Ryanair passengers left on Sevilla tarmac with no air-conditioning and at 50 degrees

pychofairy

http://www.typicallyspanish.com/news/publish/article_30943.shtml

PinkFly

and Ryanair blame the passengers for the delay

Typical :rolleyes:

Cessna_Pilot

PinkFly wrote: »

and Ryanair blame the passengers for the delay

Typical :rolleyes:

This story going around a few days, don't beleive everything you read about Ryanair in the Spanish "Press". Very little in the line of facts in the article.

CaptainSkidmark

is that the one that was sitting there for 5 hours and the passenger pulled the emergency door?

I read that on airliners.net

AfterDusk

Awful, awful situation here. But details are very sketchy. Another report says that all 4 cabin crew were in the flight deck, along with the flight crew, because it was the only part of the aircraft that was air conditioned - impossible. If it's not working in the cabin, it's not working anywhere. And I'd love to see 6 people squeezed into the F/D of a 737! :pac:

There's the possibility also that the airport refused to take the passengers back during the tech delay - airports don't always like taking passengers back that have already been cleared.

But definitely Spanish Media is not an excellent source for your story by any means.

pychofairy

Well AENA is taking it very seriously. An 18 month baby was hospitalized and people passed out. Its all over the Spanish news.

http://www.theolivepress.es/spain-news/2011/06/17/ryanair-passengers-suffer-dehydration-after-sevilla-delay/

http://laverdadderyanair.blogspot.com
(The Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) has launched an investigation into the incident that occurred last Thursday's flight to Pisa Ryanair Seville. Ryanair EFSA request any information about what happened to "verify" whether or not to have violated the rights of passengers. Facua-Consumers in Action has shown its desire that the EFSA concluded with a sanction "blunt" the record open to Ryanair. EFSA has already opened 60 cases to Ryanair, of which 30 were related to air safety.)

helidoctor

I remember something similar on a flight from Dublin to Bristol. Just as everyone finding a seat a hostie came over the PA and said there was a delay for an hour in Bristol and we would have to sit for the hour and due to fuel restriction AC could not be operated. It was at least 26C out on the ramp and within a few minutes they cabin got very hot. I called a hostie and told him with my phone in my hand that if he didn't go tell the captain to turn on the AC I would have the DAA health and safety officer here in less than 10 minutes. The expression on his face was priceless and sure enough AC came on after he passed on my message

View Profile

But did they then have to call out a fuel truck to top-up what the APU was burning to provide the AC?!

Stovepipe

Hi there
An APU on a 737 will burn about 80 kgs an hour with the AC on. I suspect pressure from Ryanair management on captains not to use fuel.At least the captain and copilot can open their side windows.Nothing preventing cabin crew from opening cabin doors for a bit of air, with the doors disarmed, of course.
regards
Stovepipe

xflyer

I was recently on a Ryanair aircraft on the ramp at a Spanish airport when the APU seemed to wind down or stop. Everything went dark, not even emergency lighting. It also got really hot really quickly but shortly I thought I heard a clunk which I took to be a GPU being connected and the everything worked again. Meanwhile a Futura Engineer boarded and did whatever magic Engineers do and we were in business again. We left half an hour late but oddly were still early.

On the face of it, the crew, in fact the Captain failed in his duty of care to his passengers on the Seville flight. It's difficult to understand quite frankly. Even opening the doors might have alleviated the situation. It will be interesting to see the result of any report.

donkey balls

Stovepipe wrote: »

Hi there
An APU on a 737 will burn about 80 kgs an hour with the AC on. I suspect pressure from Ryanair management on captains not to use fuel.At least the captain and copilot can open their side windows.Nothing preventing cabin crew from opening cabin doors for a bit of air, with the doors disarmed, of course.
regards
Stovepipe

I was told about that incident in Spain by someone who works for FR I asked them about the CC not dis arming the doors to let some air in,The reply I got was that since there was pax on board and no stairs aft of the aircraft they had to have the doors closed in case of a fire etc.
Was also told it took the engineers about 4/5 hours to reset the door that was opened by a pax.

trellheim

In such a situation what do you do ? The last time this happened to me was with Air France in JNB, hot , high and heavy. The 744 APU had gone flat and it took about 40 mins to find a compressor cart but he opened the cabin doors to let air in and kept us informed all the time.

IngazZagni

xflyer wrote: »

On the face of it, the crew, in fact the Captain failed in his duty of care to his passengers on the Seville flight. It's difficult to understand quite frankly. Even opening the doors might have alleviated the situation. It will be interesting to see the result of any report.

The amount of regulations governing this and then specific airport rules must have been a big factor in this. The rules and the meaning of opening a door is significant. Main point being fire safety. The pilots probably didn't know if the problem would be fixed in the next minute or two or longer. If they did open a door and a safety inspector was present they could have been in trouble. I don't think either of us can say the right or wrong thing was done until/if an official report is made. But I will say that the passenger that opened the door was in the wrong. He made the situation far worse by delaying the aircraft not just one hour, but 5 hours.

nag

IngazZagni wrote: »

I don't think either of us can say the right or wrong thing was done until/if an official report is made. But I will say that the passenger that opened the door was in the wrong.

You can't say "let's wait for the report" and then go on to blame the passenger who opened the door. Yes he most certainly added to the delay but who are you to judge that he was in the wrong in that situation? Maybe that was the right thing to do. We don't know just how bad the situation was on board or know why the captain made the decision he did. What we do know is that...

An 18 month old baby needed treatment for dehydration and several adults fainted

Sounds like a pretty bad situation to me.

So as you said, let's wait for the report before we go blaming anybody.

strandroad

IngazZagni wrote: »

But I will say that the passenger that opened the door was in the wrong. He made the situation far worse by delaying the aircraft not just one hour, but 5 hours.

You don't know how much longer they would have sat inside if he hadn't. Looks like the crew was happy to leave the passengers there, roasting.

pychofairy

The questions I would be asking the Capt is firstly why conditioned air wasn't provided and secondly at what point would the Capt would have felt it WAS necessary to provide conditioned air to pax.

Interestingly a new Federal Rule in the States states that carriers could face fines of up to $27,500 per passenger if a plane sits on the tarmac for more than three hours.

patmustard100

I honestly fail to see the issue here?

donkey balls

As another poster pointed out you would find it hard to get six people gathered in the flight deck of a 737 if it was a 747 or MD11 maybe but definitely not a 737,I have read the links about this incident from the Spanish press and as someone who has worked in the industry I can see huge holes in the reporting of the incident.
1st, It states that the crew waited 45 mins before calling for the tug to bring them back to the terminal/stand so where was the plane just siting somewhere on the taxi way ?
2nd under Customs regs the bar on a plane cannot be opened until the plane is in the air authorities have strict rules and fines for carriers whose bars are not sealed in accordance with the regs,hence why the CC could not give out refreshments.
3rd The capt refused to lower the stairs as be could miss his slot well if the plane is MX he won't be going any where also if the base engineer came out to the plane he would need access to the flight deck to discuss with the crew the problems.
4th Why couldn't the handling agent bring a GPU out to the plane to provide power and from my source seemingly the plane had a slot delay of 2hrs.

Fr_2010

mhge wrote: »

Looks like the crew was happy to leave the passengers there, roasting.

Don't you think the crew were roasting too?! The crew are human as well, then again some passengers forget that!

Fr_2010

pychofairy wrote: »

The questions I would be asking the Capt is firstly why conditioned air wasn't provided and secondly at what point would the Capt would have felt it WAS necessary to provide conditioned air to pax.

AFAIK the air-con can only be run off the APU or when the engines are running and in this case it sounds as if the APU was inop. Secondly even if the APU was working, in some Spanish airports they don't allow the APU to be used until just before departure.

iPlop

Something similar happened to me a few years back flying with futura, en route to DUB from Palma. A guy had a heart attack on the plane, so without informing the passengers, we flew down to an airstrip somewhere in France(in about 15 mins).The guy was taken off the aircraft but the plane was completely shut down with no air conditioning for 1.5 hours

That was torture ,you couldn't even breath ,I can only imagine what it was like for those passengers.

APM

I can confirm from a source that the APU was inop.

Seville doesn't have any rule regarding APU usage but even that rule is not applicable anyway in airports which cannot supply air conditioning, for obvious reasons.

Taken from Jeppesen airfield briefing from Madrid.

use of 400 Hz facilities is obligatory.
- use of air-conditioning facilities will be obligatory when the ACFT air conditioning
is needed.
- use of ACFT APU is forbidden in stands stated above between 2 minutes after onblock
time and 5 minutes before off-block time.
- use of ACFT APU only when fixed units are not operative and mobile units are not
available.

pychofairy

donkey balls wrote: »

1st, It states that the crew waited 45 mins before calling for the tug to bring them back to the terminal/stand so where was the plane just siting somewhere on the taxi way ?

If this is the case, the APU cannot have been u/s. The aircraft electrics had to be running off the APU genie if it was sitting out on some taxiway for 45 mins. If the engines were running this long (highly unlikely) there would have been no reason why the aircon wasn't used. The air con has a dual sys and the whole sys can't just be inop. 1 or 2 packs can be used in conjunction with APU, Eng or ground sourced air. Maybe for instance the APU bleed air valve was u/s and the APU was only capable of electrical loads and not bleeds, then the only realistic option would be supplied conditioned air from the ground. There was no mention in any of the reports of the aircraft needing an airstart either when it finally got going. Very confusing.

APM

pychofairy wrote: »

donkey balls wrote: »

1st, It states that the crew waited 45 mins before calling for the tug to bring them back to the terminal/stand so where was the plane just siting somewhere on the taxi way ?

If this is the case, the APU cannot have been u/s. The aircraft electrics had to be running off the APU genie if it was sitting out on some taxiway for 45 mins. If the engines were running this long (highly unlikely) there would have been no reason why the aircon wasn't used. The air con has a dual sys and the whole sys can't just be inop. 1 or 2 packs can be used in conjunction with APU, Eng or ground sourced air. Maybe for instance the APU bleed air valve was u/s and the APU was only capable of electrical loads and not bleeds, then the only realistic option would be supplied conditioned air from the ground. There was no mention in any of the reports of the aircraft needing an airstart either when it finally got going. Very confusing.

In Seville the Ryanair aircraft arriving from Shengen destinations park remotely to the terminal building (this was the case as the flight came from Pisa). This is where the aircraft was. Not on a taxiway. Even though it may have felt like it to the passengers.

They don't park incoming flights on taxiways and load the passengers nor was it towed there while waiting for a slot. The stands are self maneuvre on/off and the handing agent do not have tug and towbar (again why it had to be hired in from Iberia)

The electrics would have been run off a GPU during this time. I believe Lesma (the handling agents in Seville for Ryanair, do not currently own an external air unit, this was also to be hired by Iberia.

Do you really believe the pax would know if the aircraft eventually used external air to start the an engine and crossbleed started the other? All reports seem to lack any sort of aviation knowledge or else we would've known much earlier exactly what the tech problem was?

Stinicker

Insert €5 for air conditioning, €2 APU fuel levy, I see mick has found another way to screw the public, glad I always fly normal airlines, usually cheaper too.

hardCopy

Have had to sit in similar conditions on a JetBlue flight out of Boston. Captain had to 'reboot' the plane.

We were only 15 minutes without A/C and had the doors open. Even with the doors open it was stifling hot.

There should be massive fines for airports or airlines keeping pax on the tarmac.

A320

hardCopy wrote: »

Have had to sit in similar conditions on a JetBlue flight out of Boston. Captain had to 'reboot' the plane.
.

HA Airbus,more like make an ECAM message disappear!!!!!

FlutterinBantam

hardCopy wrote: »

Have had to sit in similar conditions on a JetBlue flight out of Boston. Captain had to 'reboot' the plane.

We were only 15 minutes without A/C and had the doors open. Even with the doors open it was stifling hot.

There should be massive fines for airports or airlines keeping pax on the tarmac.

A small insignificant defense of that tactic and maybe an explanation of how it happens.

Aeroplane is loaded up, full passengers and baggage, and a technical fault is identified.

Nobody is totally sure of what is actually the 'fix' is so maybe a holding 40 min delay is posted to check out the problem.

The alternative is to take off the passengers and reboard them...a task that can take 45 mins, tie up a gate and resources.... so the passengers are kept on board.

Usually in these situations it can be a part which is malfunctioning and maybe a replacement part is sent for, installed,, tested maybe 50 mins gone at this stage, and the 'fix' doesn't work:mad:

So it's something else,someone is pretty sure they know what the problem is ,it will take another 35 mins to sort it out, do you take the passengers off?

No you don't.

So by the time the genius who thought he /she knew what the problem was the passengers have been on board circa 90 mins

The genius is wrong, the slot time is critical, the gates are jammed and the ground staff are totally engaged with other flights.

The stuff is starting to fly at this stage, when somebody in engineering does a 'reboot' kind of operation and the problem disappears,good to go ,let's get out of here.

Now that's a simplistic basic inaccurate description of what can happen, but the passengers have been on board for the guts of two hours.

That's ,in my opinion, is how these events escalate.


Very very easily.:D

280special

Amazed the RDA crew havent jumped all over this tread, or maybe reality is hard to deny ?

The hard fact is that customers were left in a very nasty situation that resulted in medical problems. That should never been allowed to happen, the provision of AC or even some water surely shouldnt be that difficult?

castie

On a BA 747-400 at the weekend and captain reported a problem to us with a part that had recently been replaced.

He then told us because it was related to the front wheels that he would have to turn off the aircon as it would be deafening to someone trying to identify thew problem due to the vents.

Turned out to be bad signal or something and it required replacing the front tyres. Told us wed be an hour but got out in 45!

hardCopy

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

A small insignificant defense of that tactic and maybe an explanation of how it happens.

Aeroplane is loaded up, full passengers and baggage, and a technical fault is identified.

Nobody is totally sure of what is actually the 'fix' is so maybe a holding 40 min delay is posted to check out the problem.

The alternative is to take off the passengers and reboard them...a task that can take 45 mins, tie up a gate and resources.... so the passengers are kept on board.

Usually in these situations it can be a part which is malfunctioning and maybe a replacement part is sent for, installed,, tested maybe 50 mins gone at this stage, and the 'fix' doesn't work:mad:

So it's something else,someone is pretty sure they know what the problem is ,it will take another 35 mins to sort it out, do you take the passengers off?

No you don't.

So by the time the genius who thought he /she knew what the problem was the passengers have been on board circa 90 mins

The genius is wrong, the slot time is critical, the gates are jammed and the ground staff are totally engaged with other flights.

The stuff is starting to fly at this stage, when somebody in engineering does a 'reboot' kind of operation and the problem disappears,good to go ,let's get out of here.

Now that's a simplistic basic inaccurate description of what can happen, but the passengers have been on board for the guts of two hours.

That's ,in my opinion, is how these events escalate.


Very very easily.:D

I understand it completely and it happens in many industries.

I just think regulations need to be changed for delays over a certain length. E.g. remove customs restrictions to allow free refreshments for passengers.

Another option would be to issue massive fines for delays keeping pax on-board for over a certain amount of time (especially if the jacks are out of order), that way the airline need to be damn sure their 10 minute fix will work before asking people to remain seated.

At some point passenger comfort needs to take priority over scheduling.

Fr_2010

hardCopy wrote: »

especially if the jacks are out of order

Who mentioned the toilets were out of order?

hardCopy

Fr_2010 wrote: »

Who mentioned the toilets were out of order?

I'm not talking about this specific incident. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

I have been stuck on planes with no toilets and know of others who have had the same.

triggermortis

moral of the story....don't use ryanair unless you expect crap customer service

triggermortis

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

The genius is wrong

or maybe the 'genius' thinks you're a condescending tw@t

TT09

Or there probably most likely the cheapest at this time

edenbridge146

This happened me and my kids 10 days ago on way back from Tenerife.
Engines went off, lights went out, no air con for about 40 mins on a Ryanair plane. We were melting!!! No communication for Stewards, but what do ya do?
It was 28 degrees at 6:10am in the morning and no aircon in the airport either.
At 7 am the plane took off after a 'technical problem'

Needless to say was so glad to get home to the rain and cool fresh air of Ireland

FlutterinBantam

triggermortis wrote: »

or maybe the 'genius' thinks you're a condescending tw@t

Don't understand the negativity there poster

Was only trying to explain how these event can happen, no malice intended.

A320

castie wrote: »

On a BA 747-400 at the weekend and captain reported a problem to us with a part that had recently been replaced.

He then told us because it was related to the front wheels that he would have to turn off the aircon as it would be deafening to someone trying to identify thew problem due to the vents.

Turned out to be bad signal or something and it required replacing the front tyres. Told us wed be an hour but got out in 45!

Ha poor excuse really,Ear defenders anyone????? Cooling outlet vents wouldn't be deafening to the point where you couldn't do a job!!!!

FOGOFUNK

A320 wrote: »

Ha poor excuse really,Ear defenders anyone????? Cooling outlet vents wouldn't be deafening to the point where you couldn't do a job!!!!

I can safely say they are, aircon packs are very loud, you could work beside them for 5-10 minutes max.

castie

A320 wrote: »

Ha poor excuse really,Ear defenders anyone????? Cooling outlet vents wouldn't be deafening to the point where you couldn't do a job!!!!

I would of assumed listening was also part of diagnosing the problem?
And thats why they needed to be shut off. Either way it was only off for a short time.

pclancy

triggermortis wrote: »

or maybe the 'genius' thinks you're a condescending tw@t

Unacceptable triggermortis. Next time will be a ban. Do not attack the poster, attack their post if you wish but no personal abuse tolerated.

Please consult the Forum Charter for more info on how to be a good poster.

Marcusm

donkey balls wrote: »

As another poster pointed out you would find it hard to get six people gathered in the flight deck of a 737 if it was a 747 or MD11 maybe but definitely not a 737,I have read the links about this incident from the Spanish press and as someone who has worked in the industry I can see huge holes in the reporting of the incident.
1st, It states that the crew waited 45 mins before calling for the tug to bring them back to the terminal/stand so where was the plane just siting somewhere on the taxi way ?
2nd under Customs regs the bar on a plane cannot be opened until the plane is in the air authorities have strict rules and fines for carriers whose bars are not sealed in accordance with the regs,hence why the CC could not give out refreshments.
3rd The capt refused to lower the stairs as be could miss his slot well if the plane is MX he won't be going any where also if the base engineer came out to the plane he would need access to the flight deck to discuss with the crew the problems.
4th Why couldn't the handling agent bring a GPU out to the plane to provide power and from my source seemingly the plane had a slot delay of 2hrs.

THere are no customs regulations in force of application to a flight between Pisa and Seville; also, there are no duties of application to water in any event!!!

Fr_2010

Marcusm wrote: »

THere are no customs regulations in force of application to a flight between Pisa and Seville; also, there are no duties of application to water in any event!!!

Bars cannot be opened on the ground!

Marcusm

Fr_2010 wrote: »

Bars cannot be opened on the ground!

Yes they can although there can be fiscal and financial consequences in relation to any alcohol bottles opened as duty must be paid locally on the entire bottle - not applicable to Ryanair which uses sachets. Cabin crew have instructions not to open them to avoid having to deal with the administrative hassle but this is no excuse for putting lives at risk which would be the case for 5 hours at 25 degrees not to mind 50 degrees.

If you are cabin crew (does FR designate Ryanair?) you may have instructions not to open the bar; this does not mean that doing so is contrary to the law.

LeakRate

Airlines are only allowed open the bars in the air,these bar boxes must be sealed when on the ground,if found unsealed by customs on the ground,airline license for bars will be revoked and a large fine will be heading there way.

AfterDusk

Marcusm wrote: »

Yes they can although there can be fiscal and financial consequences in relation to any alcohol bottles opened as duty must be paid locally on the entire bottle - not applicable to Ryanair which uses sachets.

Ryanair haven't had sachets of alcohol for quite some time now. It's all bottles. And as previously stated, the bars cannot be opened on the ground.

Marcusm

Water does not need to be kept in a controlled bar. There is no government preclusion on the opening of any supposedly sealed bar, merely a financial cost if the bar also includes alcohol.

A significant number of European airlines continue to provide pre departure drinks on short haul flights (princiPally full service airlines and predominantly only to premium class passengers). This only goes to demonstrate that there is no need for anyone's health to be potentially compromised, as has been suggested to be the case here.

I have no connection to the airline industry except that I take 100 or so flights annually. I suspect that some of the posters who vehemently state that Tge bar cannot be opened are directly connected to airlines albeit they may be posting innocently rather than part of a campaign.

If the reports of this incident are to be believed, I think it's a demonstration of how initiative and empathy have been driven from cabin and flight crew through cost cutting and rote learning. The late and cancelled flights directive will be interesting here. Passengers sitting in a terminal for a flight this delayed would have been entitled to refreshments (? 3 hour delay). It seems inconceivable that this does not apply on board.

jmayo

hardCopy wrote: »

Have had to sit in similar conditions on a JetBlue flight out of Boston. Captain had to 'reboot' the plane.

We were only 15 minutes without A/C and had the doors open. Even with the doors open it was stifling hot.

Jeeze stuck in aircraft with no AC in Seville of all places.
Not something that i would relish.

I don't think opening the doors would have significant effect on heat, as the heat in that area of Spain place is stifling in summer.
Of course it would offer some fresh air but it would still be bloody hot.

Isn't there rules about the amount of times the air needs to be circulated within the cabin ?

I know after the smoking bans came in the airlines upped the period between recycles.

280special

Fr_2010 wrote: »

Bars cannot be opened on the ground!

And this stops the provision of water ? Are you honestly trying to say that bottle's of water are counted as being part of the alcoholic stock of the aircraft ? Or is it that they are stored in the same place as the booze?

Lets deal with the reality of what was happening shall we? This was an emergency situation and even if there was this "bar" ( no pun intended ) on opening the aircraft's onboard water supply, although it seems like the sort of regulation that would normally have MOL screaming at the top of his lungs, surely they could have sourced bottles of water from the airport ?

jmayo

280special wrote: »

And this stops the provision of water ? Are you honestly trying to say that bottle's of water are counted as being part of the alcoholic stock of the aircraft ? Or is it that they are stored in the same place as the booze?

Lets deal with the reality of what was happening shall we? This was an emergency situation and even if there was this "bar" ( no pun intended ) on opening the aircraft's onboard water supply, although it seems like the sort of regulation that would normally have MOL screaming at the top of his lungs, surely they could have sourced bottles of water from the airport ?

Actually remember being stuck on the ground in Dublin on Delta flight number of years ago and was offered water & peanuts.