A quick thank you (Ryanair)

Nobjocki

peterbaker wrote: »

Don't fret, laidback, our friend Nobjocki hasn't told us yet what gave him the notion that Ryanair have a 100% safety record. Clearly some things escape his notice, or else he simply meant nobody died yet

Well, instead of simply snivelling why don't you provide evidence which compares FR's safety record with every other major airline ?

That'll get the ball rolling.;)

Bob_the_Saver

Well they've had a 100% safety record with me so that's my main concern
:A

UKHCGirl

Bob_the_Saver wrote: »

This was my previous experience with Easyjet, they've not got better by the sound of it, shame as I've 2 flights with them next week.

AND the reason that i used easyjet quite a lot this year was because they flew to the airport better for me, and got me back to london at a reasonable time.

They have now changed my preferred routes flights, so i am trying out Flybe for the first time.

claire80

wow what a thread lol ! i have only used ryanair once and while it was not the most comfortable plane it was a very cheap way for me to take my family on a great holiday and we had no problems with them , when you have to buy 5 seats its get pricey and ryan air got us there as well as anyone else could have done for a fraction of the price. id use them again if the price was still the cheapest tbh.

peterbaker

Nobjocki wrote: »

Well, instead of simply snivelling why don't you provide evidence which compares FR's safety record with every other major airline ?

That'll get the ball rolling.;)

Well first I didn't realise you could tell I had a bit of a cold . Second, being a UK to Europe traveller the only airline I would really be interested to compare it to might be Easyjet. I haven't really used any other than those two for years as they are dominant, and other than Air Berlin perhaps which I did use for a couple of flights a few years back, there aren't any other established lo-cost fast-turnaround airlines of significant size in UK/Europe are there?

I am not familiar with any EasyJet accidents or Air Berlin ones, but I will Google to try to find some.

To be honest it is the fast-turnaround ethic which worries me most - act in haste, repent at leisure and all that ... some might argue that it actually sharpens up the crews, but I think the jury is out on that one. I worry that self-imposed time deadlines might also begin to affect maintenance which signified by the new hangar at Stansted for example, may have been brought in house recently?

I worry (not snivel, please ...) that they may have had a tad more than their share of running out of runway accidents ... those have inevitably indicated too much residual speed (haste if you like) at points where the speed should already have been planned to be got rid of in orderly fashion before an excursion took place. There have also been one or two other mistakes with the geography of airports (again more time spent planning may have helped avoid them).

Our friends are not the only airline to suffer these things of course, but it is not insignificant when it happens because it is only luck that no hard or spikey bits get hit once you are off the beaten track.

Edit: Here you go, this seems as on topic as any and I have chosen it because on the face of it it appears to be what we want - I am not aware that it shows any bias one way or other - I haven't even started reading an details yet - I can see there are many more incidents with a number of airlines which I hadn't heard about.

Nobjocki

peterbaker wrote: »

Well first I didn't realise you could tell I had a bit of a cold . Second, being a UK to Europe traveller the only airline I would really be interested to compare it to might be Easyjet. I haven't really used any other than those two for years as they are dominant, and other than Air Berlin perhaps which I did use for a couple of flights a few years back, there aren't any other established lo-cost fast-turnaround airlines of significant size in UK/Europe are there?

I am not familiar with any EasyJet accidents or Air Berlin ones, but I will Google to try to find some.

To be honest it is the fast-turnaround ethic which worries me most - act in haste, repent at leisure and all that ... some might argue that it actually sharpens up the crews, but I think the jury is out on that one. I worry that self-imposed time deadlines might also begin to affect maintenance which signified by the new hangar at Stansted for example, may have been brought in house recently?

I worry (not snivel, please ...) that they may have had a tad more than their share of running out of runway accidents ... those have inevitably indicated too much residual speed (haste if you like) at points where the speed should already have been planned to be got rid of in orderly fashion before an excursion took place. There have also been one or two other mistakes with the geography of airports (again more time spent planning may have helped avoid them).

Our friends are not the only airline to suffer these things of course, but it is not insignificant when it happens because it is only luck that no hard or spikey bits get hit once you are off the beaten track.

Edit: Here you go, this seems as on topic as any and I have chosen it because on the face of it it appears to be what we want - I am not aware that it shows any bias one way or other - I haven't even started reading an details yet - I can see there are many more incidents with a number of airlines which I hadn't heard about.

So what you're saying is that there is no evidence to prove that Rynair doesn't have an excellent safety record but you're concerned about the implications of their fast turnaround time even though they have proved it is possible to operate more than 1000 flights a day for many years quickly and efficiently while satisfying every CAA legal safety requirement.

I'm glad we have cleared that up.

stoneman

We could never lower ourselves to fly pikeyair. Imagine the cost of my wife taking this lot, recently seen on a short trip to Tenerife lol

peterbaker

Nobjocki wrote: »

So what you're saying is that there is no evidence to prove that Rynair doesn't have an excellent safety record but you're concerned about the implications of their fast turnaround time even though they have proved it is possible to operate more than 1000 flights a day for many years quickly and efficiently while satisfying every CAA legal safety requirement.

I'm glad we have cleared that up.

Not quite, but nearly. They are regulated by IAA not CAA. But I noted a few week's ago that the accolade is also shared by the Holy Father's aircraft (it is also EI-reg).

Do remember that Ryanair have expanded again very rapidly in the 2 or 3 years by pretty much doubling their fleet size and their destinations. They also have seemed to acquire a reputation over the same timescale for settling for quite low hours second pilots. (I accept that could be good if they are all recently trained to a better specific standard than most).

I very much feel secure that they operate 260 or more of exactly the same aircraft, but they may be constantly tweaking the way they operate in the air too (to save every last drop of fuel and time). You may have noticed this if you were a wingman :A

For example, the clearly more prevalent use of speedbrakes in the final stages of descent to approach perhaps surprisingly frequently overlapped with use of early stages of flaps and slats in recent times. Use of the speedbrakes implies a need to get rid of excess speed and inertia faster than is necessary in less dramatic descents. Excess speed implied by having the speedbrakes still out after flats and slats are deployed further implies inevitable top of the acceptable range of extra stress on the flaps and slats which of course are speed limited.

In any part of the aircraft cabin, you may have also noticed during recent descents that there are more instances of reduced g (where you feel you are slightly on the way up out of your seat). This may not be negative g, but airliners are generally not designed to routinely endure negative g. So if it isn't on the edge, it surely gets closer thesedays than it used to.

Now if any airline was in a good position to accurately document and analyse any ill effects noticed by pilots or maintenance engineers since introducing these new 'ways', then it would be Ryanair because their fleet size is so great, and they are surely experts on the type, but it is in my humble opinion just another example of how they are looking to pushing the previously generally accepted limits in interesting ways.

All of this is on top of the fact that we know that all aircraft operating in Europe have deliberately had a lot more abrasive ash shoved in their hungry mouths and scouring other orifices and their wing surfaces this year because our governments collectively said "sod Eyjafjallajokull, let's get on with it and sort out the problems as they may arise."


If I was a second-hand plane buyer, I might think twice about buying an offloaded "modern" Ryanair 737 - I might worry about how "fatigued" it really was, because I have ideas about it. But then every airline has its ways, and I guess I'd be even more clueless about other airlines offloads, although I might be swayed a little that Easyjet is CAA regulated not IAA. Just a personal thing - nothing to do with religion :A

So, not snivelling, but concerned about the complexities of maintaining standards in a changing environment (natural, technological, regulatory and economic).

Nobjocki

peterbaker wrote: »

Not quite, but nearly. They are regulated by IAA not CAA. But I noted a few week's ago that the accolade is also shared by the Holy Father's aircraft (it is also EI-reg).

Do remember that Ryanair have expanded again very rapidly in the 2 or 3 years by pretty much doubling their fleet size and their destinations. They also have seemed to acquire a reputation over the same timescale for settling for quite low hours second pilots. (I accept that could be good if they are all recently trained to a better specific standard than most).

I very much feel secure that they operate 260 or more of exactly the same aircraft, but they may be constantly tweaking the way they operate in the air too (to save every last drop of fuel and time). You may have noticed this if you were a wingman :A

For example, the clearly more prevalent use of speedbrakes in the final stages of descent to approach perhaps surprisingly frequently overlapped with use of early stages of flaps and slats in recent times. Use of the speedbrakes implies a need to get rid of excess speed and inertia faster than is necessary in less dramatic descents. Excess speed implied by having the speedbrakes still out after flats and slats are deployed further implies inevitable top of the acceptable range of extra stress on the flaps and slats which of course are speed limited.

In any part of the aircraft cabin, you may have also noticed during recent descents that there are more instances of reduced g (where you feel you are slightly on the way up out of your seat). This may not be negative g, but airliners are generally not designed to routinely endure negative g. So if it isn't on the edge, it surely gets closer thesedays than it used to.

Now if any airline was in a good position to accurately document and analyse any ill effects noticed by pilots or maintenance engineers since introducing these new 'ways', then it would be Ryanair because their fleet size is so great, and they are surely experts on the type, but it is in my humble opinion just another example of how they are looking to pushing the previously generally accepted limits in interesting ways.

All of this is on top of the fact that we know that all aircraft operating in Europe have deliberately had a lot more abrasive ash shoved in their hungry mouths and scouring other orifices and their wing surfaces this year because our governments collectively said "sod Eyjafjallajokull, let's get on with it and sort out the problems as they may arise."


If I was a second-hand plane buyer, I might think twice about buying an offloaded "modern" Ryanair 737 - I might worry about how "fatigued" it really was, because I have ideas about it. But then every airline has its ways, and I guess I'd be even more clueless about other airlines offloads, although I might be swayed a little that Easyjet is CAA regulated not IAA. Just a personal thing - nothing to do with religion :A

So, not snivelling, but concerned about the complexities of maintaining standards in a changing environment (natural, technological, regulatory and economic).

All well and good but you still haven't produced any evidence to suggest that Ryanair is anything but extremely safe.
Merely hearsay, obfuscation and cut and paste.
I'm all for people having a whinge because they can't fit the kitchen sink into their on-board portmanteau but if you're going to suggest FR isn't up to scratch in the safety stakes at least back up your argument with some hard evidence old fruit.
To say that Ryanair isn't ultra-cautious about safety simply isn't true.
At least according to the FR pilot who drinks in my local.
When he's not actually flying.
Which is only for 18 hours.
A WEEK.

peterbaker

I am suggesting they'd better be good because most of us fly with them and they are the pathfinders. They should know best. We rely on them to do what's right. The Holy Father has an inside track to what's in store for his IAA regulated operation each time it flies. I'd say Mr O'Leary does too. For an airline or a religious man or a passenger, it's a question of deciding where you want to be, how you are going to get there, of trust in others and at the end of the day of a certain faith, isn't it?

Back down on the ground I'd say 18 hours drinking in the local each week is too much, but 18 hours flying if that's 3 or 4 days worth is quite healthy. But that's slack October through March for you isn't it? The 25 minute turnarounds and the security checks and commute times take a toll too of course - and then things always hot up somewhat in the summer

PS So you can call the safety ethos 100% safe or extremely safe or ultra-cautious if you want, but tell your mate down the pub we are not so much interested in what you call it but in that they do it right, and are seen to do it right.

PPS Where'd you get the hearsay, obfuscation and cut and paste ideas from?

PPPS OK you got me, I admit I cut and pasted Eyjafjallajokull