Ryanair Sacks Captain Goss
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: here and there
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chapeau Capt. Goss
Dear Capt. Goss,
if you don't already have another job, I would certainly like to offer you one if I where in the position.
But I sure can help you getting an interview where I am at present. We need more guys that have some b@lls left.
Some might say that going public is like biting the hand that feeds you - on the other hand if there's no one that listens to your safety concerns (beancounters ignorance and greed), no union, no CP (although he probably knew before or even is one of the reason these things are happening) you're running out of options.
You don't like it ? Leave! Todays' common practice - but you'll see that things are changing later on and your remaining collegues will thank you - although nobody will ever tell you because they might be fired too than.
I spoke up and lost jobs and would certainly do it again.
One more reason not to use this company (the list is getting longer).
Feel free to PM me anytime.
if you don't already have another job, I would certainly like to offer you one if I where in the position.
But I sure can help you getting an interview where I am at present. We need more guys that have some b@lls left.
Some might say that going public is like biting the hand that feeds you - on the other hand if there's no one that listens to your safety concerns (beancounters ignorance and greed), no union, no CP (although he probably knew before or even is one of the reason these things are happening) you're running out of options.
You don't like it ? Leave! Todays' common practice - but you'll see that things are changing later on and your remaining collegues will thank you - although nobody will ever tell you because they might be fired too than.
I spoke up and lost jobs and would certainly do it again.
One more reason not to use this company (the list is getting longer).
Feel free to PM me anytime.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Monrovia / Liberia
Age: 63
Posts: 757
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If UK based, this sounds like a perfect opportunity to go to Court and become a test case for article 43J of the Employment Rights Act 1996
And which one can listen to being described here: BBC Radio 4 - Law in Action: Whistleblowing; Forgotten children; Legal future of Wales [nb. the Whistleblowing section starts at time 3:16 ]
See also: Whistleblowing: a quick guide
And which one can listen to being described here: BBC Radio 4 - Law in Action: Whistleblowing; Forgotten children; Legal future of Wales [nb. the Whistleblowing section starts at time 3:16 ]
See also: Whistleblowing: a quick guide
Last edited by Old King Coal; 17th Aug 2013 at 14:16.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As above - completely agree. It's ridiculous to think an operation is either 'safe' or 'unsafe'. It's a scale and while a particular airline may appear to meet the regulatory minima that is a very long way from having a genuine and open safety culture. Mind you, it's great to hear people who haven't experienced working for Ryanair pontificating about what it must be like.
Lots of companies use fuel 'league' tables so crew members can see where they rank amongst their peers regarding fuel.
There is no justifiable reason to run a "fuel league" and promote safety. It is by its very nature a competitive set. It's an intrinsically unsafe practice. A company has every right to monitor its fuel usage. A company has every right to train and practice fuel conservation procedures such as single engine taxi. However, using a fuel league identifies, ranks and scores individuals. It introduces subtle competition in an environment that is inappropriate. Depending on the management culture, it leaves individual pilots open to overt or covert discipline or reward.
the pilot group are attempting to play the 'unsafe' card in order that the pressure the public may exert on the airline by not flying with them may make the management change their style and T&Cs is wrong, that is an in-house issue and should be done internally.
This is a slippery slope. The warning signs are there. Hopefully hindsight won't be needed.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: ireland
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EU Ops legal requirements /Fuel Planning
European Union Regulation
"COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 965/2012 of 5 October 2012 lays down technical requirements and administrative procedures related to air operations pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
The regulation contains fuel regulations an example of which is:
"CAT.OP.MPA.150 Fuel policy The operator shall establish a fuel policy for the purpose of flight planning and in-flight replanning to ensure that every flight carries sufficient fuel for the planned operation and reserves to cover deviations from the planned operation. The fuel policy and any change to it require prior approval by the competent authority"
This is a mature process ,which is not about minimum compliance,if planned and approved according to ICAO Fuel Planning Manual Doc 9976.
"COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 965/2012 of 5 October 2012 lays down technical requirements and administrative procedures related to air operations pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
The regulation contains fuel regulations an example of which is:
"CAT.OP.MPA.150 Fuel policy The operator shall establish a fuel policy for the purpose of flight planning and in-flight replanning to ensure that every flight carries sufficient fuel for the planned operation and reserves to cover deviations from the planned operation. The fuel policy and any change to it require prior approval by the competent authority"
This is a mature process ,which is not about minimum compliance,if planned and approved according to ICAO Fuel Planning Manual Doc 9976.
Last edited by Fogie; 17th Aug 2013 at 20:32.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JPJP, Adolf and Looking...please explain to me the validity of the argument made by the group that the operation is unsafe, yet they all turn up for work each day and knowingly embark upon alleged 'unsafe' practices therefore putting their own lives and that of the publics at risk?
Can't have it both ways, it's either unsafe and you refuse to fly or it's safe and you fly.
Can you imagine if one of the planes that diverted fell out the sky due to no fuel, who's fault would that be, the management's or the PIC's...I reckon i know who the accident investigation board would apportion most of the blame to.
Can't have it both ways, it's either unsafe and you refuse to fly or it's safe and you fly.
Can you imagine if one of the planes that diverted fell out the sky due to no fuel, who's fault would that be, the management's or the PIC's...I reckon i know who the accident investigation board would apportion most of the blame to.
By South coast -...please explain to me the validity of the argument made by the group that the operation is unsafe, yet they all turn up for work each day and knowingly embark upon alleged 'unsafe' practices therefore putting their own lives and that of the publics at risk?
Can't have it both ways, it's either unsafe and you refuse to fly or it's safe and you fly.
Can you imagine if one of the planes that diverted fell out the sky due to no fuel, who's fault would that be, the management's or the PIC's...I reckon i know who the accident investigation board would apportion most of the blame to.
Can't have it both ways, it's either unsafe and you refuse to fly or it's safe and you fly.
Can you imagine if one of the planes that diverted fell out the sky due to no fuel, who's fault would that be, the management's or the PIC's...I reckon i know who the accident investigation board would apportion most of the blame to.
In essence, your questions have been reduced to - 'why would they do it if it was unsafe'. Followed by - 'the pilots will be blamed if people die, so why would they do it ?'. I also notice that you addressed none of the relevant points that I made in an earlier post.
Unfortunately this leads me to believe one of two things;
1. You have no experience, training or belief in cultural safety systems, human factors and management.
2. You are being deliberately obtuse in order to further a perception that your argument does indeed support safe airline operations. Sadly, the converse has been written in blood. Repeatedly. It also indicates that you are either not an airline pilot, or you have something to gain from an attitude of 'all's well nothing to see here'.
Never fear, you're not alone. I'm sure that the same reasoning is being used in the management offices of an un named Indonesian carrier at this very moment.
I think we're done here.
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have two. An American one and a European one. You lack focus. Either the fuel rules are safe or they are not. I would never lift without being 100% happy with my fuel load for diversions, why would that be different for a jet pilot?
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Luton
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do you have a professional licence ?
Sorry folks, actually as a non Ryanair pilot , one struggling for a living,
l find this cr*p offensive.
l hope l haven`t caused offence to the licenced atco`s, engineers, and
pilots watching.
Sorry folks, actually as a non Ryanair pilot , one struggling for a living,
l find this cr*p offensive.
l hope l haven`t caused offence to the licenced atco`s, engineers, and
pilots watching.
Last edited by 10Watt; 18th Aug 2013 at 02:54.
@ South Coast
My implication is that the regs define the minimums and if you assume the regulators have got it right, then risk should be mostly mitigated and the operation will be as safe as the travelling public can expect.
However, often the circumstances dictate that more than minimum fuel should be carried and those circumstances should and need to be determined by the flight deck crew. If there is external pressure to take less, then safety is compromised. This is the thrust of the documentary - and seemed to be it's only and rather laboured point. They had had more, but I suspect this was the only thing the lawyers told them they could run with.
I don't know. Maybe they didn't Perhaps, the culture of taking minimum fuel in RYR clouded their judgement and sensible reserves weren't carried. Or perhaps they did, but the pressure from within the company dissuaded them from doing so. Either way, they took less than was prudently safe, despite being technically legal.
As a pilot in an airline which regularly flies into airports with similar ATC and weather issues as the three Ryanair Madrid crews encountered, I would happily state, that in my humble opinion, they didn't have enough fuel. Personally, I would have taken as a minimum about four times the reserves the highest fuelled aircraft was carrying that night. And my company would never have questioned it, or applied pressure for me to take less. In fact, in more than 10 years with this company, I have never had a fuel decision questioned.
Will this do? (It's from 2008, but it sets the scene.)
Source: raE Low RYANAIR com FARES AtmtimE Pilot Memo Re
Nice post Dan, but that serves only to confirm that the airline is safe and it is down to crew members to take extra fuel if they believe they will need it or if it compromises safety?
However, often the circumstances dictate that more than minimum fuel should be carried and those circumstances should and need to be determined by the flight deck crew. If there is external pressure to take less, then safety is compromised. This is the thrust of the documentary - and seemed to be it's only and rather laboured point. They had had more, but I suspect this was the only thing the lawyers told them they could run with.
Can we assume that those three crews felt the weather at destination didn't warrant extra fuel?
I don't know. Maybe they didn't Perhaps, the culture of taking minimum fuel in RYR clouded their judgement and sensible reserves weren't carried. Or perhaps they did, but the pressure from within the company dissuaded them from doing so. Either way, they took less than was prudently safe, despite being technically legal.
As a pilot in an airline which regularly flies into airports with similar ATC and weather issues as the three Ryanair Madrid crews encountered, I would happily state, that in my humble opinion, they didn't have enough fuel. Personally, I would have taken as a minimum about four times the reserves the highest fuelled aircraft was carrying that night. And my company would never have questioned it, or applied pressure for me to take less. In fact, in more than 10 years with this company, I have never had a fuel decision questioned.
However, show me the facts that management put actual pressure on crew not to take extra fuel or de-ice or crew that have been disciplined for doing so then I will change my mind.
Source: raE Low RYANAIR com FARES AtmtimE Pilot Memo Re
Last edited by Dan Winterland; 18th Aug 2013 at 05:40.