Fr FTL
 

IAA has given Fr the right to roster crews more than 900 hours in ANY 12 cosecutive months by use of the calendar year method.

Jesuitical or what?

Trip Switch, the reason it is so hard to get your head around this is because it a bit like Alice in Wonderland where "normality" becomes the abnormal. What it means is that the airline can introduce a roster change when you are in flight and announce it to you on arrival. Such a change is designated mandatory based on a phrase in the pilot's working agreement which has been so interpreted by Ryanair. Thus it becomes a disciplinary offence not to accept a new duty (typically, two extra sectors on top of the previously flown four sectors).

As for your question: The short answer is that there is no IAA equivalent. There are FTLs and broad "guidelines". Each operator submits to the IAA a scheme for approval. However, no mechanism for querying differences between the guidelines and actual practices exists. This makes for a sea of uncertainty in which Ryanair can swim with its customary finesse.

The whole philosphy of a proper FTL is that a roster is produced in a timely fashion in order to allow a pilot to plan their life so as to manage their rest periods, etc. Obviously when a roster can be retrospectively changed in an environment where pilots fly up to 100 hours per month, this is all a bit academic.

This is really about Ryanair doing what it wants to do simply because it wants to do it - and also because it will strenuously resist anyone who sees the world differently. So far their strategy has worked.

Heard a "rumour" that the Capt concerned was moving a bit further"East" in the not too distant future.Sounds like a little bit of sour grapes from the "harpies"?(in addition to the previously stated absolute need for absolute control,that we all know & love).

Well we all know that RYR management will claim black is white until the argument conclusion falls to them in their favour. I've experienced it too, in the end, you just laugh at them and walk away. As for an aircraft incident, nobody in management should walk away from it.

The famous RYR carpet must be bulging by now :confused:

If I may make so bold ...
This is really about Ryanair doing what it wants to do simply because it wants to make more money but (almost as important) they want to show the Brits that a bunch of Paddys (MoL always uses that term) can beat them. It really is that simple.

THE IAA!!

They do as FR tells them.

They change flight time/duty limits at an operators whim.

Not called the downtowm office for nothing.


They are to aviation as Panama is to shipping - a flag of convenience. Nothing more. nothing less.

Not surprising really.

Appeal against RYR's demotion failed.Interesting times ahead.Batten down the hatches.

http://www.iaa.ie/corp_fin/about.asp

interesting mission statement.
let's see how the iaa and the lunatic in charge of ryanair work this one out.maybe lillian cassin can post another letter to flight international,to explain.

No smoke without fire.......
 

Having read with interest and some trepidation - the catalogue of problems facing RYR flight crews. Two things seem clear.

1) There are a lot of demotivated and unhappy pilots working for this airline.

2) The MD appears to have a very clear idea about where his flight crews and a/c fit into the overall operation of making a profit.

Therefore it is vitally important that the IAA/IALPA determine the actual state of affairs at RYR - and sort this problem out quickly and satisfactorily.

Rest assured that if they don't, there are likely to be investigative journalists who will!

A Sunday reflection.
 

Uninformed, misguided point number one. Ignoring the customary aphorism that pilots, like sailors, are never really happy unless they're complaining about something, the numbers of card carrying members off the seriously pissed-off club number around 3% of our pilot corps, currently around the 1000 mark. Hardly an avalanche of discontent, is it.
Ya think?

And now for the really funny stuff. The giggle fest that is, and I thank you, the highlight of a dreary Sunday.
My dear chap, or chapette, there are a few things you're clearly and, one presumes, happily oblivious of. First of all, the IAA are a world class regulator and operate independently of political or commercial influence to the same JAR-OPS standards as are held all contracting states. The IAA regularly examine the Ryanair operation, in Dublin, Stansted, and in fact, all of Ryanair's 15 European bases. Anyone who actually works for Ryanair as I do will know well just how constant they are in their attentions and influence, as even a cursory review of FCI's and Memoranda over recent years will reveal. There is, regrettably, a certain vocal, unsavoury and devious element (hello Evan) which is beside itself in seeking to create a nexus between the entirely unrelated fact of Ryanair's colossal success (€100 million profit per month) and presumed inadequate regulatory oversight.
The IAA are well satisfied with the nature of Ryanair's operation, as are the vast majority of those of us who work here.

Now then, lets wet our beaks in the lower and far more jolly level of your tiny inferno, with apologies to Dante Aligieri. You presume, I deduce, that IALPA is an organisation inclined toward an independent and even handed analysis of an airline company with a view to highlighting unfair work practices and pressing for change to the general benefit and tree-hugging bonhomie for all concerned? IALPA is a turgid, morally corrupt organisation. An entity choking on the sulphur of its own irrelevance. In seeking to reverse this inevitable decline in the face of a dynamic, mature and developed market environment, there is no depth to which they will not sink in attempting to cast Ryanair in a light of malfeasance. Recent months has seen them nearly bankrupt a decent man after their 'strategy' (and I use the word in its loosest sense) proved fruitless. Then they seemed to favour the idea of convincing a group of our longest serving employees to fork out €15000 each for their own type ratings, even though the company offered to pay, and in recent weeks, evidently unhappy with the progress of their muck-spreading in other areas, have twisted themselves in half trying to cast aspersions on our standards of maintenance and even our engineering prowess, both of which, I can assure you, are among the highest on earth.

one question leo, no one seems to be able to tell us why it is that only the IAA will recognise this half arsed 200 to 800 course FR seem to be happy to charge a wedge of cash for.

the rest of your thesaurus trawl deserves no retort.

Oh poor Leo. Just love the "morally corrupt" bit. Pot & Black are the words that would come to mind were I not aware that you only answer to a higher, market driven, morality.

But (and I know I am taking the bait) exacly who is the "nearly bankrupt" individual to whom you refer? This guy is new on me ... ahh.... do I sense some misinformation and "spin" en route?

Your typically cynical and utter dishonest rendition of the decision taken by the Dublin-based 200 pilots sums up the Ryanair approach to a tee.

BTW, I have met a LOT of very unhappy Ryanair pilots. You have not. Interesting difference in perspective, huh?

To quote our friend Leo
Many will remember the period when FR aircraft were flying with severely out of date Jepps. What did the IAA do about that ??

Leo never fails us...
 

Leo it is quite something to see that when the actual topic at hand does not suit your skewed view of the "real" world, your lineaments that we are well used to at this stage come to the fore. Rather than address the issue of fatigue and how it has been dealt with in this operator you decide to go and attack IALPA and IALPA's president. How does this help the debate except if only to demonstrate that you are a one-trick pony, unable to coherently comment on anything else save that which quite obviously gets on your nerves?

Anyway back to the subject. The IAA audit all the carriers, that is true. The IAA has no equivalent of CAP371, as has been stated previously, each operator submits a scheme suited to their type of operation ( :hmm: ) and this is approved by the operator.

The fatigue case in question poses an interesting issue. Say another pilot in the same position elects to operate the extra sector, and an incident/accident occurs. The report eventually cites that fatigue may have been / was a factor.

Who gets hung out to dry? The pilot, as it is their own responsibility to not operate while fatigued! The operator gets off scott free saying the pilot did not have to accept the duty if he thought he would be fatigued!

Here is the nub of the issue: the IAA have no real intent to regulate the operators, just the individual licence holders. And in the meantime, the FR management are allowed to send out a message to their pilots about how they view fatigue.

Remember Leo, as you fly the line, phone at the ready to run and save the operation, you will always end up responsible.

Yes, and unlike your boy, its a responsibility I fully accept. There are no rights without responsibilities, are there, but as in so much else of your fatuous waffle, Minute Man, you window dress the facts in an attempt to create the illusion of evil where none exists. Your boy had already resigned, off to sunnier and sandier climes, and quite simply, couldn't be bothered flying another two sectors coz it clashed with his social plans. Fatigue my arse!

Tell the truth, ya devious old curmudgeon!

And is that the reason why you accept FR's reaction to this guy's decision?!
Nice.........

So without any fatigue studies at all you endorse the IAA's view of allowing guys to fly more than 900hrs/12 months and starting from scratch april onwards every year?

Leo the more of your posts I read the more I am reminded of Colonel Nicholson in The Bridge on the river Kwai.

An able obsessive man, his determination to look for a victory in the most unlikely scenario led to his complete loss of perspective and ultimately his own madness.

I sincerely hope you don't find yourself saying " What have I done? " as he did.

"fatuous waffle" and the words: pot, kettle and black once again automatically spring to mind. Irony indeed.

Perhaps LHC should look 'irony' up in the thesaurus he has clearly swallowed before regurgitating his earlier contribution.

It had the usual affect of making me fall asleep half way through. Interesting tactic though as, like listening to one of Tony Blair's desperate cohorts, you have to reach for the off button before you can take anymore of the spin/lies/invention/utter crap.

Some people just choose to ignore the WHOOP WHOOP, PULL UP's. Sometimes they get away with it.

LHC.

A simple question/s. I know you have refused to answer other direct simple questions in the past. No harm in trying again, though, and with a different slant.

I do not want to drag this into a RYR bash. That is unnecessary to those of us who have read these threads, or have insider knowledge; we know the truth; and like most politicians, the more they deny something the more guaranteed it is to be true. Think about that when you want to waffle on some more.

?

There is no such thing as a perfect job. Everything can be improved in some way. It could be T's & C's, operational standards etc......

Where do see see room for improvement in Ryaniar, and what would you like to see changed?