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!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.
Yep, it SURE WAS!As for the more than 15 mins each side, it was probably an exaggeration,
Well, Micko said they are mostly 1 hour long on that program. Right enough - he COULD be SPOOFING AGAIN!...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).
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.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
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!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.
I suppose you heard the old one about the fully automatic aircraft?I thought pilots these days were only really there to land the plane, as the computer does the majority of the work?
Yeah - I remember the time my hairdresser fell asleep while giving me a blow dry. Lucky she wasn't driving at the time, eh?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, me too.Having said all that, I do know in an emergency I would rather have alert and experienced piolts in the cockpit
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?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?
I'll be sure to pass on your helpful advice to my mate - believe me, he's trying hard!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 agree with you there Sunny, that would be better, so WHY don't they?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.
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.
Quite a dilemma, eh?
Would that not be preferable to the other inferred outcome?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"?
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.
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.
Enforcement? Definitely not. Why? Who knows. Commercial pressure probably.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?
No it's wrong, because other airlines allow pilots to form professional associations to represent them.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?
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.3. Are global air accident rates falling or rising?
Ha! Such naiiveté.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.
Yes. Read this: ValuJet Flight 592.(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.
Or it might indicate we've been lucky.(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.
Yes. Read this: ValuJet Flight 592.
The IAA allow Ryanair (and others) to do things the UK CAA forbid!How do the IIA's safety standards and enforcement regime compare with, say, the UK?
Listen to yourself. What lunacy.Fatal Events.......Not much evidence of a problem there, methinks?
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.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?