Ryanair Sacks Captain Goss
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks, Dan. Excellent post.
If south coast can't see that there is undue pressure being applied to discourage pilots from taking additional fuel then he is either being deliberately obtuse or has another agenda. The point is that although pilots are similarly qualified, there is a broad range of experience and attitude. Some pilots would take the above memo with a pinch of salt and carry justifiable extra fuel when needed. However, other pilots would be swayed by such a communication from an unforgiving management and would allow their fuel decision to be influenced by the perceived negative consequences (letter from base captain, denial of base transfer, no allocation of hours on a paid by the hour contract etc etc).
One might argue that such a pilot is at fault for lacking the fortitude to make a decision based solely on safety or you might argue that the company is at fault for putting fuel costs before safety. It is hard to argue that safety margins have not been compromised.
If south coast can't see that there is undue pressure being applied to discourage pilots from taking additional fuel then he is either being deliberately obtuse or has another agenda. The point is that although pilots are similarly qualified, there is a broad range of experience and attitude. Some pilots would take the above memo with a pinch of salt and carry justifiable extra fuel when needed. However, other pilots would be swayed by such a communication from an unforgiving management and would allow their fuel decision to be influenced by the perceived negative consequences (letter from base captain, denial of base transfer, no allocation of hours on a paid by the hour contract etc etc).
One might argue that such a pilot is at fault for lacking the fortitude to make a decision based solely on safety or you might argue that the company is at fault for putting fuel costs before safety. It is hard to argue that safety margins have not been compromised.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: England
Posts: 1,955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst I don't necessarily agree with the tone of the 'memo' I see nothing in there that is unreasonable regarding extra fuel. It appears that Ryanair's fuel policy is the same as all three airlines that I've flown for.
If Ryanair are happy for you to carry minimum fuel then do so. If Ryanair are happy to deal with and pay for a multitude of diversions because of that then so be it.
Make sure you divert early, just to be on the safe side.
If Ryanair are happy for you to carry minimum fuel then do so. If Ryanair are happy to deal with and pay for a multitude of diversions because of that then so be it.
Make sure you divert early, just to be on the safe side.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Europa
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for a copy of the memo. From my perspective, the documentary, Captain Goss and the Ryanair pilots who have spoken out are well justified in their concerns- what a gutter standard this fuel policy represents.
Does anyone know the name of the author? I see he didn't put his name to it!
Does anyone know the name of the author? I see he didn't put his name to it!
Last edited by Globalstream; 18th Aug 2013 at 16:21.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: North of Watford
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi All,
I worked for Ryanair a few years ago before decamping to sunnier climes and the major reason was that I could see the writing on the wall then!
There has been a culture at Ryanair for many years of eroding the Commanders authority, with he or she quite clearly being required to have the burden of responsibility.
The SOP's are a good example! Yes extremely thorough, but unnecessarily onerous when compared to standard boeing. The companies attitude was that theirs were better, that is fine but is it wise to bin years of research that companies like boeing have done to provide a safe baseline for the operation of their aircraft.
The cynic in me would suggest that as Ryanair as an airline DO EXPECT A HULL LOSS AT SOME TIME procedures and systems should be in place to try and shift the burden of responsibility to a crew. What better way as saying they didnt adhere religiously to our SOP's and therefore while unfortunate, not our blame to shoulder.
Ryanair is a really unpleasant place to work, the quite unnecessary stress put on crews as a means of control, harking back to victorian mill owner values.
Hopefully within a few months the authorities will be minded to take a really close look at this airline before something dire befalls customer and crew alike
I worked for Ryanair a few years ago before decamping to sunnier climes and the major reason was that I could see the writing on the wall then!
There has been a culture at Ryanair for many years of eroding the Commanders authority, with he or she quite clearly being required to have the burden of responsibility.
The SOP's are a good example! Yes extremely thorough, but unnecessarily onerous when compared to standard boeing. The companies attitude was that theirs were better, that is fine but is it wise to bin years of research that companies like boeing have done to provide a safe baseline for the operation of their aircraft.
The cynic in me would suggest that as Ryanair as an airline DO EXPECT A HULL LOSS AT SOME TIME procedures and systems should be in place to try and shift the burden of responsibility to a crew. What better way as saying they didnt adhere religiously to our SOP's and therefore while unfortunate, not our blame to shoulder.
Ryanair is a really unpleasant place to work, the quite unnecessary stress put on crews as a means of control, harking back to victorian mill owner values.
Hopefully within a few months the authorities will be minded to take a really close look at this airline before something dire befalls customer and crew alike
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If south coast can't see that there is undue pressure being applied to discourage pilots from taking additional fuel then he is either being deliberately obtuse or has another agenda
What I have not seen, are facts or evidence of someone being disciplined for carrying extra fuel while offering a reasonable reason for that decision.
All companies try to encourage PICs from taking unnecessary fuel and increasing costs without any real need to.
You could say the way they ask their crew to comply with this is done in an aggressive way, but I think whether it is dressed up in a 'nice and gentle' format or is as blunt as Ryanair, the message is the same, "avoid unnecessary costs".
But show me the paragraph in that memo that says you will be disciplined or your career affected if you take extra fuel.
I have no agenda in defending Ryanair, I don't like the way they operate, but I try to have an opinion based on facts and I am not convinced the airline is unsafe, as that is the claim against them.
I agree, they treat their crew and passengers in an unpleasant way, but is it unsafe or illegal, I think not.
It's like the pax who complain about having to pay €60 or whatever it is if they show at the airport without having checked in on line, it's the same people who book with Ryanair on the basis they want a no frills, cheap flight, but then when do not comply with the legal methods which allow Ryanair to be able to offer cheap tickets, they feel aggrieved.
Reality check please, it's not that Ryanair has embarked upon this management style or operation method recently, all those who have joined knew how they operate and that they will be expected to work to the minimum limits of what is laid out in EU-Ops, if they weren't happy to work to those minimum limits, I question their decision to work for an operator who chooses to operate that way, which is not unsafe or illegal.
Surely the first question one asks them self before joining an operator is, "Are they safe and legal", before the T&Cs are considered, or did that question slip through the net of all Ryanair's employees?
I have every sympathy for the crew, we all like an extra margin of safety, and I think in essence that's what this debate is really about, margins of safety.
Commercial pressure and safety are a see-saw and each company chooses where that see-saw sits with those two factors at each end, too much one way and you are unsafe and will have an accident, too much the other and you will never fly and go bust.
I believe Ryanair are at the limit of that analogy in favour of commercial factors, so while there is no fat for manoeuvre with that scenario, I genuinely do not believe it to be unsafe or illegal.
Finally, JPJP, you seemed pretty quick to belittle my opinion, while I am happy to listen to yours and I respect it, I get the impression you don't like one contrary to your own as you showed little to no respect for mine.
Last edited by south coast; 18th Aug 2013 at 10:58.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Weaslebergville
Age: 72
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see that memo is unsigned and undated. While it makes some valid points it is not written in the spirit of safety, no blame culture, and is very negative in its tone.
It includes numerous reasons why extra fuel shouldn't be carried, and not a single example of when carrying extra was a good decision.
There is a dark grey area between savings and safety.
It includes numerous reasons why extra fuel shouldn't be carried, and not a single example of when carrying extra was a good decision.
There is a dark grey area between savings and safety.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 613
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think Saddest Aviator has ended any argument...
My company discourage carrying too much fuel, as do most I would imagine. But there are NO repercussions or bullying/pressure if you do so... Again, I'm sure most companies are similar.
"I'm paid to feel comfortable" I was told by a skipper many years ago... Is that the case everywhere??
My company discourage carrying too much fuel, as do most I would imagine. But there are NO repercussions or bullying/pressure if you do so... Again, I'm sure most companies are similar.
"I'm paid to feel comfortable" I was told by a skipper many years ago... Is that the case everywhere??
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nicely said BN2A
My employer also asks us to be considerate when uploading fuel, but we are under no pressure to carry minimum fuel, we are asked to offer a reason as to why we take something other than originally planned, which I think is fair because they need to be able to collect data and in order for the analysis and statistics to be accurate, mitigation needs to be be given.
My question remains, what are the actual repercussions backed up with facts for people who carry more fuel than planned at Ryanair when a legitimate reason is given?
Can anyone offer expamples of such disciplining or is it just the perceived fear of what could happen that we are considering to be undue pressure?
My employer also asks us to be considerate when uploading fuel, but we are under no pressure to carry minimum fuel, we are asked to offer a reason as to why we take something other than originally planned, which I think is fair because they need to be able to collect data and in order for the analysis and statistics to be accurate, mitigation needs to be be given.
My question remains, what are the actual repercussions backed up with facts for people who carry more fuel than planned at Ryanair when a legitimate reason is given?
Can anyone offer expamples of such disciplining or is it just the perceived fear of what could happen that we are considering to be undue pressure?
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Somewhat more important is the knowledge how to calculate extra fuel required. In many airlines there seemed to be weak education. I always asked the F/O first what fuel they wanted. Looking at the weather there was the comment that perhaps we needed a little extra and a figure or 300 or 500 or 700kgs was plucked out of the air. No calculation or realisation of what that would allow you to do. There was eye opening when I put some numbers down in a list which included 15 mins hold, 2 approaches, (might be circling) 5 mins to organise a diversion from a non-radar airfield and then divert to an alternate with an NPA and arrive feeling comfortable on fuel. The extra fuel this calculated was quite a bit more than 'a little extra'. The next question from the F/O was "are we allowed to do that?" Heaven help us.
There was also the intercontinental charter airline flying Europe to a Caribbean island with no radar and procedural NPA, who insisted that we carry FPL fuel because the contingency fuel was about 45mins and that was enough extra. I tried to point out that we were flying west, usually a head wind jet up to 150kts which we would try to avoid, but...... with an Atlantic CRZ of 7 hours into this headwind and perhaps optimum -2000'. The contingency would disappear. The Alternate was another similar island. The return crew was at destination and on minimum FTL's to make the return trip. The a/c had to land at destination even if it meant holding for 1 hour to allow the crew make the return flight within FTL's. etc. etc. We never left with less than comfortable sensible fuel. It would depend on the jet, strength & position relative to track, and destination weather. Sometimes it was minimum fuel, often not, but the lack of understanding & courage from the F/O was disturbing. It is very easy to brow-beat brain wash & clone pilots. Is that safe? Another issue in the maze of safety discussions.
There was also the intercontinental charter airline flying Europe to a Caribbean island with no radar and procedural NPA, who insisted that we carry FPL fuel because the contingency fuel was about 45mins and that was enough extra. I tried to point out that we were flying west, usually a head wind jet up to 150kts which we would try to avoid, but...... with an Atlantic CRZ of 7 hours into this headwind and perhaps optimum -2000'. The contingency would disappear. The Alternate was another similar island. The return crew was at destination and on minimum FTL's to make the return trip. The a/c had to land at destination even if it meant holding for 1 hour to allow the crew make the return flight within FTL's. etc. etc. We never left with less than comfortable sensible fuel. It would depend on the jet, strength & position relative to track, and destination weather. Sometimes it was minimum fuel, often not, but the lack of understanding & courage from the F/O was disturbing. It is very easy to brow-beat brain wash & clone pilots. Is that safe? Another issue in the maze of safety discussions.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: south england
Posts: 393
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Our company policy is to ask us to carry the correct fuel.
Can't ask much more than that. We do still annotate the plug for the reason why. I have no issue with this. I carry plog on most occasions. I have also loaded 2 tons extra. I base my decisions on all factors on the day. Taxy, ATC, weather at departure/en-route/destination, NOTAMS etc etc
I realise this may not be common place, but in my company captains are captains.
Can't ask much more than that. We do still annotate the plug for the reason why. I have no issue with this. I carry plog on most occasions. I have also loaded 2 tons extra. I base my decisions on all factors on the day. Taxy, ATC, weather at departure/en-route/destination, NOTAMS etc etc
I realise this may not be common place, but in my company captains are captains.
Southcoast - Finally, JPJP, you seemed pretty quick to belittle my opinion, while I am happy to listen to yours and I respect it, I get the impression you don't like one contrary to your own as you showed little to no respect for mine.
I respect your right to have an opinion. I do not respect your opinion. There's a difference. Apologies if I've offended you.
Regarding the Memo-
Reading the fuel memo only confirms to me what is going on. I have never seen anything like it. It's 'pushing' in its clearest form. It's also pushing some very low numbers. I can see why they are stated as a minimum by the regulators. It appears that they're seen as a goal by some.
The 'Fuel Memo' uses a 1136KG Final Reserve fuel number. It's absolutely ridiculous to promote that number as a normal part of daily operations. It's an emergency. The Low Fuel lights on our 73NG illuminate at 900KG (2000 lb) for each side. At 1136KG, the Low Fuel lights have been on for some time. It requires about 600 KG to do one trip around the circuit in a 737-700. By that reserve number, you may not make a second one.
Thankfully, I've never seen the ethos that drove that 'Fuel Memo' in a workplace.
Last edited by JPJP; 18th Aug 2013 at 16:34.
Mach 3
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Stratosphere
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JAR Ops 1.255 ii (e) specifically allows for the Commander to upload any extra fuel in addition to the standard required components that he/she deems necessary for the safe completion of the flight.
So at Ryanair, one must play them at their own game.
The question to the anonymous author of the memo must be "Are you seeking to prevent me from taking action which I believe necessary for the safe conduct of my flight?"
We live in an age of profligate litigation, precisely because companies like Ryanair chose to uphold, not the spirit of the law, but the letter.
Bankers/Google/Amazon have tried to use this type of defence recently but the tide of public opinion suggests people are tiring of it, rightly so, IMO.
Utterly contemptible in such a safety critical industry.
So at Ryanair, one must play them at their own game.
The question to the anonymous author of the memo must be "Are you seeking to prevent me from taking action which I believe necessary for the safe conduct of my flight?"
We live in an age of profligate litigation, precisely because companies like Ryanair chose to uphold, not the spirit of the law, but the letter.
Bankers/Google/Amazon have tried to use this type of defence recently but the tide of public opinion suggests people are tiring of it, rightly so, IMO.
Utterly contemptible in such a safety critical industry.
AndyPandy06 - I realy don't get it JP why would you fly without sufficient fuel?
I've been lucky enough to work for a company that doesn't question my fuel decisions. Some aren't, and we should support those that aren't backed by a solid multi layered safety system. That memo speaks for itself.
Just curious, but how was CA Goss recognized through the distorted voices and dark room interview?
In any case, well done to him for having the courage to highlight the dangers of RYR's fuel policy. He has my utmost respect and should have the respect of all line pilots.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dan, I agree the memo seeks to (positively) deter crew from taking extra fuel, but you know as well as I do that the company would always defend that memo as not an instruction to compromise safety with regards to fuel.
However, can you offer actual evidence or facts that if someone exercises their right as the PIC to deviate from the memo and take extra fuel because they believe safety will be compromised has been negatively disciplined for doing so.
Is it the perceived fear of what will happen to them that deters people or have examples been made?
I think we need to know what happens to those who deviate from the memo.
However, can you offer actual evidence or facts that if someone exercises their right as the PIC to deviate from the memo and take extra fuel because they believe safety will be compromised has been negatively disciplined for doing so.
Is it the perceived fear of what will happen to them that deters people or have examples been made?
I think we need to know what happens to those who deviate from the memo.
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Europe
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So Ducky can go on the box with boring regularity to berate anyone and everything, including his own staff and his own company, but Capt Goss is not allowed to speak about HIS experience? Huge double standards here and I hope he takes this disgraceful excuse for an airline to the cleaners.
Dan & others of similar ilk, spot on, South Coast & Andypandy geez...
Dan & others of similar ilk, spot on, South Coast & Andypandy geez...
Last edited by Leg; 19th Aug 2013 at 08:48.