# 'Prime Time' highlighting pilot fatigue



## aonfocaleile (13 Sep 2006)

Did anyone else see this issue covered on Prime Time last night? Are things really that bad in low cost airlines that issues like this cannot be dealt with internally and the pilots who were interviewed have to be dubbed by actors voices and have their faces hidden. Mr. O'Leary seemed very dismissive but he failed to actually answer the questions asked and just ranted on in general about terms and conditions of staff. I wonder is this a genuine H&S issue or a bid to get union recognition for pilots in the airline in question?


----------



## demoivre (13 Sep 2006)

If there were genuine safety concerns about any Irish airline or indeed foreign owned airlines operating in Ireland I think the IAA might have something to say about it ! Read about their audit checks in [broken link removed]. Any programme about airline safety issue without participation by these guys is meaningless imo. I thought the programme was tripe of the highest order and I'm not Michael O' Leary.


----------



## Humpback (13 Sep 2006)

Presumably if there were such safety risks, and at any time if a pilot really felt like he couldn't fly without falling asleep, that he'd step aside and not actually take the controls.

Even from his own personal desire to stay alive.


----------



## aonfocaleile (13 Sep 2006)

That would make sense alright but Miriam O'Callaghan alleged last night that when a pilot took this course of action, he/she was demoted on grounds of misconduct. Now, if thats true in its own right its a despicable practice but there could be a million other reasons for same that weren't pointed out on the programme.

There's an article in the examiner today where Ryanair describes the whole thing as a sham and the IAA is reported as saying that its offer of taking part in the live programme was rejected by RTE. I smell a rat...


----------



## michaelm (13 Sep 2006)

demoivre said:


> If there were genuine safety concerns about any Irish airline or indeed foreign owned airlines operating in Ireland I think the IAA might have something to say about it . .


A relation of mine is an aircraft mechanic at Dublin Airport and he says that the IAA are known as 'a nod and a wink'.





demoivre said:


> I thought the programme was tripe of the highest order . .


Agreed, tripe.


----------



## ClubMan (13 Sep 2006)

What was the _UK TV _program a few months ago (?) which purported to expose all sorts of dodgy goings on with regard to safety on _Ryanair _flights only to be totally discredited? More of the same perhaps?


----------



## Sunny (13 Sep 2006)

I have to say that there is probably something there worth investigating because anyone who travels Ryanair and sees how quickly how they do turnarounds must recognise how hard the pilots have to work. (Whether it istoo hard work is another story). Having said that, the way Prime Time covered it was pure tripe! If these Pilots are so scared about safety, let them come out and show their faces. As for the Doctor who admitted falsifying medical certs, not sure what his story was! I am not Ryanairs biggest fan but I would trust them on safety because it only takes one crash or serious incident and a low cost airline is out of business. 

Good to see Michael O'Leary kick Miriam's ass though!!


----------



## MugsGame (13 Sep 2006)

> If these Pilots are so scared about safety, let them come out and show their faces.



The weird thing was that some of the pilots had gone on the record, as their names had been supplied to Ryanair, and O'Leary was willing to share their rosters. Given that, the voice overs and shadowed faces seemed like unnecessary theatrics.


----------



## Humpback (13 Sep 2006)

aonfocaleile said:


> There's an article in the examiner today where Ryanair describes the whole thing as a sham and the IAA is reported as saying that its offer of taking part in the live programme was rejected by RTE. I smell a rat...


 
It's all a government/civil service/public service conspiracy to ensure that current Ryanair shareholders sell up (so that they're not owners of an unsafe airline) and buy Aer Lingus shares instead to bolster the governments coffers and the employees pensions


----------



## Meccano (13 Sep 2006)

Yes, an interesting programme, and great to see such lively interest in the issue here.

I do some light aircraft flying, and I know a lot of people in the industry through that pursuit. 

*aonfocaleile* is right. I remember Ryanair sacked a pilot earlier this year for refusing an extra duty after a long day because he was fatigued - this was mentioned in the program. He took them to court over it, but I don't think the case has been heard yet.
My mates in Ryanair tell me there is a culture of fear and intimidation in Ryanair, and anyone who opens his mouth to protest is just chopped. You just have to do whatever you're told. Tired or not.

Because Ryanair won't allow its pilots to form a union they set up a private website to discuss these problems. Ryanair went to the High Court to try and get the names of the pilots using the website! Basically they wanted to scare people away from it, so it would shut down.
They lost the court case, the Judge himself accused Ryanair management of lying and bullying! So in my opinion, its not a fiction.

I thought the Pilots Association representative was very poor though. O'Leary wiped the floor with him.


----------



## Humpback (13 Sep 2006)

Meccano said:


> My mates in Ryanair tell me there is a culture of fear and intimidation in Ryanair, and anyone who opens his mouth to protest is just chopped. You just have to do whatever you're told. Tired or not.



But if the pilots don't like the conditions and working atmosphere, aren't they free to go and work elsewhere?

I detested the conditions in my last job - horrible work culture and even worse management behaviour. I didn't like it, I don't need to be treated that way, so I left. Simple! 

I didn't go onto a national TV station with my face fuzzed over and complain. I didn't have a union behind me either, and if the "press" got hold of the working conditions in that company, they'd have a field day as well.

We can all be adults about these things. If you don't like it, move on.


----------



## Meccano (13 Sep 2006)

Yeah, they're doing that too. 

A lot of guys join Ryanair straight out of basic training, but many of the the more experienced ones are leaving. They generally look to go to airlines like Emirates (lots of Paddies there now) and Virgin Atlantic, as soon as they have accumulated the required qualifications (which can take 3 - 5 years).

Ryanair is a good place to get a start in the industry because with the high turnover there are rapid promotions to Captain, and funny enough the high number of hours flown just gets you qualified to leave even faster. 

The downside is you get very young and inexperienced Captains!

On the other hand you also have a lot of guys who just don't want to move to the desert, because of family ties here etc.

I don't know what YOU do for a living *ronan_d_john*, but chances are you have numerous employment options in Ireland in your chosen carreer. In aviation in Ireland you've got Ryanair - or Aer Lingus (who haven't recruited since 1999). Aer Arann don't fly jets, and a jet type rating is a valuable qualification, not to be thrown away when you had to pay a lot of money to achieve it. 

So what are the options for those guys? They are stuck with it.


----------



## ClubMan (13 Sep 2006)

Meccano said:


> The downside is you get very young and inexperienced Captains!


I thought that being a [pilot] captain implicitly meant that you already had a certain level of experience? Age shouldn't come into this in my opinion.


> So what are the options for those guys? They are stuck with it.


 Have to agree with _ronan_d_john's _general gist. If it's that bad for some people then perhaps a change of *career *is called for. We all make mistakes in life - choosing the wrong job or even career may be one of them for some people.


----------



## Meccano (13 Sep 2006)

> I thought that being a [pilot] captain implicitly meant that you already had a certain level of experience? Age shouldn't come into this in my opinion.


Ummm....well, you have to be 18! How young would you accept?
To be a Commercial Pilot you need to have 200 hours flight time and passed all the basic theory tests. With that you can become a Boeing 737 co-pilot with Ryanair.
To become a Captain in Ryanair you need to have built up 1,500 hours. That will take less than 2 years. 
So you can walk into a flying school today and do 200 hours (which takes at least 6 months), and if you get a job in Ryanair you could be in sole charge of a high performance jet less than two years later - at the age of 20. 
In some countries you can't even buy a drink at 20!

In most airlines it takes years to get to Command because the turnover is low. 10 years is typical. 
At 2 years, you have the legal minimum experience, on paper. 
On finishing his degree a junior doctor has the legal minimum experience to practice basic medicine - but he's no brain surgeon.
Paper qualifications are academic. Experience comes through time. 
Still, when you fly Ryanair - as O'Leary would say - you get what you pay for!



> Have to agree with _ronan_d_john's _general gist. If it's that bad for some people then perhaps a change of *career *is called for. We all make mistakes in life - choosing the wrong job or even career may be one of them for some people.


The difficulty is that it costs a pilot over 100K nowadays to pay for the training and obtain the licence. Many of them can't just rip it up and walk away. Certainly though, many people have a silly over romanticised concept of the job. Its hard graft as far as I can see. No doubt there are plenty of youngsters who come down to earth with a crash (metaphorically speaking) after they've experienced the reality.

Personally I like flying, but then I don't have to do it for a living.
If I was ever to choose a flying carreer, Ryanair would be the last company I'd ever choose to work for. The people who join them probably deserve all they get.


----------



## Guest127 (13 Sep 2006)

thought that Michael wiped the floor with Miriam too and rightly so. she couldn't defend RTE for the unbalance in the video clip,  the absence of proof ie duty rosters, and an Aer Lingus pilot as chief prosecutor didn't help her cause. Hope 'our' Michael stays in fighting form. I dont want an end to the cheap flights or his forcing of A/L to lower their charges.


----------



## Glenbhoy (13 Sep 2006)

I didn't see the programme, but I was talking to a guy who is currently aiming to fly commercially who did watch it.  He reckoned it was hogwash, and from knowing several ryanair pilots he says he will jump at the chance to fly for them as soon as he completes his commercial flying course (or whatever).  The thing is, the job's not exactly taxing, 15 mins work at both ends (so I'm informed, and even this isn't really necessary), so if pilots are getting too tired to fly those massive flights (what, roughly 3.5hrs is about the longest) one would have to worry about their health, although, admittedly, i get a little tired myself after lunch too!!
Meccano, i don't really understand your point about flying straight after getting your commercial licence, what is the problem with that?  You have completed 200hrs, your superior has completed at least 1700 hrs, is that not sufficient in your opinion.  As for comparing brain surgeons and pilots, well, see my point on job difficulty (which may be misinformed).


----------



## shnaek (13 Sep 2006)

demoivre said:


> If there were genuine safety concerns about any Irish airline or indeed foreign owned airlines operating in Ireland I think the IAA might have something to say about it ! Read about their audit checks in [broken link removed]. Any programme about airline safety issue without participation by these guys is meaningless imo. I thought the programme was tripe of the highest order and I'm not Michael O' Leary.



Hear hear. I thought it was complete tripe also. Pure scare tactics and unbalanced reporting. Prime Time should have more respect for it's audience.


----------



## ClubMan (13 Sep 2006)

Meccano said:


> Ummm....well, you have to be 18! How young would you accept?


Whatever the relevant authorities lay down I suppose.


> To become a Captain in Ryanair you need to have built up 1,500 hours. That will take less than 2 years.
> So you can walk into a flying school today and do 200 hours (which takes at least 6 months), and if you get a job in Ryanair you could be in sole charge of a high performance jet less than two years later - at the age of 20.


Sounds fine to me.


> In some countries you can't even buy a drink at 20!


So what?


> On finishing his degree a junior doctor has the legal minimum experience to practice basic medicine - but he's no brain surgeon.


Irrelevant. 


> Paper qualifications are academic. Experience comes through time.


Like the 1500 flying hours mentioned above?


> Still, when you fly Ryanair - as O'Leary would say - you get what you pay for!


Yes - cheap flights on planes controlled by suitably qualified pilots.


----------



## Meccano (13 Sep 2006)

Glenbhoy said:


> I didn't see the programme, but I was talking to a guy who is currently aiming to fly commercially who did watch it. He reckoned it was hogwash, and from knowing several ryanair pilots he says he will jump at the chance to fly for them as soon as he completes his commercial flying course (or whatever). The thing is, the job's not exactly taxing, 15 mins work at both ends (so I'm informed, and even this isn't really necessary), so if pilots are getting too tired to fly those massive flights (what, roughly 3.5hrs is about the longest) one would have to worry about their health, although, admittedly, i get a little tired myself after lunch too!!
> Meccano, i don't really understand your point about flying straight after getting your commercial licence, what is the problem with that? You have completed 200hrs, your superior has completed at least 1700 hrs, is that not sufficient in your opinion. As for comparing brain surgeons and pilots, well, see my point on job difficulty (which may be misinformed).


I spend a fair bit of my spare time around airports, and hanging out with aviation-minded people. I have more than enough flight hours to hold a Commercial Licence myself. So I'm speaking from firsthand experience, not hearsay. 
A few of your innacurate points would indicate to me that your young 'friend' has that 'romanticised idea' of the job I mentioned earlier? He's certainly given you a few bum steers I'm afraid.

If he told you the job entails '15 minutes' work 'at each end' then he is misinformed. That would mean you are too.
You mentioned 3.5 hour flights? Ryanair doesn't fly anywhere over 2 hours away (at present) and the VAST majority of their flights are 1 hour in length.

Clubman: The 200 hours minimum for a licence allows you to get a job and sit on the flight deck - which is then meant to be an APPRETICESHIP toward a Command. 
It DOES NOT mean that you are a fully fledged pilot. 

These licencing rules were drafted 60 years ago when it took decades to get a Command. They've never been brought up to date to reflect the low Command times in modern low cost airlines.

The fact that your 200 hour co-pilot has a very low experienced Captain (1500 hours) sitting beside him is a worry. The Captain isn't there to teach him to fly, he's there to do the job of getting the aircraft safely from A to B. The new guy hopefully learns over time - by observation. In other words, *over time - he* *gains experience*. 

Usually things work out with this arrangement, as long as the flight is routine. 
It's when an emergency situation arises that the cracks will show. 

Regarding the 'brain surgeon' comment. It was an analogy. You interpret it to mean all pilots are brain surgeons. Funny!
What I was actually getting at was - I would prefer to have a 40 year old brain surgeon with 20 years *experience* poking inside my head than an 18 year old straight out of med school. 

But yeah, I guess there IS a big difference between piloting a jet and being a brain surgeon.....if the surgeon screws up the brain surgery he'll still go home to the wife and kids for tea. 

But if a pilot hits a mountain in an aircraft doing 600mph...he ain't going home for tea, nor are the other 120 odd souls on board.

So, come to think of it....I WANT my pilot to be even BETTER than a brain surgeon when I step on his plane with my family. The bugger could wipe us ALL out in a second. 

I certainly don't want him to be exhausted and error prone.
Why would YOU?


----------



## Glenbhoy (13 Sep 2006)

Meccano said:


> I spend a fair bit of my spare time around airports, and hanging out with aviation-minded people. I have more than enough flight hours to hold a Commercial Licence myself. So I'm speaking from firsthand experience, not hearsay.
> A few of your innacurate points would indicate to me that your young 'friend' has that 'romanticised idea' of the job I mentioned earlier? He's certainly given you a few bum steers I'm afraid.
> 
> If he told you the job entails '15 minutes' work 'at each end' then he is misinformed. That would mean you are too.
> ...



We obviously disagree here Meccano, but several things, firstly, Ryanair do fly for longer than 2 hrs, I was in Faro with them last month and it's timetabled for approx 3hrs.
As for the more than 15 mins each side, it was probably an exaggeration,  but seriously pilots in danger of falling asleep as they're overworked (especially if most flights are 1 hr long - which I do not accept at all actually, maybe 10yrs ago, but not anymore).
As for the lack of hrs, surely if a guy sits beside a captain for 1300 hrs, he'll hopefully be able to pick up enough to fly himself, it's hardly rocket science!  I appreciate your concerns re emergency situations, but in fairness to Ryanair, their record is exemplary in this regard (as far as I know).  Also in regard to this, what standards of training do other airlines insist on for their pilots, given that the current rules are antiquated.


----------



## ramble (13 Sep 2006)

What I got from the program was that Ryanair pilots have to concentrate very hard for nine hours a day 5 days a week, sometimes without breaks.  Whilst I understand that this could be tiring for some people other people can do this sort of thing easily.  A lot of people in a lot of jobs have to concentrate very hard for long periods of time.  As for brain surgeons, in beaumont hospital the brain surgeons do surgery from 8 in the morning till 8 in the evening and beyond, now that's a lot of concentration.  Flying planes is a well paid job with relatively short hours, if you can't take it, don't do it.  So from Michael O'Leary's point of view, the pilot who can't handle it shouldn't be doing it.  Otherwise I'm no great fan of Ryanair and would never fly with them, mainly because I couldn't hack getting stranded in Girona or whatever when they cancel a plane and only offer a refund of the ticket price.


----------



## Meccano (13 Sep 2006)

Glenbhoy said:


> We obviously disagree here Meccano, but several things, firstly, Ryanair do fly for longer than 2 hrs, I was in Faro with them last month and it's timetabled for approx 3hrs.


Gee...that would make Mick O'Lerary a liar then! I'm sure he said they don't go over two hours on RTE last night! Sorry I listened to him now - I'll be sure to take everything he says with a pinch of salt in future. Well done for pointing out his fib!
Still - you said 3.5 hours, so you were wrong too. 

But anyhow, back to the fatigue thing, my pilot buddies tell me that the longer the flight is the better (within reason obviously) because constant repetitive take-offs and landings (up to 6 a day in Ryanair!) are far more tiring. Kinda makes sense really, doesn't it.



> As for the more than 15 mins each side, it was probably an exaggeration,


Yep, it SURE WAS!


> ...but seriously pilots in danger of falling asleep as they're overworked (especially if most flights are 1 hr long - which I do not accept at all actually, maybe 10yrs ago, but not anymore).


Well, Micko said they are mostly 1 hour long on that program. Right enough - he COULD be SPOOFING AGAIN!



> As for the lack of hrs, surely if a guy sits beside a captain for 1300 hrs, he'll hopefully be able to pick up enough to fly himself


Yeah, but its what happens in those first 1,000 hours that really is the catch, eh? Pray you aren't down the back the day it all goes pear shaped with a 200 hr co-pilot and a 1,500 hr Captain. 



> it's hardly rocket science!


Have you got much flight time then? Where did you train, and on what aircraft? What licence do you have? I must have met you!



> I appreciate your concerns re emergency situations, but in fairness to Ryanair, their record is exemplary in this regard (as far as I know). Also in regard to this, what standards of training do other airlines insist on for their pilots, given that the current rules are antiquated.


 
Most of the travelling public are used to hearing about awful aircraft accidents now and then. 
When they hear of no accidents from a particular company is it then correct to assume the airline is totally SAFE?
Not really, because in reality ALL airlines have 'incidents' which you never get to hear about. The media is only interested in gore - not boring technical details. Like FATIGUE leading to mistakes in handling.

As I said earlier, if I was taking a flying job it wouldn't be with Ryanair. And the Ryanair pilot I know is desperately trying to get out. He wants to go to an airline where he doesn't feel exhausted and threatened by the management all the time. 
I don't even travel down the back with them.


----------



## Fintan (13 Sep 2006)

I thought pilots these days were only really there to land the plane, as the computer does the majority of the work? 

In terms of pilots "being tired", I think they need to get over themselves, as others have said there are plenty of jobs out there where long periods of concentration are required.

eg. Hospital interns, doctors, surgeons, stock market traders, recptionists, hair dressers, computer programmers, the self employed, people who do a lot of driving etc etc 

Having said all that, I do know in an emergency I would rather have alert and experienced piolts in the cockpit


----------



## Guest127 (13 Sep 2006)

the bit where the pilots complained about being on duty for 5.30 am was really stretching the 'tiredness' bit. aren't air traffic controllers up all  night? dont other workers get up early too? taxi drivers/train drivers/ bus drivers. when did you last hear a train driver complain about being tired because he started at 5.30 am?  if you start at 5.30 am I assum you complete you duty around 1.30pm. so whats their gripe on the early starts?  personally I dont believe the majority have any, just a few moaners  running to the aer lingus union. if they dont like the early starts they can do what others do - leave.


----------



## Meccano (13 Sep 2006)

Fintan said:


> I thought pilots these days were only really there to land the plane, as the computer does the majority of the work?


I suppose you heard the old one about the fully automatic aircraft? 

It takes off and then the computer announcement comes on and says* "this is a fully automated flight, nothing can go wrong - click - go wrong - click - go wrong - click - ...." * 



> In terms of pilots "being tired", I think they need to get over themselves, as others have said there are plenty of jobs out there where long periods of concentration are required.
> eg. Hospital interns, doctors, surgeons, stock market traders, recptionists, hair dressers, computer programmers, the self employed, people who do a lot of driving etc etc


Yeah - I remember the time my hairdresser fell asleep while giving me a blow dry. Lucky she wasn't driving at the time, eh?  



> Having said all that, I do know in an emergency I would rather have alert and experienced piolts in the cockpit


 Yeah, me too.


> the bit where the pilots complained about being on duty for 5.30 am was really stretching the 'tiredness' bit. aren't air traffic controllers up all night? dont other workers get up early too? taxi drivers/train drivers/ bus drivers. when did you last hear a train driver complain about being tired because he started at 5.30 am?


Jaysus, we all hate earlies, eh! But my mate in Ryanair tells me the problem isn't getting up at 0430, but that the next week he'll be starting at 1400 and finishing at 2200, then back to a 0530 start again. Kinda messy, and disruptive to a regular sleeping pattern, know what I'm saying? 

Thank God for lie ins.



> personally I dont believe the majority have any, just a few moaners running to the aer lingus union. if they dont like the early starts they can do what others do - leave.


I'll be sure to pass on your helpful advice to my mate - believe me, he's trying hard! 

The thing is though, when he leaves for greener pastures - the problem remains here. He'll be kicking his heels up in Emirates but his buddies will still be flying around exhausted, and YOU"LL still be down the back, oblivious to the danger.

Ciao Ciao!


----------



## demoivre (14 Sep 2006)

From yesterdays Irish Times :In a statement, the Irish Aviation Authority (IAA) said it carried out “extensive and detailed surveillance on all Irish airlines”. “Fatigue has not been cited as a primary or contributory cause to any incident investigated by either the IAA or the Air Accident Investigation Unit in the recent past.”

.....which pretty much supports my view that the substantive issue of the Prime Time programme was rubbish . It probably also explains why O Callaghan gave such an inept display - hard to argue your point when you don't have conviction imo .


----------



## Sunny (14 Sep 2006)

I have to say that surely if the pilots REALLY feel that fatigue is really causing serious safety concerns, then they have a responsibility to speak out publically (not blacked out faces with actors voices) or to the proper authorities even if that means that are likely be 'punished' in some way by Ryanair. From the way the programme was presented, I got the feeling the pilots were looking for a 9-5 Monday to Friday Job with time for a siesta in the afternoon. They came out of it very badly as did Prime Time itself. 

And can I just also point out that I have alot of respect for pilots as the job is difficult and not just a case of pressing a few buttons and sitting back enjoying the scenery. It's the same with Train Drivers.


----------



## Meccano (14 Sep 2006)

Sunny said:


> I have to say that surely if the pilots REALLY feel that fatigue is really causing serious safety concerns, then they have a responsibility to speak out publically (not blacked out faces with actors voices) or to the proper authorities....


I agree with you there Sunny, that would be better, so WHY don't they?
What possible reason do they have for not coming out in the open and expressing their legitimate concerns?

Commercial pilots can be held PERSONALLY liable to prosecution and imprisonment if they are found to be in any way responsible for an accident. At the very least they could lose their livliehood - their pilots licence. At worst they could be dead, along with a lot of other people. 

If a Commercial Pilot doesn't bring his concerns on his fitness to fly to his employer AND the IAA he is actually BREAKING THE LAW.

In the past that system worked very well, and it was a responsibility that was taken seriously, and on trust, by both the employer and the pilot and the regulators.

Nowadays however, the Ryanair guys have an employer who isn't interested in hearing any such concerns. They are commercially inconvenient.
When presented with an employee who dares express a concern the response is at best ridicule (as on the program the other night) or more likely DISMISSAL as with the previous victim mentioned on the program.



> ...even if that means that are likely be 'punished' in some way by Ryanair.


 
In the US they have 'whistle blower' protection laws. But not here in Ireland. And without a union to speak for them collectively the responsibility for safety in the airline falls to lone individuals.
So, human nature being what it is - of course they simply clam up. Or try to get the message out through whatever channels they can. The IAA unfortunately have washed their hands of regulation in the industry.

Would YOU accept the certain outcome of losing your job and probably being forced to look for work abroad in such circumstances? Would YOU go back to your wife and kids and tell them - "Honey, I chose to speak out and got fired today. So pack your bags, we're off to Saudi Arabia to look for work"?

Why stick YOUR neck out to be chopped off?

I wouldn't.

I'd probably do exactly what the majority of those Ryanair guys are doing. Shut up, keep the head down and the fingers crossed, and hope that when the day finally comes, and the system snaps, it won't be me who buys the farm, please God.

Oh, and keep looking for work elsewhere, naturally.

Quite a dilemma, eh?


----------



## Sunny (14 Sep 2006)

Meccano said:


> Would YOU accept the certain outcome of losing your job and probably being forced to look for work abroad in such circumstances? Would YOU go back to your wife and kids and tell them - "Honey, I chose to speak out and got fired today. So pack your bags, we're off to Saudi Arabia to look for work"?
> 
> Why stick YOUR neck out to be chopped off?
> 
> ...


 
If I felt strongly that mine and my company's actions were placing a couple of hundred lives at risk on a single flight, I would like to think I would speak out and quiet happily buy the missus a new dress to cover herself up in Saudi...  I guess you never know until you are in the situation


----------



## Meccano (14 Sep 2006)

Yeah, well if the wing was hanging off or something - obviously.

Thats rather different to saying you feel exhausted and can't go on. 

Anyhow, the real problem here is lack of regulation. 
The IAA have a lot to answer for. If they were doing their job this wouldn't even be an issue.


----------



## Glenbhoy (14 Sep 2006)

Meccano said:


> Would YOU accept the certain outcome of losing your job and probably being forced to look for work abroad in such circumstances? Would YOU go back to your wife and kids and tell them - "Honey, I chose to speak out and got fired today. So pack your bags, we're off to Saudi Arabia to look for work"?


Would that not be preferable to the other inferred outcome?  
Would employment law as it currently stands no offer protection to those wanting to speak out?


----------



## Humpback (14 Sep 2006)

Meccano said:


> Anyhow, the real problem here is lack of regulation.
> The IAA have a lot to answer for. If they were doing their job this wouldn't even be an issue.


 
You seem here to be contradicting your earlier comment saying that the regulations that are in place were adequate, and where you blamed Ryanair for the situation, rather than the IAA.



> If a Commercial Pilot doesn't bring his concerns on his fitness to fly to his employer AND the IAA he is actually BREAKING THE LAW.
> 
> In the past that system worked very well, and it was a responsibility that was taken seriously, and on trust, by both the employer and the pilot and the regulators.
> 
> Nowadays however, the Ryanair guys have an employer who isn't interested in hearing any such concerns. They are commercially inconvenient.


----------



## Meccano (14 Sep 2006)

I blame the IAA for letting things get to the stage where this important issue has become a public football. 

This is a SAFETY issue - not some petty scandal for the likes of PrimeTime to cynically exploit as a ratings booster.

What was the point of bringing Michael O'Leary and the President of IALPA onto the show for? It was simply to get some sparks flying and create some entertainment. Mr.O'Leary and Mr.Cullen are bitter adversaries in an Industrial Relations dispute. No reasonable benefit could have been gained from pitting them against each other in this forum. In fact, it has probably set back any hope of a resolution to a very important issue. This was not responsible journalism.

The IAA stayed away from the show - probably to their credit! But I expect they were WATCHING it. And I also hope - for the sake of all the travelling public - that they now DO something to address the issue in the proper arena. The REGULATORY process.

It should NOT be up to INDIVIDUAL PILOTS to sort out SYSTEMIC problems by hanging themselves in public. 
This fatigue issue impacts individuals - but it is not an INDIVIDUAL problem. It is a SYSTEMIC PROBLEM which the IAA needs to address. Individual pilots HAVE been complaining, directly to the IAA and through IALPA, but the IAA has simply dismissed their concerns and ignored them - which leaves them exposed to the vengeful wrath of their employer, and all for nothing.

Nor is it solely a Ryanair issue - so why O'Leary? I'm hearing the same concerns from Aer Lingus pilots about their rostering - which if anything is even MORE disruptive than the Ryanair one.

When the Flight Time Limits were set in Law 50 years ago they were set as MAXIMUMS. 
Now, they have become THE NORM.
They were never envisaged to be sustainable on a continuous basis, but that is what they've become. Thanks mainly to Ryanair.

Whatever Ryanair does TODAY every other carrier has to do TOMORROW, if they are to compete. 

In a 'race to the bottom' environment - SAFETY IS INEVITABLY A VICTIM.


----------



## ubiquitous (14 Sep 2006)

I don't really understand this debate.

I wonder could someone please clarify the following:

1.  Do the IIA adhere to the same level of standards, enforcement etc that pertains in the US, Continental Europe, Australia etc? If not, why not?

2. Low-cost airlines are pretty much a global phenomenon. On the face of it Ryanair's business model does not seem to vary that much compared to other operators like Easjet and the US low-cost carriers. I presume this assumption is correct?  

3. Are global air accident rates falling or rising?

I would have thought that

(1) general health & safety standards in Ireland should, more or less, comply with global standards. Hence I would expect the IAA to be as health & safety oriented in respect of air travel as say the HSA are in respect of industry, workplaces etc.

(2) If Ryanair's peers all over the world are facing similar safety v. efficiency issues, then their safety record when compared to those of their peers should give us either reassurance or cause for alarm.

(3) If global air accident rates are rising this would indicate that there is a serious worldwide problem with low-cost carriers. Any other trend would indicate that the issue is exaggerated.


----------



## Meccano (14 Sep 2006)

> 1. Do the IIA adhere to the same level of standards, enforcement etc that pertains in the US, Continental Europe, Australia etc? If not, why not?


Enforcement? Definitely not. Why? Who knows. Commercial pressure probably.



> 2. Low-cost airlines are pretty much a global phenomenon. On the face of it Ryanair's business model does not seem to vary that much compared to other operators like Easjet and the US low-cost carriers. I presume this assumption is correct?


No it's wrong, because other airlines allow pilots to form professional associations to represent them. 
Ryanairs 'model' calls that 'unionisation' and they fight vehemently to stop it. 
The result is zero communication, except by decree from above.



> 3. Are global air accident rates falling or rising?


Aircraft accident rates worldwide are roughly flat for the last 10 years. They dropped significantly with the introduction of jets in the 1970's, then further as technology improved over the last 20 years. 

It is accepted FACT that while they are now flat - mechanical failure represents only about 25% of all accidents. 
The cause of the other 75% of aircraft accidents these days is PILOT ERROR. 

If the downward trend had continued since the 70's we'd be near zero accidents statistically now. 

So, why has the Human Error cause remained high? Why are accidents still happening? Why has pilot error proved difficult to eliminate?

Probably because commercial pressures have *increased* the demands made on the crews and led to regular fatigue, rushing etc which - when also mixed with inexperience - leads to persistent pilot errors and accidents.

AS the machines have become more reliable, the human at the controls seems to have become less so. Improved aircraft reliability has in effect masked, or compensated for the underlying trend in pilot error.

Interestingly, the surge in Low Cost Carriers has also been in the last 10 years. See a connection here?


> I would have thought that
> 
> (1) general health & safety standards in Ireland should, more or less, comply with global standards. Hence I would expect the IAA to be as health & safety oriented in respect of air travel as say the HSA are in respect of industry, workplaces etc.


Ha! Such naiiveté. 
Are you REALLY serious?



> (2) If Ryanair's peers all over the world are facing similar safety v. efficiency issues, then their safety record when compared to those of their peers should give us either reassurance or cause for alarm.


Yes. Read this: _ValuJet Flight 592_.



> (3) If global air accident rates are rising this would indicate that there is a serious worldwide problem with low-cost carriers. Any other trend would indicate that the issue is exaggerated.


Or it might indicate we've been lucky.
The rise in Pilot Error as THE causal factor in 75% of all accidents is a warning staring us in the face.

I guess when it happens, and people get killed, I can say "I told you so", and you can say "oh, right, we'd better shut the barn door now the horse has bolted". 

Its an old saying - safety lessons must be paid for in blood.

Why do we never learn?


----------



## Guest127 (14 Sep 2006)

are accident rates 'flat' as a percentage of flights or flat as compared with 10 years ago?


----------



## ubiquitous (15 Sep 2006)

How do the IIA's safety standards and enforcement regime compare with, say, the UK?


----------



## Humpback (15 Sep 2006)

Meccano said:


> Yes. Read this: _ValuJet Flight 592_.



I don't think you're comparing like with like. The question asked by ubiquitous related to safety versus efficiency considerations amongst other low cost carriers.

This plane didn't crash because of pilot fatigue, pilot falling asleep, or because the pilots didn't form a union.


----------



## ubiquitous (15 Sep 2006)

This site... http://www.airsafe.com/events/regions/europe.htm  yields the following statistics

Fatal Events and Fatal Event Rates of Airlines in Europe Since 1970 
Europe  54.55 million flights - 29 crashes
US & Canada  147.03 million flights - 58 crashes

Not much evidence of a problem there, methinks?


----------



## Meccano (15 Sep 2006)

> How do the IIA's safety standards and enforcement regime compare with, say, the UK?


The IAA allow Ryanair (and others) to do things the UK CAA forbid!
For example, UK Crew Flight Time restrictions are more limiting that those imposed by the IAA - and the UK CAA *enforces* the rules.



> *Fatal Events*.......Not much evidence of a problem there, methinks?


Listen to yourself. What lunacy.

I've already tried to explain to you that the indicator is INCIDENTS - the NEAR accident rate - which is ignored by you and the gore obsessed media.

The difference between an INCIDENT and an ACCIDENT is often just pure dumb LUCK.



ronan_d_john said:


> I don't think you're comparing like with like. The question asked by ubiquitous related to safety versus efficiency considerations amongst other low cost carriers.
> 
> This plane didn't crash because of pilot fatigue, pilot falling asleep, or because the pilots didn't form a union.


No, but it crashed because commercial pressures in an exponentially expanding airline drove responsible people to do irresponsible things for the sake of expediency. Putting oxygen generating equipment into the baggage hold, because even though they knew it was ILLEGAL and DANGEROUS (fatally so in this case sadly) they went ahead anyhow. The oxygen generators were needed as spares elsewhere and commercial pressure dictated they had to get there - by hook or by crook.

The FAA grounded ValueJet after the accident, and cited their rapid and disorganised expansion as contributory factors to the accident. It was a Low Cost Carrier, where the culture of safety had been replaced by a culture of 'ah, sure it'll be grand' and 'get the job done, whatever it takes'.
Sound familiar?

I feel like I'm going round in circles here, although its not actually my job to convince you people. I'm just a hobby pilot!

Lets just agree to disagree then, as someone already said, we'll continue the great experiment until it reaches the inevitable conclusion. 
Thats the only way people EVER listen.

At least I know that ME and MY FAMILY won't be victims.


----------



## ubiquitous (15 Sep 2006)

Meccano said:


> , as someone already said, we'll continue the great experiment until it reaches the inevitable conclusion.



I don't really understand what you are getting at here. Are you suggesting that if, God forbid, Easyjet, Aer Lingus or Ryanair had a fatal crash today, that air travel, as we know it, would cease? I really doubt this. Look at how many fatal train crashes there have been in Europe in the past 30 years and you will see that travelling by rail is much more dangerous than travelling by air. This hasn't had much of an effect on people's appetites for trail travel.


----------



## Sunny (15 Sep 2006)

Meccano said:


> Lets just agree to disagree then, as someone already said, we'll continue the great experiment until it reaches the inevitable conclusion.
> Thats the only way people EVER listen.
> 
> At least I know that ME and MY FAMILY won't be victims.


 
The only way you know for sure that you and your family won't become victims is by never flying at all. There are numerous reasons why I wouldn't travel Ryanair but have to say that safety isn't one of them. Wasn't a BA pilot charged a few months back with being drunk while in charge of a plane (and he wasn't reported by his colleagues in the cockpit). 

Can't believe I am defending Ryanair! Michael O'Leary must have me brainwashed!


----------



## Meccano (16 Sep 2006)

ubiquitous said:


> Are you suggesting that if, God forbid, Easyjet, Aer Lingus or Ryanair had a fatal crash today, that air travel, as we know it, would cease?


 



> Originally posted by *Sunny*
> The only way you know for sure that you and your family won't become victims is by never flying at all. There are numerous reasons why I wouldn't travel Ryanair but have to say that safety isn't one of them.


 
Good for you Sunny. Right choice - whatever your reason.

Yes, all flying carries risk. 
So does crossing the road. 
Crossing on the green light at a Pedestrian Crossing carries somewhat *less* risk. 
That's called RISK MANAGEMENT.

I practice RISK MANAGEMENT when I choose who I fly with. 
Ryanair is just ONE of several airlines on my NO FLY list.

*Any company* which is constantly at war with its staff, pursues them in Court regularly, fires them without due process, pushes them to the limits of their endurance, bullies, brags and lies, and has a CEO who rants like a thug on TV - would be on my NO FLY list.

No company with that kind of internal dynamic can truly be safe, since IMHO no CULTURE of safety can exist in such conditions.


----------



## Glenbhoy (16 Sep 2006)

Meccano said:


> I practice RISK MANAGEMENT when I choose who I fly with.
> Ryanair is just ONE of several airlines on my NO FLY list.


And the others are?


----------



## Meccano (16 Sep 2006)

Korean
Onur Air
Air China
Bangladesh Biman (Bankrupt and faltering)
VARIG (bankrupt and faltering)
Pretty much any African airline, but especially Nigerian Airways.

And all of this lot: http://ec.europa.eu/transport/air/safety/doc/flywell/2006_06_20_regulation_910_en.pdf
They're all BANNED from EU airspace anyhow.

The list varies from time to time. Any company with serious money problems or aggressive anti-staff attitudes is high risk. It would perhaps be easier to list those I WILL fly with than those I won't.
Major Western carriers with good training, good staff relations and good reputations - are generally safe.
I tend to stick to them and leave the cheap seats to the risk takers.

Safe flying!


----------

