I have mixed feelings. I've seen many of these type of undercover investigations before and it is terribly easy to make fairly mundane shortcomings look like terrible safety breaches.

For example, on my flight back from MUC on Friday (on BA) which was delayed 3.5 hours due to blizzard conditions at MUC, the captain told us before we left the gate that either himself or the FO would be popping out of the flight deck to check the wings after de-icing to ensure they were happy that all the ice had been removed. In the event, this did not happen. We got de-iced then took off.

How easy would it be to make the above situation look like a serious security breach in an undercover investigation? "In a shocking safety breach, the Captain placed the safety of all 180 passengers solely on the assurances of the de-icing team that they had cleared all the ice, without checking himself, despite assurances that he would" etc. etc. you get the picture.

It is interesting to read the to and fro letters on the Ryanair website about this. Interesting to note the following:

- Ryanair sent the initial Despatches letter and their first (admittedly fairly comprehensive) reply to the CAA and IAA and the MD of Stansted Airport of their own free will

- It appears that both aviation authorities saw no evidence to warrant an investigation (although I think at that stage the undercover video evidence may not have been available)

I'm not defending Ryanair. I think they are a pretty awful airline, led by a particularly odious man. But I just want to reinforce the old cliché "Don't believe everything you see on TV".