The Aviation Herald under legal threat

[sean1982]

Squelsh,

I was trying to make a point by giving an example. So stop rediculing me please.

Secondly, take another look at thos quotes. If you think that that is funny and not damaging or defematory, there is something seriously wrong with your sense of humour. Saying that an airline daily vioilates safety, nearly crashes and cause loss of life that is saying they are doing criminal acts. I fail to see how you fail to see that.

Thirdly, I think it's pretty clear from the emails published that FR does not have any problem with avherald.com, on the contrary even. It would be nice to see what responses they made to FR, because now it's quite a one-sided story

[tolipanebas]

Let's summarize the events so far, shall we, so we can keep a good overview:

1- AH posts a story on a Ryanair plane which came to within seconds of ground impact due to an unstabilized approach. Upon notification of the story being posted on AH, FR's chief pilot initially tries to downplay the severeness of this near accident with some general blabla about their SOPs and how the crew made a safe go-around, making it sound as if the crew was well ahead of the events all the time...

2- the German BFU comes forward and explicitly states the EGPWS triggered well prior to the recovery maneuve in all possible preventive collision modes, thus proving the crew was way behind the plane and openly contradicting the initial version of FR's chief pilot.

3- FR hands the communication about the event to its legal department, which discretely contacts AH and wants to be offered the chance to rephrase their first reading about this near accident in order to remove any reference to the sequence of events and asks for all the previous communication from their side which clearly contradicts with their new version as well as that of the BFU to be removed.

4- AH refuses this rewriting of history, but rather opts to post both versions online, together with the odd request from FR to alter history, after which the negative comments about FR's very questionable behaviour stream in.

5- FR asks for those questionable comments to be removed.

6- All the comments mentioned are removed as asked, but AH still does not give in on the initial demand to change history and posts the full mailing history with the request to remove the quotes in full online, thus effectively making FR repeat in public what they absolutely do not want others to say in public.
Well played from AH, BTW. :p

7- (popcorn time)


PS/ Lesson for MOL and FR: if you are in a hole, stop digging!

[sean1982]

first 2 points are your version, not THE version

16:39.37 A/P disconnected and recovery started
3 seconds later, in the initial stage of the go around the aircraft was still losing a bit of altitude (which is normal) first GPWS warning, 1 second later while already climbing at 600ft per min, second GPWS warning.
GPWS was triggered AFTER go around was initiated

FR's chief pilot initially tries to downplay the severeness of this near accident with some general blabla about their SOPs and how the crew made a safe go-around, making it sound as if the crew was well ahead of the events all the time...

If you mean to say btw only FR pilots fly unstabilised approaches once in a while, I would like to point you to a certain belgian charter airline and some of their hair-rising approaches which are in their quarterly safety review.

[tolipanebas]

first 2 points are your version, not THE version

No they are NOT, they are those of the BFU, who's official reading even FR accepts now.
Maybe you should first check up on the latest version your company sticks with today, because after all their flipflopping and attempts to rewrite what they have said, it sure is confusing indeed, so it seems.

Let's be honnest: ALL of the possible crash avoiding EGPWS warning sounded in that particular event, from a cautiously first SINK RATE caution right up to the very dramatic and ultimately crash avoiding PULL UP warning: the reason is of course the very slow reaction to the initial SINK RATE caution, which sounded 17 seconds prior to the crew discontinue their approach!

Check the time lapse between the very first SINK RATE EGPWS caution and the initial sign of some sort of a reaction to it: it's THIS which the BFU takes offense at, because in that time frame the situation seriously escalated right up to the point that the EGPWS triggered an ultimate PULL UP warning, awfully close to terrain.

As said before: that approach was completely unstable way way way before the plane decended below 1000AGL; as such it should never ever have continued any lower, which is in fact the second thing the BFU takes offense at; indeed, even on a visual approach, you must respect minimum IFR altitudes when your flight is filled as an IFR flight (which all commercial flights are), something even FR's chief pilot didn't seem to have know initially (and which is one of the elements FR's legal department now wants to see removed from the AH reporting). I guess he's too bussy getting back up to speed with fuel planning rules and regulations to also be bothered with any other legal stuff?

[sean1982]

your overuse of adjectives to make your whole point trying to add more drama to the whole thing, you should be a reporter for the english newspaper. After all a master of sarcasm could be put to better use there then in a cockpit

[tolipanebas]

your overuse of adjectives to make your whole point trying to add more drama to the whole thing, you should be a reporter for the english newspaper. After all a master of sarcasm could be be to better use there then in a cockpit

never mind my use of adjectives; try to avoid your pilots ignoring automatic terrain cautions and get them to respect minimum safe altitudes unless established on some sort of an approach, visual or not.

There's no excuse trying to downplay the above 2 serious safety violations, which you are doing: really sad.

Everybody can make a mistake, but only idiots don't admit to it.

[convair]

Come on now sean1982. Having a lack of valid arguments, you now criticize the style of your contradictor!
How nice!

[sean1982]

I'm not contesting the fact that the approach was unstable, however the stable gate is at 500ft when on a visual approach and 1000 ft in IFR conditions, so 1000ft are not the minimums when on a visual approach

If idiots don't admit mistakes, good, I've never seen you admit any in contrary to myself, which makes you ....

Thought so

[sean1982]

and for reference, this is what ICAO says:

An approach that is unstabilised below 1000ft above airport elevation in IMC or below 500ft above airport elevation in VMC requires an immediate go-around

Which is what they did, losing 50ft in the initial stage of the go-around

[airazurxtror]

Freedom to speak one's mind is essential to the vitality of a community..

Mind you! This has happened to us as well (from another airline). But we kept the issue quiet in order not to stir up feelings.

The Ryanair brickbatting had gone far enough, it was high time to stop it.
Let the tribunal judge if there is cause for Ryanair to prosecute "Aviation Herald", and set the level of damage to be paid should Ryanair be found right. It's now a matter for the counsels of both sides and the judge. And the authors of the defamatory posts are likely also to be prosecuted.

Do you think you can freely speak your mind about any airline here on Luchtzak, for instance ?
I remember being censored some time ago after rather a harsh comment about a Belgian airline and one of its high staff. I was sent a PM with an explanation, and I accepted it, as I did not want to put somebody in a difficult position of conflicting loyalties.

"Aviation Herald" is, as far as I know, the first to be so tackled by Ryanair - perhaps because it is one of the best known aviation sites. It's also a warning to other sites, and to those who post defamatory messages on those sites.

[cnc]

The Ryanair brickbatting had gone far enough, it was high time to stop it.
Let the tribunal judge if there is cause for Ryanair to prosecute "Aviation Herald", and set the level of damage to be paid should Ryanair be found right. It's now a matter for the counsels of both sides and the judge. And the authors of the defamatory posts are likely also to be prosecuted.

Do you think you can freely speak your mind about any airline here on Luchtzak, for instance ?
I remember being censored some time ago after rather a harsh comment about a Belgian airline and one of its high staff. I was sent a PM with an explanation, and I accepted it, as I did not want to put somebody in a difficult position of conflicting loyalties.

"Aviation Herald" is, as far as I know, the first to be so tackled by Ryanair - perhaps because it is one of the best known aviation sites. It's also a warning to other sites, and to those who post defamatory messages on those sites.

that has nothing todo with freedom of speech but with the stupidity of some of your posts

[stratofreighter]

The Aviation Herald NO LONGER under legal threat by Ryanair

By Simon, created Thursday, Dec 6th 2012 12:01Z, last updated Monday, Dec 10th 2012 17:19Z

Update 4, Monday Dec 10th 2012: The Aviation Herald / Avherald has just received notice by Ryanair's legal department that the matters on hand are no longer pursued.

The Aviation Herald shall continue to cover aviation safety relevant occurrences independently and objectively standing exclusively on the side of aviation safety.

We thank our readers for their overwhelming support. We have seen and shall take into account also those comments critical of The Aviation Herald and thank for the openness of those readers as well.

http://www.avherald.com/h?article=45a1cb11&opt=0

[Novastar]

Story has been picked up by Het Laatste Nieuws : http://www.hln.be/hln/nl/1901/reisnieuw ... ding.dhtml


be sure to read the comments under "reacties" by people that think they know all about... geez

[sean1982]

Why is it that so many people think they know something about aviation, when they actually know fuck all.
(this includes the newspaper btw, what a load of crap)

[sn26567]

(this includes the newspaper btw, what a load of crap)

The Daily News in the UK also picked up the story. I agree with Sean: only the 'sensationalist' papers have picked it up in order to fuel people's reactions that make their daily bread.