Three Ryanair "emergency" landings in Valencia on same day

[sean1982]

Latest memo is that apu should be used immediatly if no ground a/c unit is available and if APU is inop aircraft should be disembarked. So .... Please stop referring to stuff from 3 years ago. Also, it has nothing to do with this topic.

[Flanker2]

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.

Such pressure is put on all pilots worldwide, on a daily basis. It's called commercial pressure.
At FR, they have a much better safety culture than at some other legacy airlines.
Risk doesn't stop at fuel, many pilots from all airlines are forced to fly aircraft that they don't trust mechanically on a daily basis.

A typical example is an item tht is MEL'ed, with duplicate systems available for redundancy. However, on that particular aircraft, said duplicate systems have also been having trouble lately with repeated troubleshootings. Would you feel comfortable flying such an aircraft as a pilot, knowing that if the duplicate system fails you're a sitting duck with its wings tied?

Good pilots will walk away from an aircraft if they don't like what maintenance is telling them, only to be replaced by a standby crew that will accept to fly it... putting the good pilots on a fast track to looking for a new job, while the idiot standby pilots are put on fast track to management/training department.
Such is the state of our industry sadly, if you believe that there is any glamour left in an aviation job.

An excellent proof of FR's safety culture is found in maintenance. FR runs an air tight maintenance operation. At many MRO's worldwide, the managers will encourage workers to cut corners to save time/money, while at FR, if an engineer even tries to cut corners, the next day a CAMO manager will fly in from Dublin and scream at him in a bloody Irish accent, regardless of whether he's a direct employee or from a contracted MRO.

Sure pilots at any airline will at some point find reasons to complain, and sure this will happen at FR too, but that's mostly pilots who haven't spent a half day at a legacy airline. Pilots at legacy airlines will also tend to feel more attached /nationalistic towards their airline and suck it up more easily than pilots flying for FR purely as a job, with little to no attachment to the brand/airline.

Also, judging by the amount of flight spoilers FR pilots use compared to legacy airlines, I doubt that they are suffering from "save fuel at any cost" policies.

[Passenger]

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.

No sir, that is not what the court verdict states. Contrary to what you say, the words “vooringenomenheid” and/or “vooroordeel/vooroordelen” (fair translation for your bias) do not appear in the verdict. The only place were the court argues about the “freedom to report” is when the court agrees with the way that the broadcasts were presented (example: how Ryanair's factual reply was presented, how voice-over was used, how teasers for the program were made, ...).

What the court does say about the "public guard function", is also different from what you say. The court contradicts what you day: freedom of press means that a tv program is allowed to focus on general safety because they are the waakhond van de maatschappij (society's watchdog). Example: KRO Reporter has the right to focus on Ryanair's fuel emergencies only.

http://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/inzien ... :2015:2887

The final decision of the court (see 3.17) is exactly the opposite as what you are arguing here time after time, in your repeated attempt to defend the indefensible: “…De conclusie uit het voorgaande is dat KRO, anders dan Ryanair meent, niet onrechtmatig, noch onzorgvuldig heeft gehandeld met de uitzendingen I, II en III…” Fair translation: The conclusion is that KRO Reporter, contrary to what Ryanair argued, has not acted unlawfull nor careless with its three broadcasts”.

Regarding the interpretation of the facts, the court reconfirms that the three fuel emergencies were a dangerous situation, caused by Ryanair’s severe fuel policy.

[sean1982]

Please enlighten me with your wisdom. What's FR's fuel policy and how is it different from any other airline?

[jan_olieslagers]

That's not the point Sean. The point made is the Dutch court's judgement about said fuel policy. After cursorily consulting the text, I found no such mention, though. As I read the verdict, it carefully weighs the arguments regarding journalism, and the rights and obligations of parties, but says nothing about the technicalicities.

[sean1982]

That's not the point Sean. The point made is the Dutch court's judgement about said fuel policy. After cursorily consulting the text, I found no such mention, though. As I read the verdict, it carefully weighs the arguments regarding journalism, and the rights and obligations of parties, but says nothing about the technicalicities.

But this is exactly what passenger is claiming. So im asking him to proof how FR's policy is different to any other airline and why would it be dangerous? As he seems to be the expert here, shouldn't be that hard?

[crew1990]

This is not the Ryanair policy witch is dangerous, Ryanair follow the European regulation as any other airlines. The problem is the pressure that the management put on their pilot to consume as less kerosene as possible. The pilot of Ryanair are to me really good but still they are human and can do some error as well. And CRM wise (Crew Ressource Management, what is in place to avoid the human error) such a pressure can lead to those error, like taking as less fuel as the regulation allow them to take while they know that they might divert because of bad weather, a majority of pilot will take some extra fuel, but still they can be tempted to take a little bit of risk in order to improve their record.

[sean1982]

Which record? Ops manual part A clearly states the captain has the final decision on the fuel for the flight and can, with an explanation on the flight paperwork, add as much as he/she deems nesscesary

[Passenger]

That's not the point Sean. The point made is the Dutch court's judgement about said fuel policy. After cursorily consulting the text, I found no such mention, though. As I read the verdict, it carefully weighs the arguments regarding journalism, and the rights and obligations of parties, but says nothing about the technicalicities.

But this is exactly what passenger is claiming. So im asking him to proof how FR's policy is different to any other airline and why would it be dangerous? As he seems to be the expert here, shouldn't be that hard?

Seems you really haven't read the verdict. The court really really confirms KRO’s findings that Ryanair’s fuel policy is dangerous and there is too much pressure on pilots not to report as unfit to fly. As you persist, let me quote what the court exactly states. Because this is a topic on the English part of the forum, I've translated some paragraphs of the verdict (and I have translated them fair, I think).

Chapter 3 of the verdict is the "Beoordeling" (appreciation/judgement). Relevant here is paragraph 3.7, starting with “Het hof is van oordeel dat…” (the court judges that…)

“...De inhoud van een en ander geeft onmiskenbaar de kern aan van uitzending I, zoals hiervoor weergegeven. Illustratief zijn daarbij de memo’s die van de zijde van Ryanair zijn verspreid (producties 56 tot en met 61 CvA), 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. Dat volgt uit de interviews met de piloten en kan ook worden afgeleid uit de conclusies van het CIAIAC rapport, waarover hierna meer. Weliswaar hebben ook andere omstandigheden bij die incidenten een rol van betekenis gespeeld, zoals Ryanair uitvoerig betoogt, maar dat dwingt niet tot de conclusie dat tussen die incidenten en het brandstofbeleid een causaal verband zou ontbreken…”

I think this is a fair translation: The content of previous facts clearly points to the core of KRO’s first broadcast about the fuel policy… Illustrative are Ryanair’s memo’s (file exhibits 56 to 61) that lead 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 in the broadcast confirm this. Under circumstances, this can lead to unsafe situations, as happened with these three incidents. This is our conclusion from the interviews with the crew and from the conclusions of the CIAIAC report (that we’ll discuss later). As Ryanair stated, indeed other circumstances occurred for the three incidents. However, that argument doesn’t contradict that there is a causal cause between the incidents and Rynair’s fuel policy.

So far for the fuel policy. Now, regarding unfit to fly, the court continues in 3.7:

“...Hetzelfde geldt het ziekteverzuim… Ook ten aanzien daarvan heeft KRO afdoende onderzoek verricht, eveneens bestaande uit gesprekken met piloten van Ryanair (een aantal geeft aan te hebben gevlogen terwijl ze ziek waren of extreem moe - dit kan beide als ‘unfit to fly’ worden beschouwd - en verklaart dit vanwege door hen ervaren druk uit het bedrijf te hebben gedaan)..."

I think this is a fair translation: The same applies for the illness matters. The court accepts KRO’s investigation into this matter, like testimonies with some pilots. Some of them reported in the broadcast that they did not report unfit to fly when they were sick or extreme fatigue, because of company pressure…

Back to the fuel story: the CIAIAC reports: see 3.12 of the verdict:

...In paragraaf 2.7 van het rapport wordt als analyse van laatstgenoemde incidenten vermeld: “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.”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, een en ander zoals de CIAIAC dit verwoordt en door de rechtbank is weergegeven in rechtsoverweging 4.9 van het vonnis. De grief faalt.

I think this is a fair translation: The court refers to paragraph 2.7 of the CIAIAC report about the Alicante fuel emergeny and the three Valencia fuel emergencies. That CIAIC report mentions as analyse of the Valencia incidents: “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.” This means that CIAIAC regards the same cause for the Alicante incident as the Valencia incidents: Ryanair’s fuel policy.

[sean1982]

I CAN read yes, you not really.
Proof to me that what FR does is different than any airline in europe. FR follows all EASA guidelines, therefore we can conclude that ALL airlines in Europe have an unsafe fuel policy in the dutch court's view

Lets not forget the following. From another CAIAC report:

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.

OPS manual part A I allready stated and to be fully clear, about unfit to fly it says that a crew member should NOT operate an aircraft when he/she is in doubt that they will be able to fully complete their duties.
Do people fly when unfit? I never did, I never flew with anyone unfit, but there are always people who will come to work when they shoudl really be in bed. Not because anyone forces them, but because thats how they are.


Since that event in spain 3 years ago, FR hasn't had anymore fuel emergencies despite being the airline that operates the biggest number of flights of any european operator EVERY DAY.

Just for futher refernce ... these are some more fuel emergencies that happened since the FR ones

Canadian North
http://avherald.com/h?article=46516530&opt=0

Dutch Corendon
http://avherald.com/h?article=465625ad&opt=0

Aer Lingus
http://avherald.com/h?article=44df086f/0000&opt=0

Virgin Australia
http://avherald.com/h?article=46588ddb&opt=0

Easyjet
http://avherald.com/h?article=4765fe45&opt=0

Thomson
http://avherald.com/h?article=46af88af&opt=0

Lufthansa
http://avherald.com/h?article=475207bb&opt=0

And to top it all off, this near crash of Thomas Cook
http://avherald.com/h?article=47b86849&opt=0

[sn26567]

From another CAIAC report:

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.

If I read you well, they declared an emergency, but should not have done so. Thus these were "false" emergencies, making them require priority landing without really needing it. Not a fair attitude, in my view. But I'm not a specialist...

[sean1982]

From another CAIAC report:

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.

If I read you well, they declared an emergency, but should not have done so. Thus these were "false" emergencies, making them require priority landing without really needing it. Not a fair attitude, in my view. But I'm not a specialist...

Read again please ... They declared emergency because they were expecting to land below min fuel reserve. You dont wait untill you are actually below reserve before you declare an emergency. They did exactly what the manual say you should do. You also dont wait for your car engine to starve of fuel before you fill it up again.

[Passenger]

If the mayday calls were justified or not, is not relevant in this court case. What matters, is what caused the fuel emergencies. And for the zillionth time: the court leaves absolutely no doubt about this: "...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..."(quote from the Court verdict, paragraph 3.12). Translated: ...This means that CIAIAC regards the same cause for the Alicante fuel incident as for the three Valencia fuel incidents: Ryanair’s fuel policy...

The Court then describes the details about that fuel policy: "Illustratief zijn daarbij de memo’s die van de zijde van Ryanair zijn verspreid (producties 56 tot en met 61 CvA), 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... Dit kan onder omstandigheden tot onveilige situaties leiden, zoals zich ten aanzien van de incidenten heeft gemanifesteerd..." (paragraph 3.7). Translated: Ryanair, although not exceeding the minimum requirements, adds several extra conditions, Ryanair doens’t leave the quantity to the pilot’s discretion and Ryanair puts pressure on the pilots to add as little extra fuel as possible... Under circumstances, this can lead to unsafe situations, as happened with these three incidents.

[sean1982]

And for the zillionth time, prove black in white that FR's policy is different than any other european airline. Untill then, the dutch court has decided that all european airlines have an unsafe fuel policy

Part a is not ambiguous about this. There are no extra conditions. It's take what you want and write down why.

[Passenger]

And for the zillionth time, prove black in white that FR's policy is different than any other european airline. Untill then, the dutch court has decided that all european airlines have an unsafe fuel policy. Part a is not ambiguous about this. There are no extra conditions. It's take what you want and write down why.

Euh, so the verdict from the Gerechtshof Amsterdam (the Dutch Appeal Court) is absolutely totally worthless/useless because me, passenger, who is just a humble forum visitor not working for an airline or airport, is unable to prove that other airlines have a different fuel policy then Ryanair's? Very funny logic!

However, may I humbly suggest that you contact Dublin, and you ask them for annexes 56 to 61 of this case? The court verdict states that these files 56-61 are the internal Ryanair memo's that KRO Reporter used to prove what needed to be proven. But then, let me predict the reply you will get from Dublin: "this Dutch court verdict is very very unpleasant for us, and that's why nobody here has given any reaction whatsoever to all requests from the press to comment. Our instruction therefore is: burke it please." Doodzwijgen dus.

[RTM]

No need to prove anything Sean... the court has ruled, it has been proven... other airlines are not on trial... The irony is that the coartcase was started by ryanair in the first place. Talking about PR and arrogance blowing up in your face...

[airazurxtror]

No need to prove anything Sean... the court has ruled, it has been proven... other airlines are not on trial... The irony is that the coartcase was started by ryanair in the first place. Talking about PR and arrogance blowing up in your face...

The Dutch court has ruled over the dispute between Ryanair and a journalist who was allegedly unfair towards Ryanair. The court has judged that the journalist was not unfair in his comments. So be it.
For the rest, a Dutch court has no authority (an no competence) to judge a technical non-incident that happened in Spain to an Irish airline.
The Ryanair-bashers have to resort to a three years old happening to find something to bash upon ! Rather heartening, I would say ...

[RTM]

Fair enough.
but the court did point a finger based on evidence given in the defence. And I don't think a judge will make a remark like that, witch technically is beside the case, unless he is truly convinced by the evidence.

See, I really don't care who's right or wrong. I am not a ryanair basher as you call it, I do believe they have earned their place in aviation. But as an aviation proffessional, with safety in high regard, I do sometimes wonder... The three emergencies in one day with the same cause is in aviation to much of a coincidence. It was investigated, and the conclusion is pretty clear. The dutch judge reconfirmed it. And that is quite a backfire from the standpoint of going to trial to win your case against a journalist.

[Lysexpat]

A couple of facts/explanations from a frontliner:

- the verdict is clear: Ryanair complies with the existing fuel requirements.
- the court states that they could have taken more fuel, this is absolutely correct, but that wouldn't have changed anything. This is how it works: typical diversion fuel MAD-VLC: 1000 kg, an aircraft has to land in VLC with 30 minutes reserve fuel, another 1000 kg, approach fuel in Madrid 700 kgs. So when holding overhead Madrid, a pilot will leave the holding in Madrid at the latest with 2700 kgs of fuel; Aircraft A arriving with 3700kgs will leave the holding after 30 minutes, aircraft B arriving with 4700kg will hold 1 hour overhead Madrid, BUT both will arrive in Valencia with the same amount of fuel. The initial fuel onboard, influences your holding capability at destination, but not your landing fuel at the alternate.
Sometimes it is even the opposite; Immagine A and B arrive at the same time in Madrid and are given an expected approach time one hour later. A will divert immediatly, as unable to wait, and arrive in VLC with 2700kg, B will hold in Madrid, but if delays increases might have to divert at a later time and might arrive in VLC with less fuel than A. Flying with less fuel is not less safe, you will only have to divert sooner. If you follow the logic more fuel is safer, you would always take off with full tanks, but you would need more thrust and the chance of having an engine faillure on take off would increase significantly!
-Both KRO and the court base their conclusion on the report from Spanish ATC. Well, Spanish ATC wasn't very helpful that day, to say the least. The request from the Ryanair aircraft to divert were first ignored and later they were send wetsbound whilst Valencia is eastbound. Al those who fly into MAD/BCN are familiar with multiple runway changes, delaying vectors to cheat on the sequence, marginal English... To me it is clear that the ATC guy who was interviewed wanted to make sure nobody would blame ATC, blaming Ryanair was a way to keep the attention away from ATC.
- once an aircraft might land with less than final reserve (30min) it has to declare an urgency state (pan call) once they know they will land with less than minimum reserve, the have to declare an emergency (mayday call). Problem is some countries only recognise the emergency, hence many pilots will declare an emrgency right away. This is not cheating as Andre and others suggested here.
-I flew for five operators, legacies and LCC, all of them try to limit their fuel consumption, ie: take what you think you need, but don't exagerate as it costs money.


My opinion: The Ryanair fuel policy is as safe as others. The court states the opposite, but sometimes innocents are convicted. This is way to complex for a Judge or lawyers to fully understand, the court should have hired an expert pilot to explain some basics to them.
(by the way, I don't work for Ryanair)

[sean1982]

thank you lysexpat ... this simple concept seems to go over passengers head. Besides, the CAIAC report is indeed not very impartial as they were indeed trying to clear ATC of all blame and this is exactly why the IAA felt the need to publish a counter report. Every pilot that operates into spain can testify that spanish ATC can be "challenging" at times especially when the shit hits the fan.

And lastly, another concept that passenger fails to grasp, is that a memo HAS NO LEGAL RIGHT. Unless it is an FCI which is an official ammendment to the OPS manual a memo is worthless and not to be taken into account. In any case, the OPS manual is the ONLY document that needs to be followed. But then again, as he doesnt work into aviation, he doesnt know that. Not that I would care, but when it is to support a hate campaign, ignorance is not an excuse.

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