Three Ryanair "emergency" landings in Valencia on same day

[Bracebrace]

I didn't expect KLM to be mentioned here, because it's a company you could use as a very nice example of how fuel efficiency can be increased, by going even further than what Ryanair is doing.

I don't know all the details, but from what was told me:
KLM uses an active fuel monitoring program where for every destination fuel calculations are based on statistical data of previous flights. Of ie 99% of all flights could make it with X amount of fuel, this is the required fuel for the flight (added diversion fuel etc). The company ACCEPTS 1% chance of a required diversion. The monitored fuel program allows them to reduce required fuel numbers so much it easily pays for that 1 diversion every 100 flights. Now, how many diversions is KLM making? And how many flights do they do daily?

And BTW, management pressure is present in EVERY company. Management will allways ask a pilot to walk the boundaries. If it's crisis, it's all about economizing and saving as much fuel as possible. If business is booming, it's all about flight duty limitations and rest times. Flying a jet is 1% of the pilot's job, the other 99% are about getting the job done, that job that management pays you for. They pay, they put pressure for max efficiency on their money.

[Boeing767copilot]

Next sunday KRO NL2 22.15

The answer of MOL
http://reporter.kro.nl/seizoenen/2012/a ... aas_oleary

[Passenger]

Next sunday KRO NL2 22.15

The answer of MOL
http://reporter.kro.nl/seizoenen/2012/a ... aas_oleary

Summary:

On Wednesday 16th January, O’Leary announced in Maastricht that Ryanair will take legal action against KRO/Brandpunt. One of the arguments is that Ryanair was offered no reply to the accusations. KRO therefore has put all requests for a reply on his website. Although O’Leary gave no details about the legal issue, KRO is looking forward to such court case.

After the two episods were broadcasted on tv, KRO asked Ryanair several times (again) for a reply. Ryanair has now agreed, and an interview with O’Leary will be broadcasted on Sunday 20th January 2013, at 22h15, on NED2.

[Passenger]

A court in Amsterdam today ruled in favour of KRO (the Dutch tv), in a complaint by Ryanair. The Irish airline asked the court that KRO should give them all the records of the tv interviews, including the pre and after tapes, thus allowing Ryanair to identify the pilots who testified unrecognizable. The judge said in his interlocutory judgement that the principle of press freedom is more important then Ryanair’s desire to identify the pilots. The court case itself continues.

http://www.telegraaf.nl/binnenland/2157 ... ren__.html

[sn26567]

Spain's CIAIAC released their final report into the events of Madrid and Valencia of Jul 26th 2012 incorporated into the final report into another incident.

The CIAIAC in that report into the other occurrence did not take separate conclusions of the events in Madrid and Valencia of Jul 26th 2012, but analysed only:

"Before this report was approved, there were a series of missed approaches at Madrid Barajas due to storms and subsequent diversions to the Valencia Airport. During these diversions (seventeen in all), four emergency declarations were made due to fuel. Of these four emergency declarations, three involved the airline Ryanair. Following the initial evaluation, it was concluded that the fuel calculated by each of the Ryanair aircraft was the minimum required by law, and that all of the crews had added extra fuel, justifying this in the flight plan due to adverse weather or to weather-related delays. In fact two of the three Ryanair aircraft landed with a fuel amount in excess of final reserve despite having declared an emergency as per their Operations Manual, since they expected to land with an amount of fuel that was below final reserve.

According to TACC Valencia’s report involving ATM safety events and incidents, four aircraft diverted to LEAL reported being low on fuel without declaring an emergency.

The incidents that occurred in July 2012 are thus regarded to be similar to those considered in this report. Since the recommendations in this report had not yet been published and therefore evaluated or implemented by the affected parties, it was concluded that an individual investigation into these cases would not lead to the formulation of different conclusions or recommendations than those noted in this report, though the presentation of said cases would further strengthen the arguments on which some of the recommendations issued herein are based."

A detailed report about the incident with one of the Ryanair aircraft declaring an emergency is mentioned here:

http://avherald.com/h?article=42bf38c3/0000&opt=0

Source: The Aviation Herald

[Passenger]

The last link in the previous post is very interesting: it states why one of the three Ryanair flights landed below minimum fuel:

...

A detailed report about the incident with one of the Ryanair aircraft declaring an emergency is mentioned here:
http://avherald.com/h?article=42bf38c3/0000&opt=0

Source: The Aviation Herald

...

[Passenger]

Dutch public television is broadcasting a documentary about the fuel policy of Ryanair this evening, including 4 testimonials by ryanair captains who put into question the safety standards of their own airline:

http://reporter.kro.nl/seizoenen/2012/a ... 28-12-2012

Tonight at 21:15 on NED2.

The association of investigative journalism in Dutch (V.V.O.J.) has awarded this program as the best audio-visual broadcast of 2013:
http://www.vvoj.nl/cms/2013/11/15/de-lo ... itgereikt/

[andorra-airport]

Today Ryanair demanded Dutch broadcasting company KRO not to broadcast a final episode about Ryanair and its safety culture.

KRO is not impressed and will broadcast it. Tonight, 21.10 Dutch TV station 2 (Nederland 2).

[andorra-airport]

For the moment being , you can watch it here : (Dutch language) http://reporter.incontxt.nl/seizoenen/2 ... 28-11-2013

[Passenger]

The court in Amsterdam today (16/04/2014) ruled that the Dutch tv broadcast "KRO Reporter, Mayday Mayday Mayday" was legal, justified and correct. The court therefore dismisses Ryanair's claim against KRO.

In brief:
http://www.rechtspraak.nl/Organisatie/R ... enden.aspx

Court verdict Ryanair versus KRO:
http://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/inzien ... :2014:2003

(sorry, both are only available in Dutch)

[Passenger]

The court in Amsterdam today (16/04/2014) ruled that the Dutch tv broadcast "KRO Reporter, Mayday Mayday Mayday" was legal, justified and correct. The court therefore dismisses Ryanair's claim against KRO.

In brief:
http://www.rechtspraak.nl/Organisatie/R ... enden.aspx

Court verdict Ryanair versus KRO:
http://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/inzien ... :2014:2003

(sorry, both are only available in Dutch)

Ryanair will appeal against this verdict:
http://www.irishtimes.com/business/sect ... -1.1765476

[Passenger]

On 26th July 2012, Ryanair had three fuel emergencies whilst diverting from Madrid into Valencia. On 28th Dec 2012 and 03 Jan 2013, the Dutch investigation journalism tv program KRO Reporter broadcasted two documentaries into these incidents and into Ryanair's pressure onto pilots. On 20th Januari 2013, a summary of both programs and an additional interview with O’Leary was broadcasted in KRO Brandpunt. General conclusion of KRO Reporter/Brandpunt was that Ryanair’s pressure onto its pilots to limit their fuel is dangerous, and that Ryanair's company policy regarding reports of unfit to fly is also dangerous.

Ryanair then went to court and asked for a rectification, but the court case was dismissed, in favour of KRO Reporter. Ryanair then went into appeal.

On 14th July 2015, the Dutch court of appeal "Gerechtshof Amsterdam" (a multiple chamber with three judges) has confirmed that the KRO broadcasts were “justified and fair” (see verdict remark 3.17). All Ryanair griefs were rejected.

Direct link to the verdict:
http://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/inzien ... :2015:2887

This Dutch court verdict is one that Ryanair won’t like because the Appeal Court copy/pastes and confirms the findings of KRO Reporter. Example: the Court states that statements by the Irish IAA are not relevant, and the court agrees with the Spanish CIAIAC that the three fuel emergencies were caused by Ryanair’s company policy on fuel. See Court verdict 3.13: “Dit houdt in dat de CIAIAC van het incident te Alicante dezelfde oorzaak ziet als van de incidenten te Valencia, te weten het brandstofbeleid van Ryanair”.

[Inquirer]

Ive spent some time reading through the verdict, and I must say that apart from simply declining the appeal on juridical grounds, there are some unusually harsh words from the court for ryanair's well known way of conduct too in this appeal verdict, BTW.
So after years of debating it, we now have legal certainty: it was unsafe after all.

[Flanker2]

Ive spent some time reading through the verdict, and I must say that apart from simply declining the appeal on juridical grounds, there are some unusually harsh words from the court for ryanair's well known way of conduct too in this appeal verdict, BTW.
So after years of debating it, we now have legal certainty: it was unsafe after all.

The verdict is not about whether it was safe or unsafe, but whether the news report was allowed to publish its in my opinion rather biased view of the matters.

Whether it was unsafe was addressed in the reports published by SN26567, and I don't see anything pointing to an unsafe situation. To be honest, I'd rather have the guy sitting up at the front asking for priority rather sooner than when he runs out of options.

Good journalism is not about publishing the journalist's own biased views, or like in this case, using bias as a starting point to create news. Good journalism is about transmitting information as accurately and from all points of view, so that the final viewer/reader can make up his own mind.

In those regards I think that André here is doing a rather good job.

[sean1982]

Ive spent some time reading through the verdict, and I must say that apart from simply declining the appeal on juridical grounds, there are some unusually harsh words from the court for ryanair's well known way of conduct too in this appeal verdict, BTW.
So after years of debating it, we now have legal certainty: it was unsafe after all.

Euh no, the LAN A340 that lost an engine on approach due to fuel starvation on the same day, that was unsafe. The dutch court only decided whether or not biased journalism is allowed. It is, but then again, we allready knew that based on "passengers" usual tabloid sources.

EASA hasnt stepped in, FR is not unsafe and in fact compared with other european airlines a lot safer.

[Passenger]

Good journalism is not about publishing the journalist's own biased views, or like in this case, using bias as a starting point to create news. Good journalism is about transmitting information as accurately and from all points of view, so that the final viewer/reader can make up his own mind.

Are we talking about the same verdict here - the verdict dated 14th July 2015, Gerechtshof Amsterdam, Ryanair versus KRO, case file 200.153.190? Because the verdict that I read with those references is absolutely clear: contrary to what you say, the court states several times that the KRO broadcast was not "own biased views / bias used as starting point to create news".

3.7. The court states that KRO’s research into the incidents was good/fair (“afdoende”)

KRO reports about Ryanair memo’s that proof that their company policy puts pressure on pilots to load as little fuel as possible… This can cause unsafe situations, and these Valencia cases proof. Although also other facts contributed to the divertions, the conclusion remains that the fuel policy caused the incidents (“causal verband”).

The same applies for the illness situations / unfit to fly. KRO has done thorough investigation, and the testimonies by the Ryanair pilots confirm that company pressure caused that they did not report unfit to fly, whilst actually being so.

3.12 CIAIAC states that the Alicante fuel incident (2010) had the same cause as the Valencia incidents (2012): Ryanair’s fuel policy. The first court stated that, and this appeal court confirms it.

3.14 Ryanair stated that the testimony of four anonymous pilots may not be seen as general for Ryanair, and that the Irish IAA is the forum to address in case of such complaints. The court doesn’t follow this. KRO has the freedom to report about those pilots who felt that company pressure didn’t allow them to handle in respect of aviation safety. Aviation safety has a high interest in society, and the press has a role here as public guard function (waakhondfunctie).

You see Flanker: if we both would have read the same verdict, we can only but agree that KRO Reporter did not based its broadcast on your bias. Furthermore, if we read the same verdict, we also should agree that this three chamber judgement is thorough and very very to the point. The court agrees with KRO Reporter that both Ryanair's fuel policy and Ryanair's policy towards illnesses and unfit to fly are unsafe. See above quotes from the verdict (correctly translated, I hope). Actually, I’m quite sure that Ryanair regrets they took KRO Reporter to court because this verdict will be used against them.

[Flanker2]

I think that you're confusing the two concepts.

The court is basically saying that bias is allowed in journalism, justified by the "freedom to report", based on "public guard function". The court ruled whether this kind of journalism was legal or not.

As a person who has seen the entire picture, I'm expressing my opinion that it's not good journalism, regardless of its legal nature.


You know, whether you like it or not, if as a captain you demand 2 tons extra of contingency fuel on each 2 hour flight "just in case", sooner or later you're going to have a chat with the chief pilot and if you don't correct this, management will find a reason to kick you out. Regardless of whether it's FR, SN, LH, BA or AF.

Believe me, all the actors in aviation are always under commercial and peer pressure. It's great if you're a masochist or have some slave-aspirations, but ethically, there is too much going wrong in aviation. IMO it's biased to point fingers towards FR only, as there are cultural problems virtually everywhere.

Also, there is more to this picture as well. Carrying unnecessary fuel over Europe where there's an airport every 100 kilometers, brings an unnecessary environmental impact. Sure excessive safety saves lives, but on the other end of the spectrum, that safety is gained through an environmental impact (over the thousands of flights over our skies) that causes climate change and indirectly kills lives, animal or human. In the big scheme of things, I'm not so sure which saves more lives and perhaps only god knows.

[flightlover]

Flanker2, are you now sugesting to get rid of redundancies in aircrafts?

Fuel is one of the most important once. No matter how close airports are together, run out of it and there is only one way to go. If it can happen with current legislation, due to no matter what reason, it might not be a bad idea to take a litle more than needed.

[sean1982]

Flanker2, are you now sugesting to get rid of redundancies in aircrafts?

Fuel is one of the most important once. No matter how close airports are together, run out of it and there is only one way to go. If it can happen with current legislation, due to no matter what reason, it might not be a bad idea to take a litle more than needed.

Which is allowed in every airline, including FR ... No questions asked

[crew1990]

The problem is not about the fuel quantity, there are rules to be applied and Ryanair as all the other airlines apply it. The problem is the pression that put the management of Ryanair (and probably some other airlines) on the pilot that make them taking some risk sometimes or stupid decision like no air conditioning on the ground whey they obviously need it.