally, the verisimilar is the biggest enemy of the truth.
So any statement claiming a factual incident where a given flight from a given airline busts safety regulations on a given day is going to attract attention. And you can bitch about Ryanair's counter-allegations all you want, but while there's an investigation in process that will determine the facts -- in a legal sense at least -- there's no reason to make statements of fact about the situation without indicating sources.

I still think it stinks that pikeyair threatens legal action......and PPrune has to remove posts...censorship any way you slice it IMHO

I think most of you are completelty missing the point which is without the original post starting the removed thread, there would be no IAA investigation.

Until these matters are brought out into the open, there is no possibility of an investigation. Pprune performs this function flawlessy. Don't believe me? Try making an allegation to any regulator of anything and see how far you get!

You will be fobbed off by a combination of "where's your evidence?", "this is an unfounded allegation", "You are not competent to make such an allegation". Furthermore, if your allegation has some truth in it, and you can be identified by the likes of a Ryanair, there is every chance of getting sued.

One final point. If there is found to be any truth in the allegations (which I am not competent to comment on anyway), it won't leave a mark on Ryanair because no matter what the company culture, it is the Pilot's decision and Ryanair will simply hang those concerned out to dry. This is the nature of the insidious "double bind" problem that can affect people's judgement.

as usual in these kerfuffles, it's Danny's trainset. Don't like it? Airliners.net awaits.

Anyone want to talk about why this seems to be so complicated, this so called investigation:eek: , so the IAA reads PPRuNe and starts an investigation, I had been under the impression that ATC could not deny a landing clearance but in the case of an aircraft landing below published minimums it was automatically reported. :confused:

[quote=Otterman]Sorry but I do have a problem with the removal of the thread (the thread itself being immaterial to me). I think when you go through the posts on pprune, almost nothing meets up to any journalistic standard.

Sorry don't understand what you mean by this Otterman, I though the terms 'journalist' and 'standard' should never appear in the same sentence.