Ryanair Sacks Captain Goss
 

After the Channel 4 documentary there seems to be someone who has to take the blame. So Captain Goss is fired...

What I would like to know is how does Ryanair make a profit. It appears to be suing every man and their dog therefore they must spend it all on legal fees ? Chalnel 4 next on the hit list. French Goverrment/Italian Government. Loss of the Court Hearing in London.....

But with all the NG jobs around for the moment why do the Crews put up with this craziness...........

Is there anything positive about this company:confused:

It's one of the only ones to offer jobs :{
Pilots would go anywhere to feed their family.

I think what you mean to say is, immature kids who have spent £150,000 of their parents money will do anything to get a picture of themselves as the pilot of a 737 on facebook.

I hope he takes them to court for unfair dismissal and sues them for a very large amount of compensation. It says everything about the airline that their first reaction to questions regarding safety, however much they don't agree with them, was to sack the whistleblower rather than investigate. The one positive is that the case is bound to generate plenty of publicity and the negative press won't do Ryanair any good at all.

What NG jobs ??

1. The flight-schools sell an integrated course to people who want but ultimately don't need to be pilots.
2. This generally results in heavy debt. 100k is a life altering amount of money to owe and should not be considered lightly.
3. The guys and girls who still have access to cash, and who suddenly realise the grave situation they are in pay FR, Easy, etc for a job to stave off these debts.
4. Some of their fellow classmates and some on PPrune congratulate them on successfully "getting a job" in these tough times.
5. They bend over to management accept any little bit of cash that they can get, irresponsibly go to work sick, tired, hungry etc and justify it buy saying it will lead to better jobs. They destroy their own profession and future in the process.

This is why people go to FR, no one wants to but they needlessly put themselves into a position where they have to.

6. Starting in 2011 BA and other legacy airlines cop on and instead of hiring the now skint pilots albeit with 2000hrs from the Locos that have given them so much hassle the last 15 years, they introduce their own "cadetships" which are designed to poach the wannabes early while they still have the cash or a parents house to gamble with.

Boeing Europe..... What do you mean what jobs on the NG....

Dont you visit Flight Global jobs? or the other sites There are even jobs in China one month on and one month on. There are companies in Europe looking for NG Captains............. Get real there is a pilot shortage. :ugh:

Apologies to all, as I am not a pilot, but please allow me to comment.

The documentary didn't say anything that hasn't been discussed on here for the last few years at least, but did bring it to the attention of the general public.

As I watched it, I knew that Goss going public would cost him his job, and I expect he did too, but as a professional you have a duty to make a stand, especially when it comes to public safety. To just keep your head down and say nothing is equal to being a part of the problem.

Thanks for your time

Not sure how old Goss was but he honestly looked like such a nice chap! Good on him to put his foot down!

I sure hope with his previous history other airlines will have the sense to offer someone of his seniority a job!

Happened before.
 

I know of several people who have lost their jobs after appearing in front of a TV camera. Some people of course, just cannot resist having their mugs on the TV, let alone idiots with big posh voices etc.

If you feel the need to blow the whistle, there are other avenues to take, if you want to keep your job. Appear on TV if you wish to commit employment suicide. If you do insist on being a TV star, remember this very important point. You, as the "star" will have no control over the editing of the program content.

Where can I see this documentary. Anyone has a link?

You tube is your friend.

God bless you tube.

I somehow have a feeling that this is what RPG and John Goss wanted or expected to happen.

I feel in this case Ryanair have done a gross miscalculation of their actions, effect and the consequence of what is to follow now.

RPG now have their official martyr, and can now most likely get further publicity, legal proceedings to follow and more support from more Ryanair pilots for the RPG and most of all make it a media case.

It's time for pilots to start standing united, not just with Ryanair - it's time!

I am sure Mr Goss knew what was going to happen.

I am also sure that all employees have clauses in their contract with regards contacting and speaking to the press, I know that if I were to speak to the press without permission from those above it would be gross misconduct and I would be sacked.

Lets just hope he did what he did for all the right reasons and that it improves the conditions for our colleagues at Ryanair.

I don't think anyone disputes Ryanair's management style is not the greatest, but I am yet to see hard facts of regulations being broken.

If they operate to the minimum regs then they are safe and I fear the pilot group have shot themselves in the foot because how can you claim the operation is not safe but turn up to work the following day and continue to operate the same way as what is being claimed to be unsafe.

It doesn't reflect well on the crew in my opinion.

This to me appears to be a case of a fight against T&C's and has been hijacked with the mantra of safety to leverage the management in to changing because so far the uniting route has failed.

Not sure what the solution is but, I think they are going about it wrong by using safety as a complaint.

'If they operate to the minimum regs then they are safe'

No, that is a total non sequitur. An airline can cross every T and dot every i with regard to regulation compliance but that does not make them 'safe'.

If that airline is experiencing incidents and accidents that are never reported either through their own safety system (if it exists) or its regulator because of the crews' fear of repercussions from management for doing so, then that is not a 'safe' operator.

There have been no Ryanair smoking-holes-in-the ground so far but just think how much lessened that possibility would be if the airline adopted a less confrontational and aggressive management style. Regrettably, until such time as that appalling human being that heads the company disappears, there is little chance of that happening.

"clauses in their contract with regards contacting and speaking to the press"

Of course they can put what they want in a contract, but would it be legally binding?

I would think there is a matter of freedom of speech.

Fair point Max, but the pilot group on the C4 programme appeared to be suggesting the fuel policy was unsafe.

In my opinion, if you meet the requirements of the regs regarding fuel, then you initially start off from what is considered an acceptable and legal safe point...to become 'unsafe' from that point onwards is down to human input/decisions, excluding catastrophic failure or circumstances.

To me the two scenarios don't add up, how can you claim the operation is unsafe and yet continue to operate within it.

Surely it's either safe and you 'go' or it is 'unsafe' and you don't?

How can the group claim it unsafe and yet happily carry people?

Again, my opinion is that while I have every sympathy for the way the crew are treated by the management, and that's why I chose never to apply for a loco (especially Ryanair because I don't like the way they treat employees and paying passengers) 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.

It's a desperate measure carried out by an ever more desperate group who I believe will only be taken seriously when then play the ultimate card of turning off the cash for a day...that's all MOL is interested in and that's all that will make him take notice.

The fuel policy meets the regulatory requirements - as MOL keeps pointing out. However, the regulations can only stipulate minimums and if a company regards the minimums as a targets then any safety margins are eroded if everything doesn't go to plan - such as the Madrid diversions.

Technically, it's safe - because it operates within the regulations. When the circumstances dictate, human intervention in the form of airmanship should make the operation watertight. However, the documentary asserts the RYR Captains are being pressured into taking flight plan fuel, or a value very close. Of the three aircraft which diverted that night, none had much more than 300Kg over flight plan. I would say in those circumstances, it was less than prudent to carry such little extra and the result was that safety was seriously compromised.

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?

Can we assume that those three crews felt the weather at destination didn't warrant extra fuel?

Lots of companies use fuel 'league' tables so crew members can see where they rank amongst their peers regarding fuel.

I noted the C4 programme didn't offer any hard facts of individuals penalised for carrying extra fuel, only that they had to offer an explanation to justify their decision.

I can't argue with that.

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.

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.:D

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.:ok:

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

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.

Southcoast,

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.


I disagree with your assertion that 'minimums are legal, and therefore safe'. A pilot groups T&C do affect safety. As a result they should be included in the discussion. The Colgan accident is an excellent example - Both pilots satisfied the legal minimums for training and rest. Neither were appropriately rested or trained. The First Officers pay was so low that she was forced economically to commute cross country and sleep on crew room floors in order to meet her work requirements. Her wage was close to qualifying for food stamps and her companies draconian sick policy put her in an untenable position. I am not justifying her decisions. I am showing how T&Cs and barely meeting minimums can affect decision making and safety.

This is a slippery slope. The warning signs are there. Hopefully hindsight won't be needed.

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.

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.

South coast,

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.

I don't get it. Either the rules are safe or they are not. If they are then why the whinging? If they are not why do you fly each day?:confused:

difficult to say,

when you gained your professional licence did you not have any qualms

as to what might be expected ?

I fly helicopters not jets, but if I was asked to fly an unsafe flight I would refuse, end of.

Just out of interest,

who, in their right mind, is going to ask you to fly an unsafe flight ?

Ryanair according to the thread. :\

So Ryanair asked you to fly your helicopter on their behalf ?

Do you have a professional licence ?

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? :ok:

Do you have a professional licence ?

Asked and answered, you just want to whine. Carry on, that is all.:hmm:

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.

Please reasure me that they don't allow you in charge up front :sad:

lt has been known.

Any chance that you could take the bus in future and practice your

games silently ?

@ 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.)

http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/b...ps072811df.png

http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/b...ps561c7253.png

http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/b...ps7359ccf7.png

Source: raE Low RYANAIR com FARES AtmtimE Pilot Memo Re