Text 5448, 84 rader
Skriven 2013-01-03 00:02:31 av Ward Dossche (2:292/854)
   Kommentar till text 5446 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
Ärende: Re: Happy New Year!
===========================
Michiel,
 
Mv>WD> Yet Ryanair got the flak. Why?
 
Mv> You tell me...
 
One theory  [my own]  there is a lot of intra-Spanish flying going-on and
Ryanair is flying the biggest share of it. Spanish companies are not their best
friends and these would be most served by a Ryanair grounding ... same as KLM
trying to get them out of Eindhoven, BA tried to chase them out of Stansted and
Luton and Sabena tried to chase them out of Belgium.
 
Mv>WD> The matter was investigated by the IAA which concluded that Ryanair
Mv>WD> operated among the safest of European Airlines.
 
Mv> Perhaps we should have an independent European body for these
Mv> investigations. I am not saying the IAA would favour their own, but to
Mv> avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest, it might be better.
 
So you would state there is an appearance of conflict of interest when the
Rijksluchtvaartdienst investigates incidents with KLM?
 
Little known but the largest owner of aircraft is Irish: IFLC ... International
Finance and Lease Corporation. Their services go worldwide, head-office in San
Diego but basically an Irish company.
 
When passing Dublin airport you can see there KLM, Air France, Alitalia,
Iberia, TAP, Swiss and all the others when their D-check comes up.
 
That is the reason, for example, when if a Brussels Airlines A320 were to crash
in the Netherlands, then the Rijksluchtvaartdienst would lead the investigation
assisted bij the Regie der Luchtwegen (B-flagstate), Airbus (manufacturer) and
IAA (Irish, country of owner).
 
Personally, I like that set-up. With that Turkish airlines crash at Schiphol
some years ago 48hrs later Van Vollenhoven already was there with his
pressconference and accurate conclusions.
 
An overal European body would be very rigid and slow, certainly politicised and
i'd think ineffective.
 
Just an opinion of course.
 
Mv> Isn't that what margins are for? The unexpected?
 
One of the flights was from Palma to Madrid, that is 1h05m-1h10m in the air.
 
How unexpected can the weather change in slightly over an hour? The keyword is
"unexpectedly" ... Spanish ATC was very sloppy with weather info ...
 
The flight plan required 5.887kg of fuel, the captain decided to 6.500kg. A lot
of vectoring was required and when they were fully established at 23nm to land
a windshear was detected and a go-around performed. During the go-around the
plane was hit by lightning and a "Window Overheat" master was triggered.
 
The plane went into holding. When the fuel was at 2900kg they diverted to
Valencia where another situation developed (too many planes diverting and
several calling a Mayday due to fuel). It landed with 1.029kg in the tanks and
a total reserve of 1.104kg.
 
At no single moment the passengers were endangered by Ryanair, the cockpit crew
behaved very professional.
 
Same story for the Stansted-Madrid and Skavsta-Madrid flights.
 
Mv> Then why did four pilots go the press to report these problems? What did
Mv> they have to gain if there was nothing to it?
 
An axe to grind? Were they actually pilots or hoaxes?
 
I know a former Sabena 737 pilot who flies for Ryanair and he says they're very
efficient. If there's inflight an issue it'll be radioed to maintenance and
every plane passes a maintenance facility at least once a day. It will be taken
care of that day if they can or switch to another plane.
 
There are no Ryanair planes with inactive APU for example because they operate
a lot from fields where they need it. I've been to LA 4 times with KLM and on
those 8 occasions the APU never worked, meaning no airco. Have had the same
with Northwest and KLM in Minneapolis.
 
 \%/@rd

--- D'Bridge 3.9
 * Origin: Many Glacier / Protect - Preserve - Conserve (2:292/854)