Ryanairs first hull loss

[737]

Its official, EI-DYG, the aircraft involved in the Ciampino incident is being scrapped. The fuselage is too badly damaged to repair. :{:{:{

[Herod]

Come on. 399 people put their two ha'penceworth in about the incident. Now nobody is interested? Oh yes, of course. We can't slag Ryanair off about this bit of news.

[golfyankeesierra]

Storing one in the desert is probably costlier (depending on what the Insurer will pay out off course).

[captplaystation]

If the engines (or rather the remaining one following the G/A decision) had continued to run for another 10 seconds a hull loss would be the least of the problems.
Sometimes lady luck gets it right. :ok:

[A4]

Captp.....

Spot on. Someone was watching over them that day....... incredibly lucky......and a good job by the crew in probably the most dynamic scenario you're ever likely to encounter.

A4

[hichachoc]

And a lot less publicity than UA Flight 1549 - similar situation, dead-stick landing, lucky to find/reach a landing spot, could have been a LOT worse.

[Sir George Cayley]

When Freddy Olsen's Fan Jet Falcon succumbed to Gulls at Norwich the airline sued the airport for negliegence. They won.

I actively dislike that 'orrid little chap that pops up regularly as the face of Ryanair, but I'd encourage him to set the lawyers on the Rome airport authorities as he may just recover his costs.

imltho airports that fail to maake reasonable attempts to disperse birds that have been shown to respond to such tactics should foot al the bills (and beaks) as a result.

Sir George Cayley

[Skipness One Echo]

Is the aircraft visible at Ciampiono or is it hangared?

[Banon]

Yes its parked out on the Ramp towards the south of the airport. The Fin is removed from the Aircraft.

[racedo]

They didn't land in a river admittedly, but it's still a shame the FR crew didn't receive the same recognition as the BA038 and US Airways guys.

They got recognised with FR for the job they did and thats been posted previously.

[akerosid]

On a historical note, it's the first time a jet aircraft operated by an Irish airline has been written off ... not a bad record in almost 50 years (first Irish jet aircraft, EI-ALA, a B720,registered in December 1960.)

[curser]

Sir George, I would agree with you had it been the main Airport but this is a small satellite field. Landing fee's are less, Passenger handling fee's are less. The Airport authority has less to spend on safety programs. Its part of the low cost model and It is part of the deal you make when you buy your ticket.
You can't keep chipping away at the bottom and then look shocked when the top falls down.
Ps. Kudos to the crew, I've no doubt their quick and calm decision saved lives.

[captplaystation]

I don't know how often you have been to CIA but I wouldn't describe it as a small satellite field. It was, not so long ago, the main airport of Roma.
On many occasions the parking contains 15 or more 737/A320 with around 50 biz-jets on the S apron. Added to that it is the base for Silvio's VIP A320's, so it is not in any way the back water you have suggested. It has got a lot busier in the last 10 yrs, primarily due to Ryanair & Easy.

[curser]

Hi CaptPS, I sense I may have stepped on some professional pride there, my apologies, I wasn't having a go at you or your colleagues for operating out of CIA. Rome is a big City it has an enormous Airport FCO. I'll grant you 15 commercial jets on a small apron must get busy but its not really the kind of busy I was talking about. Corporate and light aircraft go to the smaller fields as this best suits their type of operation. Airport charges are higher at FCO, some small part of those charges pays for safety programs like bird scaring. If a airline chooses to operate into cheaper airfields like CIA and drives hard bargains into the boot it can hardly expect the same safety set up as larger better resourced airfields. It is naive of a passenger buying their ticket to think else.

[corsair]

So you're in effect saying that ALL smaller airports are less safe? Because they don't have the resources of bigger airports. In other words any airline flying into smaller less busy airports are knowingly endangering their passengers. Pretty controversial stuff there my friend.:rolleyes:

I can see the headlines already.

RYANAIR ENDANGERS PASSENGERS BY USING 'LESS SAFE' AIRPORTS

I suppose US Airways should have used JFK rather LGA and everyone should only fly into Heathrow when visiting the UK rather than the highly dangerous under-resourced Stanstead.:ugh::rolleyes::hmm:

[jethro15]

Ryanairs first hull loss
Does anyone know the official source of this info?

jethro's UK and Ireland Airline Fleet Listings (http://www.jethros.eu)

[rubik101]

The day after the ditching in the Hudson, an aviation 'expert' was saying that this is the first time an aircraft has been brought down by birds since a Nimrod many years ago. The reporter mentioned the Ryanair incident and he replied that the aircraft landed safely and no-one was hurt so it didn't count.
That just about sums up the reason why this incident didn't hit the headlines, no-one knew the reality!

[curser]

Hi Corsair, it is your choice to be so emotive. However, Safety costs money. As a general rule larger airfields are better equipped than the smaller ones. To spell it out, What was the state of the bird scaring program at CIA?

I suspect you may now argue that it is up to the Airport authority to maintain standards and no doubt you would be morally correct but the authorities do not operate in a commercial vacuum. Hahn is learning that little lesson.

So without emotion I would point out that a calculated risk was taken to operate into CIA, and in answer to Sir George's call to litigation , I would question whether FR management would welcome the incumbent level of scrutiny. Once again I'm not judging, just calling a spade a spade, when you buy your ticket you place your bet.

[racedo]

Curser

What a silly post as proven by the birdstrike in the US last week.

Suggesting that somehow smaller airports are worse is put into question when La Guardia is the 26th busiest airport in the world by aircraft movements or did you actually miss the birdstrike on a US Airways Airbus ?

[BEA 71]

Curser,

I fully agree to all you said. Point by point.

[in my last airline]

It wouldn't cost much to hire a Falconeer at CIA, a la Ancona Falconara airport, another cheep FR destination. The Falconeer there has 6 Falcons that are posted around the field with their blindfolds on and just chat to each other all day, I dont think they fly/hunt whilst on duty. This might help do the trick in CIA. No more than 100,000 USD per year I would guess. And, incidentally, he trained the JFK Falconeer many moons ago.

[curser]

Thank you for that BEA 71. Racedo, you have been proved wrong almost every time you touch the key board so the fact you find yourself at variance with my silly little post is a source of comfort. Racedo you never counter any point but always remain at the very shallowest end of an argument giving off flippant and disparaging posts when others disagree.

[Tom the Tenor]

Is there going to be a Removal for DYG!!? :} Couldn't resist!

[racedo]

Curser

dear dear dear.

You making the point that small airports can't afford bird scaring methods and bigger ones van gets blown out of the water by a bird strike at the 26th busiest airport in the world.

SO can you go over this idea again that small airports are worse than big ones with some real evidence rather than petulant statements.

[windytoo]

racedo incorrect. The birdstrike at CIA was within the boundries of any bird scaring activities initiated from within the airfield perimeter, the one in New York was several miles away from any effective bird scaring the airport could possibly have done.