PDA

View Full Version : Ryanair Landings


joemaco
27th Jul 2006, 15:13
After recently flying with Ryanair from STN-VLC and back again, I noticed the pilots would apply more thrust just before coming into land. Then after pretty hefty landings, would yank on the rear thrust (excuse my ignorance in what the pilot is actually doing at this stage) far more than BA or Easyjet flights I have been on. Is this some company policy to get faster turnarounds? If so, I'll be sticking with BA and Easy in the future as I'm not the most confident flyer at the best of times.

Thanks

Joe

DrKev
27th Jul 2006, 16:06
Is this some company policy to get faster turnarounds?

Turnaround times only concern how long it takes to get one load of pax off the aircraft and another load on, change crew, refuel and re-food, if necessary. Approach and landing have nothing to do with it. On approach to landing, pilots often control their position above or below the glideslope with thrust, using their nose up pitch to control airspeed. It's regarded as standard technique I gather, not being a pilot myself. Just before landing, depending on conditions (and the aircraft type too) a touch of thrust will keep the airspeed dropping to low if the wind drops, preventing a heavier than normal landing. How much the pax notice these type of things depends on the aircraft (RYR 737-800s only, EasyJet mostly A319s some 737s, BA more A319/20/21s than 737s) and where you sitting in the cabin, engine noise being more aparrent further back.

willow-blossom
27th Jul 2006, 19:30
I noticed this too, last week on a return flight with Ryanair, Luton to Reus and back. We circled the airport about 5 times as we were 25 minutes early and then on the final approach the pilot appeared to be speeding up and the nose going up, we had a very heavy landing and an extremely long and very fast journey along the runway. I'm not a confident flyer and I sat in row 11 because someone told me you feel less turbulance in this seat........we bounced around all the way back :yuk: :yuk:

TightSlot
27th Jul 2006, 19:51
There's no published evidence that FR fly (or land) their aircraft differently, or better or worse than other carriers. Circumstances are different on every approach to an airfield, and there are often factors in play that may not be evident to customers: For example, ATC may sometimes ask an aircraft to clear the runway ASAP to enable another aircraft to depart or arrive, and this can result in a longer roll-out or harder braking to make a turn off.

It is also worth noting that runway length and condition (wet/dry) will afect the landing technique significantly. Clearly a dry, long runway with a light aircraft (such as at LHR) will require a different technique to a wet and shorter runway with a heavier aircraft.

I suspect that in the circumstances outlined above, the perception may be of one thing, while the truth is somewhat more mundane - some landings are just smoother than others: Sometimes those you expect to be smooth and gentle go wrong in the last 10 feet, and vice versa. It's just in the nature of the beast.

Speevy
27th Jul 2006, 20:00
I agree with the last post, but stick with EZY:ok:

perkin
27th Jul 2006, 21:15
Dunno about anyone else, but I'd rather endure a 'firm contact' in preference to potentially skidding off a wet runway or floating half way down a runway and overshooting...!

In the majority of flights I take, the (auto)pilot nearly always increases thrust in the last few miles prior to touchdown, I always assume its the pilot/auto-pilot adjusting to maintain the glide slope and to some extent to overcome the additional drag of full flaps/gear down?

Apparently a firm contact also reduces tyre wear (less skidding immediately on touchdown) and that its some operators policy to always have a firm contact for this reason. However, I'm not sure as to the validity of this rumour...

PAXboy
27th Jul 2006, 22:30
perkinthe (auto)pilot nearly always increases thrust in the last few miles prior to touchdownYou have no means of knowing whether the landing is automatic or manual. Besides, whether it be auto or manual, they are both trying to execute the same procedure! If the wind speed and/or direction change during the approach, then the throttles may be advanced at one stage and retarted at another by the pilot or the computer. On final approach, it is often (but not always) a standard procedure to slightly increase the thrust as this gives the pilot (or computer) greater control over the machine. No pilot sets out to make a firm landing but they do set out to bring you safely to the terminal, which is what you seem to be experiencing.

willow-blossomwe bounced around all the way backDo you mean 'bounced all the way back down the runway' or 'bounced all the way back from Reus to Luton'? Neither the surface of the runway, nor the condition of the air over Europe is within the pilot's control. If there is turbulence on the route, the pilot flying may well ask Air Traffic Control for an alternative flight level, to see if it is smoother a bit higher or lower. However, it may not be smoother there, or an alternative flight level may not be available on that route at that time.

joemaco
28th Jul 2006, 08:49
Thanks everyone for the advice. It's my first post and quite suprised by the response. It seems that it was just a case of circumstances that lead to the fast heavy landings, e.g. shorter runways and possible ATC requests. Although I would like to add both flights had light winds and good visibility when landing (pilots words).

I am a nervous flyer, and I think the more I start to understand what the aircraft is doing at any given time, the more relaxed I will become. That's why I've joined the forum. However nothing against RY, but I think I'll stick with Ezy and BA in the future. It's just a perception thing, but I just feel more confident when flying with them.

babemagnet
28th Jul 2006, 09:05
joemaco

After touchdown at Ryanair they use full thrust reverse to save the brakes by becoming to hot. this is done because after 25 minutes the plane has to leave again and in case you have to abort an take off you dont want your brakes to be to hot because you need them up to there maximum! The firm touchdowns are more common on the 737-800 then on other aircraft and are nothing to worry about these planes can easily take this! I hope to see you on one of Ryanair flights in the future

Final 3 Greens
28th Jul 2006, 09:09
Joe

I am afraid that so,e of the replies here are not very useful, as to put it mildly, they are rubbish.

In the absence of a Ryanair pilot or ATPL, let me as a PPL give you a little info about landing in general.

Landing is always a mix of science and art. All have performance parameters for different weights and configurations and pilots oberve those.

For example, a typical small light aircraft will fly dozn final approach at about 90 mph and touch down at about 55mph.

Thats the science.

The art bit comes from factors such as gusty winds, changes in wind direction and similar factors.

Consequently, we aim to land within a tight zone on the runwat at a safe speed.

Smooth lendings are not part of the deal, but a bonus - however, safe landings are very much part of the deal.

Chesty Morgan
28th Jul 2006, 09:24
I noticed the pilots would apply more thrust just before coming into land

This is fairly normal. Firstly increased thrust is necessary to overcome the increased drag caused by the gear and flaps. It also has the added benefit of having the engines spooled up ready for a go around. Spool up time on larger turbo fans can be a fairly long time, and if you're near the ground you need power as soon as you can have it.

It really depends on how the approach was flown. If the deceleration and configuration was left fairly late then you could end up going from flight idle to, roughly, 50% power within a few seconds. And as you've pointed out this can makes nervous passengers feel a bit uncomfortable.

pretty hefty landings

I couldn't comment on the 737, I've never flown one but, as F3G says a smooth landing isn't always assured. But please remember that a good landing is in the right place at the right speed...and you don't break it! Nothing else.

PAXboy
28th Jul 2006, 14:39
joemaco I hope I did not sound too stern, simply because this question has been asked here before. I do have some idea of the nervousness for some travellers and trying to understand the myriad range of noises and changes of attitude (the aircraft, rather than your own! ;) ) that occur during departure and approach.

One of the reasons that the folks at the sharp end get paid good money is that they have to adjust to a remarkable number of changes in a short period of time. It is often said that 15 minutes of careful preparation (deceleration, keeping strictly to the height and route, following the book for flaps and gear down) can all be ruined by a single gust of wind that cannot be forecast and arrives out of the blue and is never seen again!

But, if it arrives at the moment when the 'flare' (the a/c adopting a distinct nose-up attitude so as to be ready to settle on the runway) has been set and the moment when all the gear are fully seated on the runway - then you can find yourself lifted or lowered or moved sideways without any warning and there may be no time for correction. The time that elapses from flare to touch down varies enormously from one a/c to the next but it may be only ten seconds and that can be more than enough time for an unexpected gust to catch the machine and shift it - even five feet lower than expect - and so result in a landing that is firmer than planned.[/i]

Lastly, terminology, you use the words 'hard landing': in airline terms that is only used when it has been severe. That is to say, damage may have occurred and engineers must inspect the machine. It may seem 'hard' to you but it is only 'firm' to the aircraft. Sorry if this is too much information but you said that you joined the site to learn!

plumponpies
28th Jul 2006, 19:26
As one of those that sits in the pointy bit on the 738, some of the above is true.
Landing a 'greaser' is definately an art. And lets face it, most pilots aim for a smooth touchdown. But in reality the 73' in particular can be a real pig to land on occasion. And believe me i've had more than my fair share of 'firm arrivals'!
However, a firm landing is by no means an unsafe landing and the use of full reverse thrust as apposed to, or in conjunction with wheel braking does save on brake wear and tear, as previously said.
The RYR operation is slick, (it has to be) and there SOP's are S*it hot.
As a pax you WILL notice different sounds and sensations flying on different airlines/aeroplanes, the problem being sat in the back with no forward veiw, is you are left to imagine what is happening and sometimes with a lack of knowlege, your brain makes its own interpretation on whats going on, based on previous experiences.

rabcnesbitt
1st Aug 2006, 10:16
After recently flying with Ryanair from STN-VLC and back again, I noticed the pilots would apply more thrust just before coming into land. Then after pretty hefty landings, would yank on the rear thrust (excuse my ignorance in what the pilot is actually doing at this stage) far more than BA or Easyjet flights I have been on. Is this some company policy to get faster turnarounds? If so, I'll be sticking with BA and Easy in the future as I'm not the most confident flyer at the best of times.
Thanks
Joe
Joe,
You walked away from the landing therefore, by definition, it was a good one!

Elixir
1st Aug 2006, 15:15
Changes in engine noise on the approach are the norm going into to an airfield in a built up or mountainous area. Buildings and hills cause up and down-draughts on finals - quite often you experience an updraft and will have to take engine power off and adopt a slightly more nose down attitude, then once you've passed this, the downdraft will require another 'boost' of engine power.

The things you describe are nothing to worry about - very normal! I trained with lots of pilots who have gone to easy, BA and Ryanair and none of us use wildly different flying techniques. The amount of reverse thrust depends on runway length, where you want to exit the runway, and how long you have on turnaround for brake cooling. I fly into some airports with short landing distance where we try to get reverse thrust on ASAP, but sometimes it is not necessary due to long runways or at noise sensitive airports. Every single approach and landing is different due to the many variables.

I wouldn't worry about flying with Ryanair - the pilots out there, easy, BA, Ryanair and the rest all have to achieve the same licences and skill tests and are all trying to do the same job - get you on the ground safely!!

Final 3 Greens
2nd Aug 2006, 18:42
You walked away from the landing therefore, by definition, it was a good one!

This is an example of the rubbish I mentioned before, joe.

NudgingSteel
2nd Aug 2006, 21:28
joemaco,
Several posters have pointed out the reasons for thrust adjustments on short final. After landing, most companys' policy is to slow the aircraft down to a controllable taxy speed ASAP which usually means reverse thrust plus moderate braking. The actual amount of braking depends upon the runway condition (wet, dry etc), the runway length and where the turn-offs are, plus as mentioned if ATC ask for a particular exit. The touchdown speed depends on the weather and how heavy the aircraft is, so the same aeroplane might appear to be touching down quite slowly one day into a nice headwind, whereas today has been a nasty, gusty crosswind at my airfield, and I have been watching some very fast arrivals!!!! As a pax it will have felt a bit unpleasant, especially with any small directional corrections the crew make on the runway feeling quite magnified depending upon where you sit in the cabin.
And as an air traffic controller paid to control aircraft landing / departing every day, I can honestly say that Ryanair crews are as professional as any that I control; I can confidently assure you that RYR aircraft land no harder or faster than BA, EZY or any others! (I shall offer no anecdotes of really bad ones that I've witnessed since: 1. I couldn't do any better, and 2. the libel laws in this country....)

LOOP2STAND1
5th Aug 2006, 09:59
From the BOEING Flight Crew Training Manual Section 6 Landing.
"Fly the airplane onto the runway at the desired touchdown point and at the desired airspeed. Do not hold it off and risk the possibility of a tailstrike.
NOTE: A smooth touchdown is not the criterion for a safe landing"
From the wisdom of BOEING?:}
I am a FO with FR and just like every other pilot flying commercially or privately I have had my share of greasers and spankers!

Marvo
6th Aug 2006, 08:54
Actually Final 3 Greens, a good example of rubbish would be the spelling in your first post ! Rab C's comment was made in jest. As someone who lands a RYR -800 on a regular basis I can confirm it is hard to grease the aircraft on, especially if it has winglets fitted.

Final 3 Greens
6th Aug 2006, 10:55
Actually Final 3 Greens, a good example of rubbish would be the spelling in your first post !

More accurately, it would decribe the AZERTY keyboard I did the post on :}

And RabC's post to a self confessed nervous flyer was hardly brilliant either.

Greasing the 738 isn't the point though, is it? Operating it safely is.

Marvo
6th Aug 2006, 12:54
I cannot comment on your keyboard (good luck ! may I suggest the spell check function in the top right hand corner) but I don't think the comment "any landing you can walk away from is a good landing" would upset a nervous passenger, but I may be wrong. It is to be taken in jest.

Getting back to the topic, as someone wrote " A good landing is one that is on speed and on the touchdown markers". I sometimes find that if I am landing after an aircraft has just departed in front, you can get an increase in sink rate over the last twenty feet and application of thrust with another degree pitch up is one method to reduce this rate of descent. Now you want to try to get a smooth landing in J31....impossible.

PPRuNeUser0172
6th Aug 2006, 13:47
Actually FINAL 3 GREENS

slinging dirt about spelling would, IMHO appear to be pot-kettle-black

on the theme of rubbish, talking about landing your Cessna at 55kts is not really relevant to the original poster and his question about JET operations at Vth circa 135-140 kts, with a tad more inertia and little more to think about.

So thanks for your input to the thread but don't really see the relevance.

To the original poster your pilot might simply have been having a bad day:} Some interesting comments though about differing companies SOP's regarding thrust reverse vs brakes etc.... Bottom line is all aviators love a greaser not always appropriate if the runway is wet, x-wind, poor vis, or dare I say it you pork it in the vinegar strokes:E

Happy landings!

Final 3 Greens
6th Aug 2006, 15:08
Dirty Sanchez

In the absence of a line pilot at the time, I was trying to be helpful.

However, you are obviously such a sky god that you cannot see why generically explaining a simplified version of landing might help an apprehensive SLF.

Keep on taking the meds mate.

Greek God
7th Aug 2006, 08:48
The prime task is to get the aircraft onto the runway at the correct point and at the correct speed but as mentioned there are a multitude of variables. In calm conditions the aircraft should be fully configured bt 1000ft or about 3 miles before touchdown and the thrust should remain pretty constant all the way down to landing. In wind conitions below 10kts it is normal to add 5 kts to the calculated reference speed as a pad. If however the wind is stonger or gusty it is possible to have an extra 20 kts as a safety pad. This means that although the thrust may be up and down on the approach it would be unlikely to increase just prior to touchdown as that extra "pad" needs to be lost before touchdown. This often gives a little freedom to finesse the landing (but sometimes not :* ) Another problem is if the pilot has let the speed drop too much just prior to landing - Due to aerodynamic characteristics of drag if airspeed drops below the reference speed it requires a much larger increase in thrust than normal and if the pilot has not been quick enough he will probably produce a shocker. Boeing recommends a firm touchdown especially when wet to avoid aquapaning.
Equally reverse thrust is subject to many variables. Most commercial aircraft have autobrake systems which give different levels of retardation. The retardation is normally constant so less reverse = more brake wear. This has to be balanced with the cost of increased engine wear & power cycling plus ingestion of runway bits etc so some airlines discourage use of anything more than idle reverse. As also mentioned runway conditions and turn off postion are big factors. At Stansted 05 vacating at the end I don't use brake at all and only idle reverse but on 23 when busy it may well be autobrake 3 plus full reverse to make the first turnoff - If i am planning such I will generally try to pre warn the pax as it can be quite uncomfortable down the back.
Hope this helps

Marvo
8th Aug 2006, 07:52
I couldn't have said it better myself! Greek God, I shall no doubt bump into you in the FR crew room !

joemaco
2nd Sep 2006, 21:41
Thanks for all the helpful replies. The next time I'm flying I can bore the passenger next to me with what's going on when we're about to land. :) It doesn't help when I've had two bad experiences with landing. A couple of years ago with Ezy when the landing gear had apparently failed. It hadn't but the flight electronics seemed to think differently. Also the worst experience was a number of years ago with Peach (don't know if anyone remembers them) coming back from Turkey. Foggy conditions and just about to land when the pilot went to full boost to bank around. He later admitted he'd missed the runway. Whether he was joking I'm not sure, but you can guees I didn't find it too funny. But I suppose as RCNessbit so eloquently put it, I did walk away.

Final 3 Greens
2nd Sep 2006, 22:10
Joe

In fog or mist, it is not unusual to experience a MISSED APPROACH.

All this means is that the runway is not in sight by a certain height (varies from aircraft type to type) and that the crew have to climb up an have another go.

It is a normal procedure and is very safe, but sounds noisy expecially if you aren-t expecting it in the back.

You may also hear of GO AROUNDS where an airliner has to fly back up, perhaps because the aircraft that had landed in front did not vacate the runway quite quickly enough for the following one to touchdown.

Again, quite normal.

We had one at London City last year and it was great, a free low level tour of East London as the 146 flew a circuit of the airfield to land succesfully off the second attempt.

flybywire
3rd Sep 2006, 08:25
We circled the airport about 5 times as we were 25 minutes early and then on the final approach the pilot appeared to be speeding up and the nose going up, we had a very heavy landing and an extremely long and very fast journey along the runway.

Can I just give my 2cents here.....

I work on the BA's 737 fleet and I can assure you that no 2 approaches are the same.

I do not think that FR pilots are doing that "on purpose" just to scare you guys. It's part of the approach/landing process, the way you position yourself, the wind you encounter when you're on finals etc etc.

Now on occasions I have had some passengers point that to me too, however my thoughts are that they perceive the increase in thrust as an increase in speed. Thrust and speed are two different things, you may need an increase in thrust to increase the speed but not necessarily this is true all of the time.

To say it in the easiest and most simplistic way that I can Increase in thrust is needed at times-especially when the nose "goes up" in certain phases of the flights- to maintain the appropriate speed for that phase.

A long roll on the runway after landing doesn't mean that FR "want to achieve a speedy turnaround" - on the contrary (and depending on the airfield) the slower you land the easier it can be to take the first turn, making your way to the terminal as soon as possible and leaving the runway free for the next plane.

A bit of reverse thrust -even if only at idle - is ALWAYS used, even when you do not hear it. Full reverse is a blessing when you land on short runways and is also good to alleviate those poor brakes that have to do a great job over four/six times a day!!

I really believe that FR pilots are doing their job the way they should and there's no cause for concern. I know that some of the noises on the 737 can be quite loud.....they might scare you at times but believe me, they are a relief for me! It's very reassuring to hear the same noise obver and over again, it's a way of the plane to say to us "I am doing great"!!

FBW:)

PS:Can I suggest something to all of you who do not like turbulence......on bigger planes I find that the best seats are just before the wing, but on the 737 I find that the best seats are those at the very front. The turbulence you'd experience there is more of a "soft" one, as if you were on a boat. It's less stroppy but might be bad for your stomach if you usually get seasick.
The further back you sit the "harder" it feels.

We CC often notice this ourselves. Sometimes when you work at the front you think you can get a cart out and start the service while at the same time at the back there's the urge to take our seats!!

flybhx
3rd Sep 2006, 10:20
Marvo,

What difference do winglets make to the handling? I know little about the aerodynamics other than they are supposed to make the fuel economy better :confused:

Doors to Automatic
5th Sep 2006, 09:26
FR pilots are as competent as any other pilots operating within EU airspace - they have to be!

However the aircraft does appear to have it's own unique characteristics. As someone who is both relatively knowledgeable on the subject and who has flown a lot I do find this aircraft to be prone to firm landings. Approaches seem to be unstable and flown relatively fast and it seems to strain to come to a halt after landing.

The only time I had anything resembling a greaser was at Prestwick; but we used all of the touchdown zone (and more!) to get on the ground! Not a major problem there but a different story at Luton or Ciampino where there is no room for error.

SteveSmith
5th Sep 2006, 09:53
What's a greaser?

Thanks,

Steve.

Doors to Automatic
5th Sep 2006, 11:00
What's a greaser?



A very smooth landing

matblack
7th Sep 2006, 23:59
I was told that it was a Boeing recommendation to hit quite hard in order to ensure the correct operation of the autobrakes.

neilia
8th Sep 2006, 06:46
What difference do winglets make to the handling? I know little about the aerodynamics other than they are supposed to make the fuel economy better

flybhx, I am but a lowly PPL so I can't tell you about the handling, but I can tell you how they improve fuel economy, if that's of interest... The air pressure on the upper side of the wing is lower than that on the underside. This causes air to spill around the wingtips to the upper surface, generating spiralling wing-tip vortices. This leads to extra drag, and more fuel has to be burnt to overcome this drag. Winglets reduce this air spill around the wing tips. Hope that helps!

Bangkokeasy
8th Sep 2006, 07:03
I have never experienced anything flying as SLF with FR that would indicate their pilots are anything less than competant. Nor do they land or taxi the planes any faster than anyone else. They do, however, fly into some pretty small and restricted airports, which can lead to some more bumpy experiences. I flew with them to both Ciampino and Haugesund last month and the landings were both a bit abrupt.

If you want to experience how pilots land and taxi faster than usual with 737s, then head of the good ol' USA and fly with South West! Great fun - ground effect landing and 60mph taxi!

flybhx
8th Sep 2006, 14:50
Neilia,

Thanks for explaining the way that winglets work. It is very much of interest.

The Real Slim Shady
8th Sep 2006, 21:18
Mr Boeing builds a wing, or his contractors do, which is designed to be efficient at high-ish Mach no's.

It must be, otherwise it wouldn't be economical to fly the thing.

Bring it close to thr ground,and therrfore slow, it is outside its design parameters; so it needs high lift devices. Slats, LE flaps,TE flaps; ergo, it is not at its design efficiency.

Bolt on a pair of underslung engines and the thrust couples and you have a delicate balance.

So it lands firmly; gravity always wins.

flybywire
9th Sep 2006, 13:21
If you want to experience how pilots land and taxi faster than usual with 737s, then head of the good ol' USA and fly with South West! Great fun - ground effect landing and 60mph taxi!

Or else try to fly with Alitalia, especially their MD80 fleet....the roughest operations I have ever experienced - and it is a recurrent thing!!!
I am used to it now, doesn't bother me at all but when I was scared of flying years ago I used to pay more to fly with other airlines as I hated their ultra-fast taxing, especially at FCO when they always try to cheat and cut other operators off!!! (always helped by the complacent ATC of course....) :E

Doors to Automatic
26th Sep 2006, 09:03
If you want to see a rough 737-800 landing (not Ryanair btw) check out this clip:

http://www.flightlevel350.com/Aircraft_Boeing_737-800-Airline_SunExpress_Aviation_Video-7172.html

The aircraft is absolutely planted onto the runway at LBA, so much so that people scream in the cabin, and only just comes to a stop by the end!

Hard to imagine that 747s used to land on the same runway in the 1980s!