Three Ryanair "emergency" landings in Valencia on same day

[tolipanebas]

The only comical ali's here is the Bru clan

The BRU/SN clan is comic, yes, but above all pathetic .

This 'clan' as you call it has remained largely off the pitch in this new phase of the discussion; the renewed controvercy around reduced safety standards at ryanair stems from internal disagreement with company policy made public and a bunch of Ryanair cheerleaders immediately using their pompoms to hide the scene from view as good as they can...

The notary proof of employment of the 4 witnesses:
http://content1d.omroep.nl/56c8349d0b01 ... n_akte.pdf

[epsilon]

On the subject of Spanish ATC:
http://avherald.com/h?article=45b4bc8c&opt=0
Fog in Barcelona on Dec 23rd 2012 overwhelmes ATC: "Let the aircraft land and put them on taxiways, carpark, roof ... but on the ground!"
The Aviation Herald therefore took the unprecedented step of filing a letter indicating growing concerns regarding aviation safety in Spain with the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and Europe's Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) on Oct 9th 2012.

[airazurxtror]

a bunch of Ryanair cheerleaders immediately using their pompoms to hide the scene from view as good as they can...

each his own thing : as you enjoy revealing the FR scene, let's don't hide the SN scene, thus.
By reading just the "Abnormalities at BRU" topic on this forum,
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=46515
one can see that in 2012 Brussels Airlines has had more or less serious incidents on
18 January
1 and 24 February
29 March
19, 20 and 26 April
21 May
27 June
1 and 10 July
27 August
8 September
1 October
15 November
5 and 17 December

Not bad for a small airline with just three dozens aircraft ...

[RoMax]

And how severe where these incidents??!! You can fill a multiple page topic with RYR-incidents this year AND that's NORMAL as they are MUCH bigger. But please don't do what you always do: "oh RYR is perfect, but SN...ohlalala, look how bad they are" :eh:

[Passenger]

Tell us what happened to FR5465 yesterday (Charleroi-Madrid): the aircraft that made a U-turn near Paris and came back to CRL. Let me guess: it was just a precaution landing, there was just a minor issue, it was no safety problem at all, pax were never in danger but Ryanair takes no risks regarding safety, hence the return.

Tell us what happened to FR5737 today: Klagenfurt-Stansted. "Technical fault", says Ryanair.com

Tell us what happened to FR4526 today : Charleroi-Bergamo. "Technical fault", says Ryanair.com

Tell us how it's possible that more then 30 FR-flights today have a delay, mentionned as "ATC delay". Was it really that bad today that ATC has put 30 FR-aircraft on hold, delaying some for more then 5 hours (like FR8082 Fez-Charleroi)? No, off course not, so let me tell you why the "ATC delay" is mentionned on your website: because if a delay is caused by a decision from ATC, no indemnity has to be paid to the passengers.

[sean1982]

Never said SN is bad at all, but neither is FR

[LJ]

Can we go to the original topic? The current discussion isn't about the Valencia incident anymore (which is already a closed case) and I wonder what the point is in keeping this thread alive.

As for the original topic.

On the subject of Spanish ATC:
http://avherald.com/h?article=45b4bc8c&opt=0
Fog in Barcelona on Dec 23rd 2012 overwhelmes ATC: "Let the aircraft land and put them on taxiways, carpark, roof ... but on the ground!"
The Aviation Herald therefore took the unprecedented step of filing a letter indicating growing concerns regarding aviation safety in Spain with the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and Europe's Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) on Oct 9th 2012.

I seriously can't understand what's going on in Spain. Understaffing ATC is a recipe for disaster and it seems as EASE and ICAO must step in in order to prevent serious accidents happenin in Spanish airspace

[KriVa]

As can by read in your very own post, Passenger, you have no idea what the difference between a precautionary landing and an emergency landing is.

Back on topic: Spanish ATC has become a major point of attention during the last few months at a lot of airlines who have scheduled OPS there, and rightly so in my eyes. Although I do fear the problem runs deeper than just that.

[Passenger]

As can by read in your very own post, Passenger, you have no idea what the difference between a precautionary landing and an emergency landing is.

Difference? An emergency landing doens't even exist at Ryanair: it is allways a precautionary landing.

But then, just tell us - third request - what the issue with yesterday's Charleroi-Madrid was, and I will gladly apologise to the boss himself if the return was caused by a non event.

[sean1982]

I dont know what the problem was, but what the hell is wrong with returninh back to the airport with a technical problem? Would you have preferred the airplane to continue? Furthermore, what does it have to do with the fuel policy?

[Pocahontas]

Reading the comments here I think that most of you have a lot of experience with Microsoft Flightsimulator. Although Microsoft claims that it's almost a real life experience, it's far from that, rest assured. Really funny how some aviation enthusiasts think they know everything, flying a commercial aircraft goes much further than flying the plane. But please back on topic, that has nothing to do with SN or any other airline, but FR and it's emergency landings at Valencia.

Regards,
a Microsoft Flightsimulator enthusiast

[KriVa]

Difference? An emergency landing doens't even exist at Ryanair: it is allways a precautionary landing.

So, you do work at RYR? Since you seem to know the definition of ever single term used in their OM A?

But then, just tell us - third request - what the issue with yesterday's Charleroi-Madrid was, and I will gladly apologise to the boss himself if the return was caused by a non event.

As I clearly stated, I don't work there, so I don't have access to company material. But it doesn't take a genius to derive that taking the time to return back to your airport of origin, instead of landing at the nearest suitable airport, isn't exactly an emergency landing.

[Passenger]

I dont know what the problem was, but what the hell is wrong with returning back to the airport with a technical problem? Would you have preferred the airplane to continue?

I agree with you: there is nothing wrong with a return. But then, why is that not valid for Brussels Airlines, and why are their occurences called "more or less serious incidents":

By reading just the "Abnormalities at BRU" topic on this forum, one can see that in 2012 Brussels Airlines has had more or less serious incidents on..."

So would be great if we indeed could stay on topic.

[Squelsh]

nobody ever seems to be interested though, no blue an yellow on the side.

"Ook KLM laat piloten met weinig brandstof vliegen"
http://www.hln.be/hln/nl/942/Economie/a ... egen.dhtml

sry dutch only

[RoMax]

A bit more information and from more sides involved (but still in Dutch, sorry):
http://www.luchtvaartnieuws.nl/nl-NL/Ar ... op_piloten

[Passenger]

"Ook KLM laat piloten met weinig brandstof vliegen"

Interesting story, so I've searched for the main source. Actually, the incident is not part of a fuel investigation, but part of an investigation into the influence of passengers rights onto aviation safety by Degas - Dutch Expert Group on Aviation Safety. The quantity of fuel loaded was not at discussion, there was never a low on fuel situation and the report even states that the aircraft would have landed with more then “minimum fuel left”.

Flight situation, in brief: A 747-400 from Amsterdam to Los Angeles encountered much more crosswind then pre flight expected (“tijdens de vlucht bleek de tegenwind veel sterker dan voorspeld”). The operational manual suggested a fuel stop (in Las Vegas), which the pilot indeed did. The report now states: “De luchtvaartmaatschappij oefende druk uit op de gezagvoerder om door te vliegen” - translated “the airline has put pressure on the captain to continue the flight without fuel stop”.

The report doesn’t mention who at KLM has put this pressure: Management? Customer Service Center? Operations? Top management? A ground engineer who calculated that no fuel emergency would occur? Surely not the board / ownership, as it was an inflight decision taken on short notice. Furthermore, the pilot union VNV (not exactly the friends of KLM management) has stated that it is unware of that incident and/or from any other pressure regarding any other fuel situation.

KLM was not allowed to reply because it refuses to contribute to DEGAS. This probably declares why the “pressure by KLM” is mentioned without further details. And this, indeed, has given some anti-aviation groups the possibility to state without proof that KLM is unsafe.

The discussion about the influence of passengers rights onto safety is far too off topic, so I just mentioned what was "fuel related" in the story.

[RoMax]

I don't know if this is the exact same situation. But I do know about a situation with a KLM 744 on its way to Los Angeles that encountered more crosswind than expected (seems the same..). The OCC (Operational Control Center) of KLM (which can also follow the fuel usage of all aircraft to see if this is according to the flight plan) asked the captain of the flight what he tought was the best solution and together the captain and KLM's OCC decided to divert to Las Vegas for a 'fuel and go'.
It's the OCC's task to propose solutions in all kind of unexpected situations. Solutions that have the least amount of impact on the rest of the network of KLM (often resulting in rather creative solutions to let a group of transfer pax make their transfer at AMS). But it's always the captain that takes the final decision, even if that goes against the proposal of the OCC.
Of course they can put pressure on the pilots, but if even VNV denies that...I doubt that it actually happens.

[Boeing767copilot]

Sunday Times apologises and pays damages to Ryanair

The Sunday Times has paid out "substantial damages" and apologised to Ryanair for an article published in September last year in which it alleged that the airline had broken safety rules on 1,201 occasions.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greensl ... es-ryanair

[airazurxtror]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greensl ... es-ryanair

Yesterday's Sunday Times carried a lengthy apology on page 2 of its travel section (rather than in the main section), as shown here.
It stated that the September story, headlined "Ryanair accused of 1,201 safety violations", claimed to have been based on a leaked report from the Spanish air safety agency (AESA).
This was alleged to have said that Ryanair planes broke safety rules 1,201 times in Spanish airspace in the first six months of 2012.
But the paper said: "We now accept that this was incorrect; there was no such report and Ryanair did not commit 1,201 breaches of safety rules."

"In the same article we also reported three emergency landings that arose due to bad weather diversions from Madrid to Valencia on July 26, 2012. The article described these flights as having insufficient fuel to remain in holding patterns and reported claims that Ryanair was routinely abusing the mayday protocol to jump landing queues.
We accept that all these allegations were untrue and apologise to Ryanair for the damage caused by this article.

We accept the Irish Aviation Authority's assurance that Ryanair's safety is 'on a
par with the safest airlines in Europe.'"

The Sunday Times said the damages payable to Ryanair will, at the company's request, be paid to an Irish-based charity, The Jack & Jill Children's Foundation.

[Passenger]

We accept that all these allegations were untrue and apologise to Ryanair for the damage caused by this article.

We accept the Irish Aviation Authority's assurance that Ryanair's safety is 'on a par with the safest airlines in Europe.'"

1. Nice to see that Ryanair-fans don't allways blame newspapers, but are very happy to quote them here.

2. Let us wait to see if KRO Brandpunt (NL) will review it's statement that Ryanair's fuel policy is not causing stress in the cockpit.

3. For incidents in Spain, I prefer reports from the Spanish Aviation Authority, not the one from Ryanair's home base. The three fuel emergency calls were correct, but the landings were not. Fact remains that one of the three Valencia-flights landed without the legal minimum fuel.