Ryanair Whistle Blower Pilot Fired

[E6BAV8R 88]

Not being an employee of the airline, you really have to take this with a grain of salt.  There are MANY reasons for employees to get disgruntled or angry at their employer; especially in companies with a very large number of employees.  They feel the only way they'll be heard is going straight to the media, which this guy seems to have made a habit of doing.

 

That isn't to say that his claims aren't without merit.  While Safety has to have top priority, and in which the airline has shown to meet regulatory standards, at the end of the day the company has to turn a profit.  In the flight operations that I personally oversee, it is a massive under-taking to strike balance between the both of them.  This guy can take Ryanair to court all he wants but if the regulator audits the airline again (which they will) and there is nothing outside of regulatory minimums that they find than this won't go any further.  Companies, court systems and regulators see this all the time - it isn't anything strange for an employee to make accusations against their employers.  And this issue is much more widespread than you would think - this goes on at every airline.  The primary cause being that everyones perception of "what is safe" is different.

[sp85 6]

I believe the pilot, I simply think that, by sitting in the airplanes, he, 2 a great extent, knows what kind of safety issues hes talking about. If the plane goes down, the end for him as well. Not for the chief xyz or something...

Of course there may be a whole conspiracy or stuff like that about the employee's motivation, cos assume nobody knows...

[mgh 89]

What exactly are his claims?

[g_precentralis 191]

Well, let's say you hire a maid, and then she go at TV station and say you raped her (irrelevant if it's true or not). Would you fire her?

 

I wouldn't allow workers speaking against me or my company at media. 

[Holdit 551]

The NTSB claimed that pilot fatigue was likely to have been a factor in the Continental Connections crash outside Buffalo NY in 2009. Pilot and co-pilot were too poorly-paid to live near the hub. One was "commuting" to Newark from Florida and the other from Seattle.

 

Imagine commuting from London to Cairo...that's actually a slightly shorter distance.

[mgh 89]

What safety issues? Didn't the Irish Aviation Authority  take his complaints seriously either when he brought these issues to its attention?

 

I assume he did that before going public so may be they're not well-founded?

 

The reality is that this has all the hall-marks of a trade dispute and, increasing a witch-hunt against Ryanair.

[japascoe 98]

The link makes interesting reading but needs a pinch of salt. ryanair employed 2625 pilots on 31 march 2013. Dispatches got responses from 1093 pilots.  that represents 41.6% of all pilots - less than half. It also means that the quoted figure of 93.6% in answer to question A3 really only represent the views of 40.% of Ryanair's pilots.

 

You can predict the outcomes of political elections pretty accurately by polling significantly less than 41.6% of the population. In fact I'd think most researchers would give several body parts (figuratively speaking) to get a a response rate of over 40% to a survey.

The real question is how representative your sample is for the total population. In this case it seems likely that those with safety concerns are more likely to fill in the questionnaire, so the percentage of pilots with concerns is likely higher in the sample than in the total population. Even so, even if only all the pilots with safety concerns filled in the questionnaire and all those without didn't, that means 40% of Ryanair's pilots think there is a problem, which is would submit is pretty good evidence that their seems to be a problem.

 

All in all I'm not quite sure what to make of the Ryanair issue. The group behind the questionnaire (Ryanair pilot's group) is made up of pilots from other airlines, though not necessarily direct competitors (e.g. Emirates). Ryanair's safety record is certainly good, with no fatal accidents (compare e.g. Air France in the same time frame, fatal crash and a preventable hull loss). There also seems to be some unfair spotlighting. On the night in 2010 that 3 Ryanair planes declared a may-day but otherwise landed safely, there was also an A340 that had an engine die of fuel starvation, and I don't even know what airline that was, which tells you a lot about how balanced the reporting was(n't). Virgin Australia recently had a pilot bust approach minimums because his alternate turned out to be socked in (when he was overhead) and he didn't have any more fuel left, but we haven't had big reports about their fuel policy.

 

On the other foot, Ryanair's terms & conditions are quite clearly set up to completely quash any representation or organisation among the pilots and could quite easily be used to impose a culture of fear. Their reactions to media reports seem to match up with that. 40% of pilots saying there is a problem is also not a number that can be ignored just because it's less than half.

 

In the interest of balance: in the blue corner, the Ryanair Pilot Group: https://www.ryanairpilotgroup.com/index2.php

in the red corner: the IAA response https://www.iaa.ie/news.jsp?gc=99&i=419

 

Feel free to make up your own mind. For me Ryanair's business model is more than enough to avoid them, regardless of potential safety concerns.

[atco 161]

So the real issue here then is the regulator and not the airline itself?
I assume that the issues with the IAA also extend to Aer Lingus, or does the IAA only "self regulate" Ryanair?

I'm very troubled by this to be frank.

If the problem is as you state then all Irish pilots should be standing up to the regulator and taking this to the European regulator. Surely a co-ordinated approach from all Irish pilots would resolve everyone's concerns about the IAA and its oversight.
I find it somewhat hard to believe that the regulator could simply be in Ryanair's pocket. Are you implying here that the IAA turns a blind eye to Ryanair's alleged infractions whilst solidly regulating all other Irish airlines? I have to be honest but I find that somehwhat hard to believe.

Having dealt with regulatory bodies from the UK CAA and Canada's Transport Canada, albeit on the ATC side of the fence, that really doesn't mesh with my experiences of the people who are involved in these agencies. All the regulatory people I have ever encountered professionally have struck me as being extremely concerned about flight safety regardless of who they may upset, to the point of being excessively nitpicky.
I was once criticised for not giving traffic information when passing urgent and unexpected avoiding action (another controller unexpectedly turned his aircraft right at mine - head on 5 miles climbing and descending through each other) and the only thing I cared about at the time was making sure the avoiding action was substantial, thorough and effective. Yes traffic information would have been ideal but at the time I considered it a lower priority!

I have to say that having looked at the evidence put forward here so far, in terms of the communications between Ryanair and the Dispatches producer and the statement from the IAA that I find it hard to not find some sympathy with Ryanair in this case.
I have to agree with Gerry's input on this that it looks for all the World like a trade union created issue and that there appears at least on the face of it to be plenty of avenues for Ryanair pilots to make their concerns known both internally and confidentially via the regulator.
I can understand the skepticism of using the internal reporting system, that largely comes down to how one views the safety culture within the organisation and how robust and or safe one feels using it. That is something only those within the airline can judge for themselves.
But surely there can be no excuse for not using the confidential reporting through the regulator? If the process is not confidential the regulator is exposing itself to huge liability if there are then reprocussions for the reporter. If the regulator is not dealing with these matters on a confidential and full basis then that undermines the integrity of the system for all air users and employees in Ireland and I would argue is a matter of significant importance and should be something all Irish aviation professionals should be up in arms about.

Having used such systems in the past through the UK's MOR scheme and other various programs like CHIRP I had no doubt that my confidence was maintained and that my reports were followed up and investigated thoroughly. I would not hesitate to use any such program again in the future.

I would expect that if I went on national television and destroyed my employer without using the proper reporting channels that my attendance at work would no longer be required. That to my mind does not seem unusual for Ryanair or really any company?

Also whilst I have a great deal of respect for Ronan and what he brings to AVSIM, I am not comfortable with the motives here, given that Ryanair is Aer Lingus' most direct competitor and that Mr Goss clearly had to know that he would be fired for appearing on the show. What troubles me most is that I'm not sure what the real issue is here that Ronan is attempting to highlight. I don't think its unreasonable for the airline to fire Mr Goss for appearing on the TV show - I'm fairly certain that every airline in the World would classify such action as Gross Misconduct as would any fairly large company that values its PR image. And that it appears that Ronan is suggesting that the IAA turns a blind eye to alleged wrongdoings by Ryanair.

It appears there are legitimate channels in place for Ryanair pilots to air their concerns. If they are not doing so that indicates a couple of options:
1: Things are fine there
2: Ryanair does not have a proper safety culture in place and given the evidence presented by Ryanair that does not initially appear to be the case based on their memo's on fuel uptake and CVR preservation and no documented evidence to the contrary
3: The regulator does not apply proper oversight of Ryanair and presumably other Irish airlines and does not meet its obligations of confidentiality regarding its confidential reporting system

I would suggest some, none or all of the above may apply here

[Don t moderate me this way 882]

What about those fuel incidents?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryanair#Fuel_incidents

 

 

The IAA had a word to say back in 2012 regarding Ryanair's fuel policy, but the IAA failed to mention exactly their own recommendations today in their response to Channel 4 Dispatches Programme:

 

https://www.iaa.ie/news.jsp?gc=99&i=419

 

 

EDIT:

 

In 2012 the CIAIAC was even less protective than the IAA: "the company’s fuel savings policy, though it complies with the minimum legal requirements, tends to minimize the amount of fuel with which its airplanes operate and leaves none for contingencies below the legal minimums. This contributed to the amount of fuel used being improperly planned and to the amount of fuel onboard dropping below the required final fuel reserve."^[

 

 

There's quite a difference between those points of view ...

Edited August 15, 2013 by olli4740

[E6BAV8R 88]

 

Why should we share anything about this?  Can you verify that what this guy is saying is actually true?  As in, provide actual evidence that reports submitted to management are intentionally ignored so that they don't have to address them?

 

Unless you have proof than you're simply starting a slanderous smear campaign against Ryanair (which is illegal, by the way); which is probably why this guy was fired.

[E6BAV8R 88]

 

Firstly, just because you think something is true doesn't make it fact.  Just because it "seems valid and makes logical sense" doesn't mean it is true.  We don't have any idea the specifics of the operations nor the decisions that Ryanair management is going through.  You also don't know this pilots personal situation and his relationship with the company.  You're taking a bunch of different aspects and assuming they are true.

 

Ryanair very well could use 70% of zero hour contract pilots, but that doesn't mean you have evidence to support that a majority of these pilots leads to unsafe practices, procedures and decision-making in the cockpit.  In fact, the regulator doesn't even believe that; as they approved the operation.  Contract pilots have been utilized all over the world and span much wider than just scheduled airlines.  Being that operators all over the world utilize them and that Ryanair and the regulator have used them for extended periods of time, logic would dictate that they obviously know more about it than you do.  Just because Ryanair hasn't publically made a statement about it or shrunk the % of contract pilots they are using doesn't mean they haven't addressed concerns or changed policies or procedures.

[SpiritFlyer 987]

Ronan,

 

I have not spoken to Tom about this, therefore so far this is just me. I am doing this so as not to imply I am speaking for AVSIM. If authorized by Tom and the board subsequently, that is a different matter.

 

We have over 100,000 members, and have influence over many more in the hobby, with lap overs into your world to an unknown factor.

 

If somehow we wish to, or could, by AVSIM's participation mobilize our membership to take individual and AVSIM wide action to support Captain John Goss:

 

Is there a list of names of individuals and organizations with email addresses that would be sensitive and probably responsive to a significant international campaign directed against this decision, and those that made it?

 

Kind regards,

[mgh 89]

AVSIM should be careful.
 

Ryanair has instructed its lawyers to issue legal proceedings against Channel 4 Dispatches for defamation ...

http://www.ryanair.com/en/news/ryanair-releases-channel-4-dispatches-letters

[SpiritFlyer 987]

Good advice! Avsim will decide Avsim policy and positions (if any) upon merit as understood and defined by Avsim BOD. We are not risk ignorant but are even more adverse to standing for what is right only when it is most convenient and risk free.

 

My fellow Avsim leadership will decide such lofty matters if it comes to that or if it comes to nothing more. 

 

Stephen

[atco 161]

"I have to say personally I've seen very little input from the IAA into the way EI is run, so I think it's safe to say that this applies to all Irish airlines. It enforces all laws, but that's it, it will conduct spot checks to ensure everything is being operated on to spec etc, but that's not the issue. Ryanair is operating perfectly legally and in compliance with all IAA and EASA guidelines, it's just unfortunate that the guidelines and laws are not designed to deal with an atmosphere in a company, they can only deal with facts."

 

Then you have a regulatory problem, not a Ryanair problem.

If Ryanair is operating legally and in compliance with all IAA and EASA guidelines (guidelines or regulations? - Big difference), then what else are they supposed to do.

 

You are correct in stating that any regulator has to deal with facts, as "atmosphere" can be interpreted many ways by groups with an agenda to push - like trades unions for example. If people are not reporting problems to them, then there are no facts to go on. A regulator cannot simply work with heresay and gossip.

 

"Ryanair pilots have said in their survey that they do not trust either the internal or external reporting mechanisms in place, as they've reported concerns, yet still they are unaddressed."

 

Again this is a regulatory problem. Are issues unaddressed or simply not solved in favour of the complainant? The regulator has to work within the legal framework it has based on applicable National and European aviation regulations. If Ryanair is not breaching those regulations, what should the regulator do?

 

"My concerns are as follows and I'd hope most people can see where I'm coming from:

 

Having to pay a mortgage or bill etc, should not come into the equation when determining if you are fit to fly.

Pilots should not be reprimanded for reporting safety issues.

Pilots should not face pressure to take less fuel, they should be informed of the cost of taking extra, and justifying taking more fuel is acceptable if it get's people to really think if they need it, but not ranking them against each other and reqarding/punishing people for their place on the scale.

Pressures such as having hours cut or base changed should not be allowed influence a pilots descision when it comes to deciding on something safety critical.

 

I'd hope those points are sensible and people see where I'm coming from. I'd hold all airlines to this standard, not only Ryanair but every airline out there."

 

1: Ryanair have issued a statement saying that contract pilots average more flying hours than non-contract pilots. I assume they have figures that they can back up that statement with. I have not seen any evidence put forward outside of anonymous anecdotes that suggests pilots are putting money before being fit to fly.

 

2: Where is the evidence that Ryanair pilots have been reprimanded for reporting safety issues?

 

3: The Ryanair memo states very clearly unless I have missed something that pilots are able to take as much fuel as they determine necessary. Again where is there evidence that pilots have been harmed career wise by carrying extra fuel?

 

4: Again where is there evidence to support the accusations that pilots are having hours cut or bases changed, and what safety critical decisions are they claiming to make based on this information? I would imagine a lawyer would have a fairly easy time tearing the airline apart if a pilot was disciplined for carrying extra fuel given the wording of the memo from the chief pilot.

 

I agree I would want all airlines to be held to the same criteria, but without any evidence that any of this is actually happening then what do we have to go on. Sorry but anonymous interviews in a TV documentary do not cut it for me, particularly when the documentary maker already has a questionable history with the airline involved and there is a fairly public battle going on with the airline and a trade body that provided the information and presumably the pilots for the show.

 

I'm not saying that there is nothing problematic at Ryanair, there may well be issues going on there, but honestly whats been presented so far is so below what I would consider acceptable evidence of what is alleged to be serious wrongdoing that I can't fail to be skeptical.

Ryanair have so far provided fairly concrete facts, documents and actual evidence to back up what they are saying, the other side has provided nothing at all.

 

"The reason that this industry has been able to get like this is because pilots have not been working together to stop things like zero hours contracts or pay-to-fly schemes, to bring this industry and a career I've dedicated my life so far to back to a place that is respected, I feel I owe it to the pilots at Ryanair to support their cause."

 

Well thats another issue entirely, and not solely of Ryanair's doing. Many airlines across the Globe have hacked away at pilot's pay and conditions, and its very sad to see. That is something I am behind fully, but that is an industry wide issue and it would be unfair to simply pick on Ryanair.

 

I understand where you are coming from here, I know a lot of pilots and honestly I stand with you in improving the working life and safety culture of everyone in the industry. I have never met more committed professionals in any walk of life than those who devote their life to aviation - be it maintenance, flight crew, ATC. I have never met a single person in this industry who was not motivated by the pursuit of safety and keeping safety as the number one priority.

I believe strongly in a positive and non-punitive safety culture.

 

So again, I'm not simply here to defend Ryanair, what I am saying here is there seems to be a whole slew of issues, particularly with regulation and oversight. But the accusations that have been put forward regarding the airline to me just don't meet the smell test. They smack to me of a body (Ryanair pilots group) with a significant axe to grind in a labour relations matter making a lot of noise but not showing anything to back it up.

If actual proper hard evidence outside of anonymous interviews can be produced that shows this is how Ryanair is operating, I'll be the first in line to stand right behind you in calling for change and for decisive action.

If as you believe Capt Goss has proof to back up his claims, why did he not bring that forward during the TV program? Surely that would have made for a blockbuster and would have been well worth dropping in front of Mr O'Leary during the interview he offered to give?

 

"I am not slandering Ryanair, all I have done is reported that Capt Goss who spoke up was fired for doing so (fact), that he highlighted safety concerns that to me seem to be valid and make sense to me (fact), and that I believe that these concerns should be brought to the attention of as many people as possible."

 

I would suggest Capt Goss was fired quite appropriately for throwing his employer under a bus on national TV. If you can name me any other company that would not have done the same I would be amazed. I can't see honestly how anyone can say that trashing your employer on television is not a sackable offence. Had he been sacked purely for speaking out about safety violations within the company and not made the media his first port of call then I would back this 110%.

If he has highlighted safety concerns before to Ryanair management and the IAA and they have not been acted on then I would like to see evidence of that and I will most certainly be on board with supporting his cause.

 

Sorry for the rookie usage of the quotations.