Three Ryanair "emergency" landings in Valencia on same day

[Flanker2]

RTM, before criticising other people's house, one should look at one's own house.
The place you work at has been subject of many avoidable / stupid accidents, caused by among other factors, a very questionnable safety culture. I hear things are better now, but before it was rather abnormal.

[RTM]

RTM, let's call it professional bias, cause all my colleauges also take safety as a priority. ALWAYS

I don't criticize the personell Sean. I do not doubt they are, as you, do the best they can. But the fact alone that there are memo's to put pressure on staff, is worrying to me. And yes, they are memo's just because of the reason you gave, no lyability, pressure and responsibility with the crew. But that is my personal opinion... Everybody takes it as they want.
I do appreciate lysexpat's clarification however. Thanks.

Flanker, this is post 173 for me. Please go through my previous 172 posts, and tell me where I state where I work. I am sure I never mentioned it, and don't feel like going to...

[Passenger]

Let’s put some things straight here.

1. Just like a judge doens’t need to be a graduated medecin to judge if a surgeon has or hasn’t been uncarefull during a fatal surgery, a judge doesn’t need to be a pilot to judge if Ryanair’s pressure onto pilots can or cannot lead to unsafe situations. And in this case there were not one but three judges that came to that conclusion.

2. Ryanair started a court case, based upon article 6:612 of Dutch civil right that forbits damaging publications based upon unfunded accusations. There were two issues: Ryanair’s fuel policy (KRO Reporter 28/12/2012) and Ryanair’s policy towards unfit to fly (KRO Reporter 03/01/2013). To establish if 6:612 B.W. was or wasn’t respected, both the tribunal and the appeal court have investigated all evidence, brought up by Ryanair and by KRO Reporter. The court concludes that Ryanair’s statements and evidence contradict with the evidence that KRO brought up and that was confirmed by reliable external sources: the Irish IAA, the Spanish CIAIAC and pilots testimonies.

3. In western society, rule of law applies (wiki: the legal principle that law should govern a nation). In this case, both a tribunal and an appeal court came to the same verdict. But yet some people are unable to accept the principle of rule of law and are unable to read the facts in the verdict.

- - -

And on a side note: I think it’s a poor attempt to state that I don’t know what I’m talking about because I’m no crew and/or I don’t work for an airline or airport. I’ve spend enough time on jump seats (before Nine Eleven, that is) and I have three decades of experience in the trade. So I really do know how airlines work. Furthermore, I have quite some professional experience with legal travel/aviation related stuff, making it easy for me to understand what is in the verdict. Apparently some people stil don't.

[Flanker2]

1. Just like a judge doens’t need to be a graduated medecin to judge if a surgeon has or hasn’t been uncarefull during a fatal surgery, a judge doesn’t need to be a pilot to judge if Ryanair’s pressure onto pilots can or cannot lead to unsafe situations. And in this case there were not one but three judges that came to that conclusion.

I disagree in the sense that a judge doesn't have any basis for comparison.
What is normal pressure, what is too much pressure?
Should airlines offer their pilots to do as many go-arounds as they please, so they can take selfies with the city in their windshield as background? Or perhaps full fuel every time, just in case they fall asleep?
All pilots are under pressure. When they're running late, that pressure is what causes them to increase the cost index on their FMC, burning more fuel.

Everything in aviation is done under pressure, otherwise you would get nothing done.
Every delay is recorded with a delay code, in function of the nature of the delay.
Heck, even all flight parameters are analysed by dedicated flight data monitoring staff through the QAR.

Should a mechanic take all the time in the world to do a job, when it can be done smoothly and well?
By the same logic, Airbus and Boeing should build aircraft with better crash-worthiness, even if it comes at the expense of weight and fuel.

At some point you have to strike a balance, and given FR's excellent safety record despite the huge operations that they are running at a very sustained pace, I think that this topic being discussed at length here is a sign of FR being treated unfairly, for the purpose of bias.
I'm not saying that an accident won't happen eventually even at FR, it's just that an accident could happen to virtually any airline from a statistical point of view.

All pilots, including FR's, complaining about too much pressure have an option in their own hands: if the pressure is unbearable and their ethical conscience can't take it no more, they can take the door. No job, no matter how much you've got invested in it, is worth risking your life or other people's lives for. If other people are willing to take those risks blindly, let them have it.
If they think that they can change something with a TV interview, not only are they naive but they are also cowards.

[sean1982]

And on a side note: I think it’s a poor attempt to state that I don’t know what I’m talking about because I’m no crew and/or I don’t work for an airline or airport. I’ve spend enough time on jump seats (before Nine Eleven, that is) and I have three decades of experience in the trade. So I really do know how airlines work. Furthermore, I have quite some professional experience with legal travel/aviation related stuff, making it easy for me to understand what is in the verdict. Apparently some people stil don't.

Oh really? And yet you keep quoting tabloids and questionable sources or no sources at all to continue on this hate campaign against FR. So that is more important to you then maintaining some professional credibility?

You even quoted this article for crying out loud. If you even ever thought that this was credible then you didnt really pay much attention when jumpseating

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/wa ... ne-5723936

[sean1982]

And btw, it's not because a court decides something that they are also right. I wouldnt want to feed all the innocent people in jail

[airazurxtror]

I’ve spend enough time on jump seats (before Nine Eleven, that is) and I have three decades of experience in the trade. So I really do know how airlines work.

For sure.

[pilot_gent]

I'm new to the forum here, but I have been following the threads here for some years now. Some good reading.

some of my points of view:
- RYR's fuel policy is probably the same as most other EASA operators and is safe. I don't read anything in the verdict that says it isn't safe.

- the verdict talks about memo's sent out by the company that influence the commander's discretion in taking extra fuel. Not having read the memo's I cannot comment on them. While a memo might not have any legal consequences, the company still holds a responsability if it sends out official company memo's affecting the day-to-day operations. Pilots are expected to follow it, otherwise why publish them?

- The phenomenom of companies putting pressure on pilots (for example by memo's) to take less extra fuel is not a RYR phenomenom, it's an industry phenomenom. I think it is a good thing it is being looked at, RYR just has some bad luck they are in the spotlight. It could have been any other European airline.

[OO-ITR]

I’ve spend enough time on jump seats (before Nine Eleven, that is) and I have three decades of experience in the trade. So I really do know how airlines work.

For sure.

Yes airazurxtror and you are an expert in aviation right?

[OO-ITR]

Oh really? And yet you keep quoting tabloids and questionable sources or no sources at all to continue on this hate campaign against FR. So that is more important to you then maintaining some professional credibility?

You even quoted this article for crying out loud. If you even ever thought that this was credible then you didnt really pay much attention when jumpseating

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/wa ... ne-5723936

Is the Sunday Times also a tabloid?
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/new ... 582879.ece

[airazurxtror]

Yes airazurxtror and you are an expert in aviation right?

No, I am not. The difference with some people here is that I don't pretend to be what I'm not.

[Inquirer]

I've largely kept out of this discussion because for me the case was settled once and for all the moment the verdict of the court of appeal was in.
Some here however, do not see it that way, leading to ridiculous comments like this one:

...it's not because a court decides something that they are also right!

Seriously, Sean, you are aware you are actually questioning the rule of law itself now, do you?
With an attitude of 'I am always right, no matter what', better end all court procedings then, as they are just a lottery more than anything else, also when they sit with you.

Other than that, I fully subscribe to this new member's view on the matter:

some of my points of view:
- RYR's fuel policy is probably the same as most other EASA operators and is safe. I don't read anything in the verdict that says it isn't safe.

- the verdict talks about memo's sent out by the company that influence the commander's discretion in taking extra fuel. Not having read the memo's I cannot comment on them. While a memo might not have any legal consequences, the company still holds a responsability if it sends out official company memo's affecting the day-to-day operations. Pilots are expected to follow it, otherwise why publish them?

- The phenomenom of companies putting pressure on pilots (for example by memo's) to take less extra fuel is not a RYR phenomenom, it's an industry phenomenom. I think it is a good thing it is being looked at, RYR just has some bad luck they are in the spotlight. It could have been any other European airline.

Indeed!

And if you read the appeal verdict, you'll see the court also states this explicitly, thus refuting an excuse used quite a few times already: whether -or not- other companies may end up in equally dangerous situations due to undue pressure to limit the tanking of extra fuel too, does not change their legal appreciation of these unsafe company practices at ryanair: 2 wrongs don't suddenly make a right, of course, as they say.

But then it seems to some, the only rule is that their airline can never ever make a mistake, they can only improve on what was already perfect before, isn't it Sean? Be it on commercial matters, on operational issues, or in fact on safety policies. It's as credible as the P&G claims their washing powders wash even whiter than white now, after already claiming they coulnd't wash any whiter just a year ago.

[sn26567]

I'm new to the forum here, but I have been following the threads here for some years now. Some good reading.

Hello pilot_gent. Welcome to Luchtzak!

Thanks for reading us since many years, and now we hope to read you as well on a regular basis.

[Flanker2]

Welcome, we can use more of that much needed common sense and industry knowledge around here, even if we don't have to agree on everything.

[OO-ITR]

Yes airazurxtror and you are an expert in aviation right?

[i[/i]

No, I am not. The difference with some people here is that I don't pretend to be what I'm not.

oh but I don't pretend to be one neither (although I work in aviation) but at least I don't reply with a sarcastic 'for sure' to doubt about someone's position....

[sn26567]

Gentlemen, please, stay on topic!

[sean1982]

What pilot_gent is saying, is what I have been saying since 2012. Nice to see that you can agree with him. Welcome pilot

Inquirer, loads of companies have ended up in low fuel situations. I dont need to re-post the list do I?

[Passenger]

RYR's fuel policy is probably the same as most other EASA operators and is safe. I don't read anything in the verdict that says it isn't safe.

It’s in chapter 3.7, the Beoordeling (= Judgement) of the verdict.:
http://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/inzien ... :2015:2887

I quote from 3.7 in that court verdict: “waaruit de conclusie kan worden getrokken dat Ryanair - hoewel geen sprake is van overschrijding van de minimumnormen - de hoeveelheid mee te nemen extra brandstof aan diverse voorwaarden wenst te verbinden en in feite niet ter vrije beoordeling van de gezagvoerder(s) laat en daarmee op hen druk legt zo min mogelijk extra brandstof mee te nemen. Dat is ook de klacht die uit de interviews met de piloten doorklinkt. Dit kan onder omstandigheden tot onveilige situaties leiden, zoals zich ten aanzien van de incidenten heeft gemanifesteerd”.

Fair translation: “...that leads to the conclusion that Ryanair -although not exceeding the minimum requirements- adds several extra conditions, that Ryanair doens’t leave the quantity to the pilot’s discretion, and that Ryanair puts pressure on the pilots to add as little extra fuel as possible. The testimonies with the pilots in the broadcast confirm this. Under circumstances, this can lead to unsafe situations, as happened with these incidents..."

The phenomenom of companies putting pressure on pilots (for example by memo's) to take less extra fuel is not a RYR phenomenom, it's an industry phenomenom. I think it is a good thing it is being looked at, RYR just has some bad luck they are in the spotlight. It could have been any other European airline.

I’m not aware that other airlines do the same. But even some would do so, that's not clearing Ryanair. And it's not just only memo's. I don’t know if you saw the three KRO Reporter broadcasts. I did. And I remember that KRO showed a fuel consumption performance list of ALL flights, divided in above average (in green) and below average (in red). The four Ryanair pilots in that broadcast said that the (10?) worst performers are summoned to Dublin.

[sean1982]

You just proved again that that jumpseating did not really teach you a lot because fuel BURN has nothing to do with fuel UPLIFT! Like all airlines FR encourages it's pilots to fly conservitave to keep fuel BURN low. And there is no "summoning" to anywhere

This is getting to the point of ridiculous

[pilot_gent]

Fair translation: “...that leads to the conclusion that Ryanair -although not exceeding the minimum requirements- adds several extra conditions, that Ryanair doens’t leave the quantity to the pilot’s discretion, and that Ryanair puts pressure on the pilots to add as little extra fuel as possible. The testimonies with the pilots in the broadcast confirm this. Under circumstances, this can lead to unsafe situations, as happened with these incidents..."

I think we're getting lost in technicalities, it's all about the meaning of "fuel policy". Anyway, the way I read it, the verdict says that RYR influences commander's discretion and puts pressure on their pilots and that it can lead to unsafe situations. They base this on memo's published by RYR.

Again, as I have not read the memo's I cannot comment on them.

The phenomenom of companies putting pressure on pilots (for example by memo's) to take less extra fuel is not a RYR phenomenom, it's an industry phenomenom. I think it is a good thing it is being looked at, RYR just has some bad luck they are in the spotlight. It could have been any other European airline.

I’m not aware that other airlines do the same. But even some would do so, that's not clearing Ryanair.
And it's not just only memo's. I don’t know if you saw the three KRO Reporter broadcasts. I did. And I remember that KRO showed a fuel consumption performance list of ALL flights, divided in above average (in green) and below average (in red). The four Ryanair pilots in that broadcast said that the (10?) worst performers are summoned to Dublin.

The techniques airlines use is irrelevant really, any technique is wrong. If you google the words "airline pilot fuel pressure" you'll see it's not a company phenomenom but industry wide.