PDA

View Full Version : LoCo airlines busting minima in LVP's at STN?


Pages : [1] 2

the grim repa
26th Apr 2006, 11:28
Due to the breakdown in training at europes lowest airline.It became apparent two nights ago that pilots flying for ryanair were not aware of certain JAA limitations.Aircraft crews were accepting approaches and landing at stn in RVRs of 200 metres at night with no centreline and no touchdown zone lights working.The jaa clearly states that CAT III approaches are NOT ALLOWED at night in these circumstances and that CAT II approaches require a minimum RVR of 550 metres.What was done here was clearly illegal and should be investigated by the appropriate authorities.

The clue was that everybody else was diverting,why were others landing.

the grim repa
26th Apr 2006, 11:28
Due to the breakdown in training at europes lowest airline.It became apparent two nights ago that pilots flying for ryanair were not aware of certain JAA limitations.Aircraft crews were accepting approaches and landing at stn in RVRs of 200 metres at night with no centreline and no touchdown zone lights working.The jaa clearly states that CAT III approaches are NOT ALLOWED at night in these circumstances and that CAT II approaches require a minimum RVR of 550 metres.What was done here was clearly illegal and should be investigated by the appropriate authorities.

The clue was that everybody else was diverting,why were others landing.

757manipulator
26th Apr 2006, 11:36
What were the touchdown and mid point RVR's?

757manipulator
26th Apr 2006, 11:36
What were the touchdown and mid point RVR's?

sky9
26th Apr 2006, 11:49
Are ATC required to give a "clear to land"?

sky9
26th Apr 2006, 11:49
Are ATC required to give a "clear to land"?

Inverted81
26th Apr 2006, 12:01
dependant on the aerodrome minima atc will advise if the a/c will be making an approach below these minima, the absolute minima for each airline does vary.

As i'm still training, i am not 100% however, as said earlier to make a CATIII approach certain visual aids need to be servicable and ON..... why were they not on??

Inverted81
26th Apr 2006, 12:01
dependant on the aerodrome minima atc will advise if the a/c will be making an approach below these minima, the absolute minima for each airline does vary.

As i'm still training, i am not 100% however, as said earlier to make a CATIII approach certain visual aids need to be servicable and ON..... why were they not on??

PENKO
26th Apr 2006, 12:04
Works on the runway.

PENKO
26th Apr 2006, 12:04
Works on the runway.

LYKA
26th Apr 2006, 12:13
Indeed,
Day CAT 2 ok, night 550m. Also add in the effect of the reduced APCH lighting on R05 and you have a cat 1 req on 05 of 950 m I think!!

LYKA
26th Apr 2006, 12:13
Indeed,
Day CAT 2 ok, night 550m. Also add in the effect of the reduced APCH lighting on R05 and you have a cat 1 req on 05 of 950 m I think!!

the grim repa
26th Apr 2006, 12:14
sky9 - this is an approach ban situation.ATC have confirmed that they asked each individual if they could make the approach.Most declined but it is confirmed that others landed illegally.

the grim repa
26th Apr 2006, 12:14
sky9 - this is an approach ban situation.ATC have confirmed that they asked each individual if they could make the approach.Most declined but it is confirmed that others landed illegally.

Clarence Oveur
26th Apr 2006, 12:21
So, was it intentional or due to ignorance? And which is worse.

Clarence Oveur
26th Apr 2006, 12:21
So, was it intentional or due to ignorance? And which is worse.

Consol
26th Apr 2006, 12:22
Well report it to the IAA. I'm sure they will take prompt action, they always do.

Consol
26th Apr 2006, 12:22
Well report it to the IAA. I'm sure they will take prompt action, they always do.

sky9
26th Apr 2006, 13:49
Grim Repa,

Sometimes you ask a question to which you already know the answer:)
Seems a little brave to continue once the question has been asked as ATC have no option other than to report the crew for landing below minima. Gross negligence, endangering the safety of your passengers. On the ground having landed below minima is a bad place to be.

sky9
26th Apr 2006, 13:49
Grim Repa,

Sometimes you ask a question to which you already know the answer:)
Seems a little brave to continue once the question has been asked as ATC have no option other than to report the crew for landing below minima. Gross negligence, endangering the safety of your passengers. On the ground having landed below minima is a bad place to be.

terrain safe
26th Apr 2006, 14:34
Are ATC required to give a "clear to land"?
Absolutely, they have no powers to refuse permission to land, or indeed to report it. SRG will find out by checking the weather against company minima and the people who broke the rules will be dealt with. The works have all been promulgated with instructions regarding minima, obviously some pilots don't read NOTAMs, like all the crews who reported the turn offs weren't working when again they have been Notamed until the end of the work. Could put it on the ATIS but then who listens and understands that!

terrain safe
26th Apr 2006, 14:34
Are ATC required to give a "clear to land"?
Absolutely, they have no powers to refuse permission to land, or indeed to report it. SRG will find out by checking the weather against company minima and the people who broke the rules will be dealt with. The works have all been promulgated with instructions regarding minima, obviously some pilots don't read NOTAMs, like all the crews who reported the turn offs weren't working when again they have been Notamed until the end of the work. Could put it on the ATIS but then who listens and understands that!

windriver
26th Apr 2006, 17:44
Due to the breakdown in training at europes lowest airline.It became apparent two nights ago that pilots flying for ryanair were not aware of certain JAA limitations

These are very bold and frankly puzzling statements. If the situation really is as you claim and you feel that strongly about it then surely you should be discussing the specifics with the appropriate regulatory authorities before posting here...

And before you ask I have no association with Ryanair.

windriver
26th Apr 2006, 17:44
Due to the breakdown in training at europes lowest airline.It became apparent two nights ago that pilots flying for ryanair were not aware of certain JAA limitations

These are very bold and frankly puzzling statements. If the situation really is as you claim and you feel that strongly about it then surely you should be discussing the specifics with the appropriate regulatory authorities before posting here...

And before you ask I have no association with Ryanair.

Few Cloudy
26th Apr 2006, 21:14
Happened at Glasgow some years back on a regular basis.

Jeppesens had a different slant on the requirements from various company manuals. I diverted to Edingburgh the first time - then back at base went for coffee and biscuits...

By the way, approach lights you never see on a cat 3 approach, because at 50ft you are already over the threshold.

FC.

Few Cloudy
26th Apr 2006, 21:14
Happened at Glasgow some years back on a regular basis.

Jeppesens had a different slant on the requirements from various company manuals. I diverted to Edingburgh the first time - then back at base went for coffee and biscuits...

By the way, approach lights you never see on a cat 3 approach, because at 50ft you are already over the threshold.

FC.

Phileas Fogg
26th Apr 2006, 22:01
Glasgow? Surely not Ryanair at Glasgow, dread the thought of them operating into a city airport!

Phileas Fogg
26th Apr 2006, 22:01
Glasgow? Surely not Ryanair at Glasgow, dread the thought of them operating into a city airport!

fudpucker
27th Apr 2006, 09:48
I'm a little hazy on the details (retired for a couple of years) but there are circumstances under which ATC are not able to clear you to land, but use the phrase (bad memory here) 'no known obstructions on the runway'. This is in the situation where the weather is below the airfield minima and ATc are required to 'warn' the aircraft twice that what they are about to do (land) may be illegal before they give the landing 'clearance'.
The above is if the conditions are below the airfield minima and I'm not certain if it is aid-dependant. I don't think that it is, but perhaps some kind ATC er could clarify. This is not well known in the piloting community, I didn't know about it until I had to investigate an incident some years ago.
Of course, it may well all have changed in the last couple of years, so apologies if I'm now talking b-ollicks!

fudpucker
27th Apr 2006, 09:48
I'm a little hazy on the details (retired for a couple of years) but there are circumstances under which ATC are not able to clear you to land, but use the phrase (bad memory here) 'no known obstructions on the runway'. This is in the situation where the weather is below the airfield minima and ATc are required to 'warn' the aircraft twice that what they are about to do (land) may be illegal before they give the landing 'clearance'.
The above is if the conditions are below the airfield minima and I'm not certain if it is aid-dependant. I don't think that it is, but perhaps some kind ATC er could clarify. This is not well known in the piloting community, I didn't know about it until I had to investigate an incident some years ago.
Of course, it may well all have changed in the last couple of years, so apologies if I'm now talking b-ollicks!

TCXCadet
27th Apr 2006, 12:26
The details for 'absolute minima' are here:
http://www.ais.org.uk/aes/pubs/aip/pdf/aic/4P079.PDF
4 If pilots state that it is their intention to commence an instrument approach and the reported RVR is below the Absolute Minimum,
ATC will issue a warning message as follows:
‘(Callsign) you are advised that the current RVR/visibility is (number) metres which is below the absolute minimum for a (name)
approach to runway (number). What are your intentions?’
4.1 If pilots indicate that it is their intention to continue the approach below 1000 ft above aerodrome level, ATC will pass the
following message:
‘(Callsign) if you continue the approach and descend below 1000 ft above aerodrome level, it is believed that you will be
contravening UK legislation and I shall be required to report the facts, acknowledge’.
This will be followed, at the appropriate moment, with:
‘(Callsign) there is no known traffic to affect you making a (name) approach to runway (number)’.
Subsequently, ATC controllers will not issue a landing clearance but will use the following phraseology at the appropriate time:
‘(Callsign) runway visual range (number) metres, there is no known traffic to affect you landing, surface wind (number) degrees
(number (knots))’.

In part 3 just above the quoted bit it does say that the absolute minima is calculated
according to the instrument approach and facilities
available at the aerodrome, which will be equal to or less than the specified operating RVR for a Category A aircraft carrying out that
instrument approach procedure.

TCXCadet
27th Apr 2006, 12:26
The details for 'absolute minima' are here:
http://www.ais.org.uk/aes/pubs/aip/pdf/aic/4P079.PDF
4 If pilots state that it is their intention to commence an instrument approach and the reported RVR is below the Absolute Minimum,
ATC will issue a warning message as follows:
‘(Callsign) you are advised that the current RVR/visibility is (number) metres which is below the absolute minimum for a (name)
approach to runway (number). What are your intentions?’
4.1 If pilots indicate that it is their intention to continue the approach below 1000 ft above aerodrome level, ATC will pass the
following message:
‘(Callsign) if you continue the approach and descend below 1000 ft above aerodrome level, it is believed that you will be
contravening UK legislation and I shall be required to report the facts, acknowledge’.
This will be followed, at the appropriate moment, with:
‘(Callsign) there is no known traffic to affect you making a (name) approach to runway (number)’.
Subsequently, ATC controllers will not issue a landing clearance but will use the following phraseology at the appropriate time:
‘(Callsign) runway visual range (number) metres, there is no known traffic to affect you landing, surface wind (number) degrees
(number (knots))’.

In part 3 just above the quoted bit it does say that the absolute minima is calculated
according to the instrument approach and facilities
available at the aerodrome, which will be equal to or less than the specified operating RVR for a Category A aircraft carrying out that
instrument approach procedure.

Strepsils
27th Apr 2006, 13:51
If the conditions are below the legal minima then ATC should (will?) not clear you to land. In many situations you would hear "Land at your discretion". This gets across the point that ATC are taking no responsibility for you continuing your approach to land.

That's how I understand it anyway.

Strepsils
27th Apr 2006, 13:51
If the conditions are below the legal minima then ATC should (will?) not clear you to land. In many situations you would hear "Land at your discretion". This gets across the point that ATC are taking no responsibility for you continuing your approach to land.

That's how I understand it anyway.

autobrake3
27th Apr 2006, 14:18
Failed or downgraded equipment : Effect on ldg minimum (JAA Ops)

Cat111B Without C/L lights 300m by day only
Cat111A Without C/L lights 300m by day 500m by night
Cat111B Without TDZ lights 200m by day 300m by night
Cat111A/11 Without TDZ lights 300m by day 550m by night

STN is currently without C/L and TDZ lighting due wip therfore minimum is 550m at night. After 11.15L on the 24th RVRs were 375m or below.

autobrake3
27th Apr 2006, 14:18
Failed or downgraded equipment : Effect on ldg minimum (JAA Ops)

Cat111B Without C/L lights 300m by day only
Cat111A Without C/L lights 300m by day 500m by night
Cat111B Without TDZ lights 200m by day 300m by night
Cat111A/11 Without TDZ lights 300m by day 550m by night

STN is currently without C/L and TDZ lighting due wip therfore minimum is 550m at night. After 11.15L on the 24th RVRs were 375m or below.

Pittsle
27th Apr 2006, 16:19
:ok: Dear Few Cloudy.

He was talking about touchdownzone lighting - which is where you touch down - and not about approach lights.

By the way, approach lights you never see on a cat 3 approach, because at 50ft you are already over the threshold.
FC.

Pittsle
27th Apr 2006, 16:19
:ok: Dear Few Cloudy.

He was talking about touchdownzone lighting - which is where you touch down - and not about approach lights.

By the way, approach lights you never see on a cat 3 approach, because at 50ft you are already over the threshold.
FC.

thrustucantrust
29th Apr 2006, 10:22
RYR bashing notwithstanding, its not MOL or the management that fly the planes. It is is many cases UK nationals ith Uknational ( or now Jar licences). You cant balme the whorehouse when its full of willing whores. There are alot of brainwashed "ryr only "capts now as a result of their cadet hiring policy some years ago but still enough old sweats that should know better. You pays your money etc. Dont forget there will be no official action because just as with real prostitution they are easier to ignore or micro manage than deal with. Just like african cargo ops it will take a hull loss in a proactive Jurisdiction to put a cap on this clever manipulation and ignoring of legislation...allegedy.:ok:

thrustucantrust
29th Apr 2006, 10:22
RYR bashing notwithstanding, its not MOL or the management that fly the planes. It is is many cases UK nationals ith Uknational ( or now Jar licences). You cant balme the whorehouse when its full of willing whores. There are alot of brainwashed "ryr only "capts now as a result of their cadet hiring policy some years ago but still enough old sweats that should know better. You pays your money etc. Dont forget there will be no official action because just as with real prostitution they are easier to ignore or micro manage than deal with. Just like african cargo ops it will take a hull loss in a proactive Jurisdiction to put a cap on this clever manipulation and ignoring of legislation...allegedy.:ok:

Wizofoz
29th Apr 2006, 10:26
You cant balme the whorehouse when its full of willing whores.

OOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHH Yes you can!! Complience with regs is a joint operator/pilot responsibility.

Wizofoz
29th Apr 2006, 10:26
You cant balme the whorehouse when its full of willing whores.

OOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHH Yes you can!! Complience with regs is a joint operator/pilot responsibility.

the grim repa
29th Apr 2006, 17:15
http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=641142006

you bunch of muckrakers!

the grim repa
29th Apr 2006, 17:15
http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=641142006

you bunch of muckrakers!

RAT 5
29th Apr 2006, 21:28
Surely the Base Captain or Chief Pilot must have discovered the truth by now and issued a "notice to crews". Anybody know? Rumours like this would not be healthy in the crew room. Either they would need to be scotched or action taken. What is happening?

RAT 5
29th Apr 2006, 21:28
Surely the Base Captain or Chief Pilot must have discovered the truth by now and issued a "notice to crews". Anybody know? Rumours like this would not be healthy in the crew room. Either they would need to be scotched or action taken. What is happening?

braking action poor
30th Apr 2006, 12:07
A few things: yes, everybody flying to STN at the moment knows that some of the lights at the airport are u/s, this has been stated in leaflets published by BAA, and in the NOTAM's for EGSS. And every pilot knows, in 20/20 hind sight, that reduced ligthing affects your landing minimas.

And yes, the risc of it beeing a RYR-a/c landing below such increased minima, well; HELLO! RYR operates 75% of the flights in to STN in the evening, it being their biggest base.

Now: aircraft are flown by pilots.

Pilots are humans.

"It is human to err"- sounds familiar?? Anyone know where I'm getting at??

I didn't fly on that evening, but I was among the guys who had to pick up the scattered a/c the next morning.

AND: If I had been the commander on one of the FIRST a/c to come back in the fog the previous night, the chance is I would have landed below JAR-OPS stated minimums. Because it never ocurred to me that the WIP would affect the operation.

It never happened because the company wanted to save mony. Management in RYR are generally asleep or drunk on a monday night anyway. It didn't happen because pilots in RYR are lousy pilots or poorly trained, anyone who's flown here knows that.

Please remember; a RYR-pilot has the same wish to go home to his loved ones ALIVE after work. Pilots in this company are not suicidal. For anyone to insinuate something like that is unprofessional. To say the least.

The reason for pilots in general (others beside RYR did land) landing under "illegal" conditions, is "they are human". They were not expecting fog, they didn't expect the WIP to affect their landings.

Now, instead of psreading more muck here, let's try to learn from this so it doesn't happen again.

And as long as you are not flying in RYR-colours; take the pointy stick out of your a***es, and go do something sensible with your time off. Don't spread lies here...

braking action poor
30th Apr 2006, 12:07
A few things: yes, everybody flying to STN at the moment knows that some of the lights at the airport are u/s, this has been stated in leaflets published by BAA, and in the NOTAM's for EGSS. And every pilot knows, in 20/20 hind sight, that reduced ligthing affects your landing minimas.

And yes, the risc of it beeing a RYR-a/c landing below such increased minima, well; HELLO! RYR operates 75% of the flights in to STN in the evening, it being their biggest base.

Now: aircraft are flown by pilots.

Pilots are humans.

"It is human to err"- sounds familiar?? Anyone know where I'm getting at??

I didn't fly on that evening, but I was among the guys who had to pick up the scattered a/c the next morning.

AND: If I had been the commander on one of the FIRST a/c to come back in the fog the previous night, the chance is I would have landed below JAR-OPS stated minimums. Because it never ocurred to me that the WIP would affect the operation.

It never happened because the company wanted to save mony. Management in RYR are generally asleep or drunk on a monday night anyway. It didn't happen because pilots in RYR are lousy pilots or poorly trained, anyone who's flown here knows that.

Please remember; a RYR-pilot has the same wish to go home to his loved ones ALIVE after work. Pilots in this company are not suicidal. For anyone to insinuate something like that is unprofessional. To say the least.

The reason for pilots in general (others beside RYR did land) landing under "illegal" conditions, is "they are human". They were not expecting fog, they didn't expect the WIP to affect their landings.

Now, instead of psreading more muck here, let's try to learn from this so it doesn't happen again.

And as long as you are not flying in RYR-colours; take the pointy stick out of your a***es, and go do something sensible with your time off. Don't spread lies here...

BusyB
30th Apr 2006, 12:40
Never got involved with Ryanair squabbling before but this statement from BAP

'If I had been the commander on one of the FIRST a/c to come back in the fog the previous night, the chance is I would have landed below JAR-OPS stated minimums. Because it never ocurred to me that the WIP would affect the operation.'

has convinced me that the standards in Ryanair are not high enough. I, nor any of my family, will fly with such self-confessed unprofessional pilots.

BusyB
30th Apr 2006, 12:40
Never got involved with Ryanair squabbling before but this statement from BAP

'If I had been the commander on one of the FIRST a/c to come back in the fog the previous night, the chance is I would have landed below JAR-OPS stated minimums. Because it never ocurred to me that the WIP would affect the operation.'

has convinced me that the standards in Ryanair are not high enough. I, nor any of my family, will fly with such self-confessed unprofessional pilots.

chateau57
30th Apr 2006, 12:46
Whilst they're about it, the IAA might also want to investigate that on the night in question how some crews who positioned back to STN in a taxi (arriving at 0500 hours after a 16 hour duty period) were persuaded by the company that they could operate before 2100 later on that day (this being minimum rest), by claiming that the taxi ride back to base constituted part of the rest period !!!

Oh, and they might be interested in the fact that a number of pilots were grounded recently due to being out of various checks as a result of the Ryanair training dept's failure to maintain proper records of recurrent checks and an efficient and timely system of notification as required under JAR Ops.

This is not a rumour, this if fact.

chateau57
30th Apr 2006, 12:46
Whilst they're about it, the IAA might also want to investigate that on the night in question how some crews who positioned back to STN in a taxi (arriving at 0500 hours after a 16 hour duty period) were persuaded by the company that they could operate before 2100 later on that day (this being minimum rest), by claiming that the taxi ride back to base constituted part of the rest period !!!

Oh, and they might be interested in the fact that a number of pilots were grounded recently due to being out of various checks as a result of the Ryanair training dept's failure to maintain proper records of recurrent checks and an efficient and timely system of notification as required under JAR Ops.

This is not a rumour, this if fact.

the grim repa
30th Apr 2006, 12:51
So braking action,talking about what happened is unprofessional but landing in dangerous conditions is just bad luck,if i read your post correctly.Possibly by posting this info here we are preventing others from making the same mistake.Don't become a company blurt and just spit out all the bull they feed you everyday.
Only people who do not know what they are doing,do not know that downgraded or failed aerodrome equipment affect landing minima.(These minima are there for a purpose,to protect life).Those people should not command aircraft,because it will not be the only simple thing that they don't know.
I Know first hand that the training in ryanair is very very basic and left to the individual,but for chrissake have the common sense to protect your own licence.I Never alluded to the fact that pilots landed to save the company money,however they did land in dangerous conditions and consequently put passengers lives at risk.
Spreading muck and pointy sticks in arses is more management bull**** speak,Get your own personality!!!

the grim repa
30th Apr 2006, 12:51
So braking action,talking about what happened is unprofessional but landing in dangerous conditions is just bad luck,if i read your post correctly.Possibly by posting this info here we are preventing others from making the same mistake.Don't become a company blurt and just spit out all the bull they feed you everyday.
Only people who do not know what they are doing,do not know that downgraded or failed aerodrome equipment affect landing minima.(These minima are there for a purpose,to protect life).Those people should not command aircraft,because it will not be the only simple thing that they don't know.
I Know first hand that the training in ryanair is very very basic and left to the individual,but for chrissake have the common sense to protect your own licence.I Never alluded to the fact that pilots landed to save the company money,however they did land in dangerous conditions and consequently put passengers lives at risk.
Spreading muck and pointy sticks in arses is more management bull**** speak,Get your own personality!!!

haughtney1
30th Apr 2006, 12:53
I have my own opinion about Ryanair and its management culture, that however is not what is in discussion here..............

"It is human to err"- sounds familiar?? Anyone know where I'm getting at??

I didn't fly on that evening, but I was among the guys who had to pick up the scattered a/c the next morning.

AND: If I had been the commander on one of the FIRST a/c to come back in the fog the previous night, the chance is I would have landed below JAR-OPS stated minimums. Because it never occurred to me that the WIP would affect the operation.

Eh?...come again? are you seriously suggesting you would knowingly exceed minima on the basis of it not occurring to you?
CAT2 and CAT3 Ops by their very nature are SERIOUS conditions, with specific and crystal clear published requirements. Braking Action Poor may I suggest you go no where near an aircraft until you have this clear in your mind.

As for the alleged below minima arrivals...if this is the case, I am not surprised one little bit:hmm:

haughtney1
30th Apr 2006, 12:53
I have my own opinion about Ryanair and its management culture, that however is not what is in discussion here..............

"It is human to err"- sounds familiar?? Anyone know where I'm getting at??

I didn't fly on that evening, but I was among the guys who had to pick up the scattered a/c the next morning.

AND: If I had been the commander on one of the FIRST a/c to come back in the fog the previous night, the chance is I would have landed below JAR-OPS stated minimums. Because it never occurred to me that the WIP would affect the operation.

Eh?...come again? are you seriously suggesting you would knowingly exceed minima on the basis of it not occurring to you?
CAT2 and CAT3 Ops by their very nature are SERIOUS conditions, with specific and crystal clear published requirements. Braking Action Poor may I suggest you go no where near an aircraft until you have this clear in your mind.

As for the alleged below minima arrivals...if this is the case, I am not surprised one little bit:hmm:

SlowDescent
30th Apr 2006, 13:16
Wow. It is beginning to seem as though Ryanair pilots are in cahoots with the management when it comes to shoddy and unprofessional working practises.

To err is human sure... but I agree with those who think it's pretty hard to err when landing minima are published and all you have to do is look up the RVR figure in a book and take into account aerodrome unserviceabilities.

Someone who is unable to do that without erring should not, in my view, be at the controls.

Having said that, did this actually happen? I've seen no press reports and am not entirely happy taking pprune at its word....

SlowDescent
30th Apr 2006, 13:16
Wow. It is beginning to seem as though Ryanair pilots are in cahoots with the management when it comes to shoddy and unprofessional working practises.

To err is human sure... but I agree with those who think it's pretty hard to err when landing minima are published and all you have to do is look up the RVR figure in a book and take into account aerodrome unserviceabilities.

Someone who is unable to do that without erring should not, in my view, be at the controls.

Having said that, did this actually happen? I've seen no press reports and am not entirely happy taking pprune at its word....

ornithopter
30th Apr 2006, 13:24
Braking action poor - you are right, "to err is human", however a Captian's job is to know what he is doing. I am an FO and I know that RVR's are modified for lighting conditions. I also know that if I have to make an approach in anything other than CAT 1 or better, I check my minima, and get it cross checked by my colleague.

Unfortunately you have just admitted to poor training and awareness and have then made it worse by defending it.

Let me judge Ryanair on the facts, not the spin. If you are the facts, then I agee with the "muckrakers". If you are making this up for comic effect, I suggest you stay out of a serious discussion as its not very funny.

ornithopter
30th Apr 2006, 13:24
Braking action poor - you are right, "to err is human", however a Captian's job is to know what he is doing. I am an FO and I know that RVR's are modified for lighting conditions. I also know that if I have to make an approach in anything other than CAT 1 or better, I check my minima, and get it cross checked by my colleague.

Unfortunately you have just admitted to poor training and awareness and have then made it worse by defending it.

Let me judge Ryanair on the facts, not the spin. If you are the facts, then I agee with the "muckrakers". If you are making this up for comic effect, I suggest you stay out of a serious discussion as its not very funny.

woodpecker
30th Apr 2006, 13:42
Ironic that BA/Cosford have just chopped up the last Trident One that started all this blind landing stuff.

From the very start in BA(BEA) on the Trident and then onto most other types so equipped there were very simple tables in the Ops Manual. Three basic headings (four if you include "are the crew qualified"?), that is Ground Equipment (lighting, obstructions etc.) ILS equipment (tx monitors, OM/MM etc) and Airborne equipment (A/P, ILS marker receivers etc).

The tables were so simple. Look for what was working and extract what limits (RVR and DH) you could operate to day/night.

I find braking action poor's suggestion that " it never occurred to me that the WIP would affect the operation" amazing, assuming that Ryanair have similar tables to BA. Perhaps someone defending the crews involved could actually give us facts regarding the Ops Manual documentation that lays out revised limits/equipment downgrades provided to line crews by Ryanair.

woodpecker
30th Apr 2006, 13:42
Ironic that BA/Cosford have just chopped up the last Trident One that started all this blind landing stuff.

From the very start in BA(BEA) on the Trident and then onto most other types so equipped there were very simple tables in the Ops Manual. Three basic headings (four if you include "are the crew qualified"?), that is Ground Equipment (lighting, obstructions etc.) ILS equipment (tx monitors, OM/MM etc) and Airborne equipment (A/P, ILS marker receivers etc).

The tables were so simple. Look for what was working and extract what limits (RVR and DH) you could operate to day/night.

I find braking action poor's suggestion that " it never occurred to me that the WIP would affect the operation" amazing, assuming that Ryanair have similar tables to BA. Perhaps someone defending the crews involved could actually give us facts regarding the Ops Manual documentation that lays out revised limits/equipment downgrades provided to line crews by Ryanair.

the grim repa
30th Apr 2006, 13:56
Slow descent - check post number 22.

The ops manual tables are the same as published in Jeppesens up and down the land.The same as the jar minima for "DOWNGRADED OR FAILED AERODROME EQUIPMENT EFFECT ON MINIMA".

the grim repa
30th Apr 2006, 13:56
Slow descent - check post number 22.

The ops manual tables are the same as published in Jeppesens up and down the land.The same as the jar minima for "DOWNGRADED OR FAILED AERODROME EQUIPMENT EFFECT ON MINIMA".

Pilot Pete
30th Apr 2006, 16:13
every pilot knows, in 20/20 hind sight, that reduced ligthing affects your landing minimas. The professional ones don't rely on hindsight.:ok: Sure we all make mistakes, but to not even think about that one is negligent.

PP

Pilot Pete
30th Apr 2006, 16:13
every pilot knows, in 20/20 hind sight, that reduced ligthing affects your landing minimas. The professional ones don't rely on hindsight.:ok: Sure we all make mistakes, but to not even think about that one is negligent.

PP

SlowDescent
30th Apr 2006, 17:05
Grim repa thanks. All very worrying, in my view. And I guess BAP has pretty much confirmed that, in fact, some pilots did bust the limits.

Anyone know how long the official investigation is likely to take?

SlowDescent
30th Apr 2006, 17:05
Grim repa thanks. All very worrying, in my view. And I guess BAP has pretty much confirmed that, in fact, some pilots did bust the limits.

Anyone know how long the official investigation is likely to take?

Aloue
30th Apr 2006, 17:57
Last year a Ryanair captain was demoted - by coincidence following a working day at the end of which he declined additional flight duties on grounds of fatigue. Nobody, least of all Ryanair pilots, have the slightest doubt about the corporate "message" that this action was meant to send out. (Again, and solely by coincidence, such is the efficiency of this operation that no pilot reserves were necessary - think about that).

Two entities seem to be confused about the "message" that was sent out - one is Ryanair and the other is the Irish Aviation Authority. As of today, the matter of the demoted captain has not been resolved. Which suggests that there is no intention to resolve it.

Yes, captains and all crew members do have legal responsibilities. But, who is to protect them if they exercise their responsibilities and find themselves without a job, or a promotion? In other words, it is all very well to talk about pilot responsibilities while ignoring the realities - which include management pilots and postholders who are never to be seen when there is a commercial dictat, or management interference in operational issues. The erosion of all normal protections is well established.

Both the IAA and the airline say such matters are the responsibility of the captain. Yea so it is, in legal-speak. But there are wider responsibilities too. One day all of this is going to come home to roost, somewhere.

Aloue
30th Apr 2006, 17:57
Last year a Ryanair captain was demoted - by coincidence following a working day at the end of which he declined additional flight duties on grounds of fatigue. Nobody, least of all Ryanair pilots, have the slightest doubt about the corporate "message" that this action was meant to send out. (Again, and solely by coincidence, such is the efficiency of this operation that no pilot reserves were necessary - think about that).

Two entities seem to be confused about the "message" that was sent out - one is Ryanair and the other is the Irish Aviation Authority. As of today, the matter of the demoted captain has not been resolved. Which suggests that there is no intention to resolve it.

Yes, captains and all crew members do have legal responsibilities. But, who is to protect them if they exercise their responsibilities and find themselves without a job, or a promotion? In other words, it is all very well to talk about pilot responsibilities while ignoring the realities - which include management pilots and postholders who are never to be seen when there is a commercial dictat, or management interference in operational issues. The erosion of all normal protections is well established.

Both the IAA and the airline say such matters are the responsibility of the captain. Yea so it is, in legal-speak. But there are wider responsibilities too. One day all of this is going to come home to roost, somewhere.

A4
30th Apr 2006, 18:07
I find this very disturbing. When are the overseeing authorities going to wake up and take the bull by the horns and address the issues that seem to surround RYR? The coments by "braking action" defy belief. If,sir, you are a Commander of a public transport aircraft then I strongly recommend you get your head "back in the books" - that way you won't be relying on hindsight. :hmm:
It is 2006 and aviation has reached a stage where procedures, equipment and regulation are developed to such an extent that the risk to the paying public is, quite correctly, minimised. The cavalier attitude and TOTAL DISREGUARD for these procedures shown by SOME Commanders on the night in question should be dealt with by the authorities in the strongest possible way.
If the authorites fail in their duty, they will be culpable if the unthinkable happens.
A4:mad:

A4
30th Apr 2006, 18:07
I find this very disturbing. When are the overseeing authorities going to wake up and take the bull by the horns and address the issues that seem to surround RYR? The coments by "braking action" defy belief. If,sir, you are a Commander of a public transport aircraft then I strongly recommend you get your head "back in the books" - that way you won't be relying on hindsight. :hmm:
It is 2006 and aviation has reached a stage where procedures, equipment and regulation are developed to such an extent that the risk to the paying public is, quite correctly, minimised. The cavalier attitude and TOTAL DISREGUARD for these procedures shown by SOME Commanders on the night in question should be dealt with by the authorities in the strongest possible way.
If the authorites fail in their duty, they will be culpable if the unthinkable happens.
A4:mad:

Aloue
30th Apr 2006, 18:14
A4 interesting that you should see it in terms of chasing down the bold commanders. It is impossible, of course, to argue with what you say. Ryanair and the IAA may well be in full agreement. In fact we may well see somebody fired. You clearly think that will solve the problem. That's what they will claim. But what if it was the tip of an iceberg?

Aloue
30th Apr 2006, 18:14
A4 interesting that you should see it in terms of chasing down the bold commanders. It is impossible, of course, to argue with what you say. Ryanair and the IAA may well be in full agreement. In fact we may well see somebody fired. You clearly think that will solve the problem. That's what they will claim. But what if it was the tip of an iceberg?

woodpecker
30th Apr 2006, 18:18
Thanks Grimmy, I just wondered what is written in Ryanair's Ops Manual.

The reason being was that within BA the various aspects of "All Weather Operations" were pulled together in the Ops Manual.

With low visibilities forecast it only takes a few minutes in the cruise to go through the various operational procedures. The BA Ops Manual lists the pertinent items in a sensible order that are not covered in a "normal" (Non-Low Vis) approach briefing. Crew qualifications, Aircraft and Airfield Status which affect the min DH and RVR, "Normal" and "Non-normal" procedures during the approach, decisions relating to falling RVR's before and after 1000R, visual reference requirements, diversion in route 2 and lastly assuming a successful landing the expected taxi route, again in low vis.

With all this pulled together in one document nothing gets missed during the briefing, especially bearing in mind how infrequently we are faced with "low vis operations" in our careers.

Do Ryanair have such an "aide memoir" in the Ops Manual or are they required to jump about from Jeppesens to JAR Ops documentation etc. If the support for their pilots is lacking in the company manuals I could possibly understand how one crew might forget to check the change in limits brought on by downgraded airfield facilities, but earlier inputs to this thread suggested more than one aircraft "broke the rules".

Once the RVR's got down to below the "no CL lights limit" how many aircraft diverted and how many landed?

woodpecker
30th Apr 2006, 18:18
Thanks Grimmy, I just wondered what is written in Ryanair's Ops Manual.

The reason being was that within BA the various aspects of "All Weather Operations" were pulled together in the Ops Manual.

With low visibilities forecast it only takes a few minutes in the cruise to go through the various operational procedures. The BA Ops Manual lists the pertinent items in a sensible order that are not covered in a "normal" (Non-Low Vis) approach briefing. Crew qualifications, Aircraft and Airfield Status which affect the min DH and RVR, "Normal" and "Non-normal" procedures during the approach, decisions relating to falling RVR's before and after 1000R, visual reference requirements, diversion in route 2 and lastly assuming a successful landing the expected taxi route, again in low vis.

With all this pulled together in one document nothing gets missed during the briefing, especially bearing in mind how infrequently we are faced with "low vis operations" in our careers.

Do Ryanair have such an "aide memoir" in the Ops Manual or are they required to jump about from Jeppesens to JAR Ops documentation etc. If the support for their pilots is lacking in the company manuals I could possibly understand how one crew might forget to check the change in limits brought on by downgraded airfield facilities, but earlier inputs to this thread suggested more than one aircraft "broke the rules".

Once the RVR's got down to below the "no CL lights limit" how many aircraft diverted and how many landed?

chateau57
30th Apr 2006, 18:20
But what if it was the tip of an iceberg?

It is .....

chateau57
30th Apr 2006, 18:20
But what if it was the tip of an iceberg?

It is .....

flapsarefun
30th Apr 2006, 18:44
Right where do i start. Firstly for you ivory tower muthers who say its impossible for you to make such an error i have no words.... appart from scuttle sideways back to the RAF:mad:.

Who cares WHERE its written of course minima was busted due to the WIP increases. This is not a training issue. The best and worst of pilots exist in most companies. The issue is company pressure. ie std-45 mins report to crew room, 30 mins report to the plane; itself a ten min walk away. Print out your own NOTAMS, WX, Flt PLANS .... is there even a working printer?

NONE of the pilots are brave enough to report time pressure by the company on the groundds of safety for fear of a sacking. (Just like the Capt who ran scared of reporting sick and then did a 90deg bank at CIA). Greed fuels the machine, aircraft remogaging for millions in profit or just more sector pay for me me me. So who do we blame?... The 24 yr old Capt on a 100 hr limit busting a minima the company didnt even afford him the time to read....OR The management pilot more focused on profit than a heads up for his knackered crews ....

flapsarefun
30th Apr 2006, 18:44
Right where do i start. Firstly for you ivory tower muthers who say its impossible for you to make such an error i have no words.... appart from scuttle sideways back to the RAF:mad:.

Who cares WHERE its written of course minima was busted due to the WIP increases. This is not a training issue. The best and worst of pilots exist in most companies. The issue is company pressure. ie std-45 mins report to crew room, 30 mins report to the plane; itself a ten min walk away. Print out your own NOTAMS, WX, Flt PLANS .... is there even a working printer?

NONE of the pilots are brave enough to report time pressure by the company on the groundds of safety for fear of a sacking. (Just like the Capt who ran scared of reporting sick and then did a 90deg bank at CIA). Greed fuels the machine, aircraft remogaging for millions in profit or just more sector pay for me me me. So who do we blame?... The 24 yr old Capt on a 100 hr limit busting a minima the company didnt even afford him the time to read....OR The management pilot more focused on profit than a heads up for his knackered crews ....

haughtney1
30th Apr 2006, 19:03
Right where do i start. Firstly for you ivory tower muthers who say its impossible for you to make such an error i have no words.... apart from scuttle sideways back to the RAF.

Huh?......what are you saying? YOUR gonna scuttle off to the RAF? Orrr you want me to scuttle back off to the RAF?

Either way this isn't about Ivory towers:hmm:

Who cares WHERE its written of course minima was busted due to the WIP increases. This is not a training issue. The best and worst of pilots exist in most companies

I care..paying passengers care, its IS a training issue if it transpires this has taken place. Company pressure is Bollox..sure its a factor (a small one in my opinion) but doing a CAT2 or CAT3 approach and landing is not a time to be thinking about "company" policy..thats just crap:yuk:
If pilots feel that their authority has been usurped by management to the extent they will bust minima just to avoid some kind of censure..then its just a question of time before a hull loss and fatalities occur.

Wheres the Hairy camels comments in all of this?

haughtney1
30th Apr 2006, 19:03
Right where do i start. Firstly for you ivory tower muthers who say its impossible for you to make such an error i have no words.... apart from scuttle sideways back to the RAF.

Huh?......what are you saying? YOUR gonna scuttle off to the RAF? Orrr you want me to scuttle back off to the RAF?

Either way this isn't about Ivory towers:hmm:

Who cares WHERE its written of course minima was busted due to the WIP increases. This is not a training issue. The best and worst of pilots exist in most companies

I care..paying passengers care, its IS a training issue if it transpires this has taken place. Company pressure is Bollox..sure its a factor (a small one in my opinion) but doing a CAT2 or CAT3 approach and landing is not a time to be thinking about "company" policy..thats just crap:yuk:
If pilots feel that their authority has been usurped by management to the extent they will bust minima just to avoid some kind of censure..then its just a question of time before a hull loss and fatalities occur.

Wheres the Hairy camels comments in all of this?

A4
30th Apr 2006, 19:15
Flaps

This does appear to be a training issue. I've been flying Airbus for 8 years (i.e. Cat 2/3). From the outset, the affect on minima of reduced lighting has always been emphasised - don't you get that thrown at you in your recurrent sims? To test your knowledge....

Scuttle back to RAF. What are you on about....... just a guy who wanted to fly commecial since a child. Have worked hard and take a conscientious approach to my work..... I keep my head in the books...... it's a requirement with the RESPONSIBILITY of Command.

You mention chasing down "bold" pilots.... isn't there an expression about "old and bold" pilots?

A4

A4
30th Apr 2006, 19:15
Flaps

This does appear to be a training issue. I've been flying Airbus for 8 years (i.e. Cat 2/3). From the outset, the affect on minima of reduced lighting has always been emphasised - don't you get that thrown at you in your recurrent sims? To test your knowledge....

Scuttle back to RAF. What are you on about....... just a guy who wanted to fly commecial since a child. Have worked hard and take a conscientious approach to my work..... I keep my head in the books...... it's a requirement with the RESPONSIBILITY of Command.

You mention chasing down "bold" pilots.... isn't there an expression about "old and bold" pilots?

A4

BusyB
30th Apr 2006, 20:04
flapsarefun,

Ask me a difficult one!

This is obviously an unprofessional poorly trained individual. The only pressure in this incident is created by himself. He is responsible.

The difficult question is
How representative of Ryanair Captains is this?

from this thread he is not alone!!

BusyB
30th Apr 2006, 20:04
flapsarefun,

Ask me a difficult one!

This is obviously an unprofessional poorly trained individual. The only pressure in this incident is created by himself. He is responsible.

The difficult question is
How representative of Ryanair Captains is this?

from this thread he is not alone!!

ornithopter
30th Apr 2006, 20:29
Flapsarefun - Judging Ryanair by the facts, I can see there is company pressure and I agree with you, however my post above and others are referring to Brakingactionpoor's assertion that he doesn't know his aircraft limits and seemingly "a lot" of Ryanair Captains made the same mistake.

If it comes to pushing limits such as these for the sake of keeping your job, its time to leave. Easy to say and hard to do I know, but if my company wanted me to risk my life (and the safety of the aircraft and pax and therefore the safety of the company) I would leave as soon as I could, if it could not be fixed.

As long as people support regimes such as that alleged by you (and believed by me) they will continue. Unless someone stands up to the bully tactics, the bullies will win.

As I said, easy to say and hard to do, but let's be honest if 30 aircraft divert due weather, they can hardly fire all 30 Captains. If 20 divert and 10 get in below limits, they can easily fire the 10. It depends on how you look at the pressure and its effects.

ornithopter
30th Apr 2006, 20:29
Flapsarefun - Judging Ryanair by the facts, I can see there is company pressure and I agree with you, however my post above and others are referring to Brakingactionpoor's assertion that he doesn't know his aircraft limits and seemingly "a lot" of Ryanair Captains made the same mistake.

If it comes to pushing limits such as these for the sake of keeping your job, its time to leave. Easy to say and hard to do I know, but if my company wanted me to risk my life (and the safety of the aircraft and pax and therefore the safety of the company) I would leave as soon as I could, if it could not be fixed.

As long as people support regimes such as that alleged by you (and believed by me) they will continue. Unless someone stands up to the bully tactics, the bullies will win.

As I said, easy to say and hard to do, but let's be honest if 30 aircraft divert due weather, they can hardly fire all 30 Captains. If 20 divert and 10 get in below limits, they can easily fire the 10. It depends on how you look at the pressure and its effects.

JW411
30th Apr 2006, 20:43
So let's look at this in a lot more detail. Let us for example look at a CAT 2 approach into Stansted. We get the latest ATIS coming up to CLN and check in with Essex Radar with "Bloggs XXX a Boeing 797 with X-ray".

At this stage the conditions are within limits.

Then things start to get busy and suddenly you are on finals. While all this is going on the RVR is dropping and Essex are so bl**dy busy that they are late in handing you over to "Keep 160 to 4DME" to Stansted Tower.

They tell you on check-in that the RVR is now xxx/yyy/zzz.

This is below your minimas but since you have already passed the IAF with above minimas then you are allowed under JARs to continue to minima and land (if you can see the runway).

So, absolutely none of you Monday morning quarterbackers out there can have a go at any particular crew for you simply do not know the circumstances. You might well have recorded the ATIS at the time but that is meaningless for the ATIS is history.

For example, Essex Radar require you to check in with your aircraft type and ATIS Callsign.

I went into STN one night and my F/O did EXACTLY that. The ATIS was giving a 05 arrival and I was not too bothered when I came off ABBOT on a heading of 270° which looked like the feed-in for the downwind for 05.

Imagine my surprise when we were then told to lock on and call established! We are still at 6000 feet.

I told the man that this would put us on to a heading for downwind and was then told that the runway had just been changed to 23!!!!!!!!!

We were now rather high!!!!!!!! And fast!!!!!!!!!!

Anyway, we made it and landed safely. I complained about the unexpected runway change on taxi-in and was told that I should listen to the ATIS!

I rather lost my rag at that point and asked "them" to listen to "their" tapes and to confirm which ATIS we had confirmed on check-in with Essex Radar.

We got a grovelling and I mean a grovelling apology and so the matter went no further.

Finally, I would always advocate making an approach in marginal conditions when you have a sensible amount of fuel on board but not when you are down to minimums.

JW411
30th Apr 2006, 20:43
So let's look at this in a lot more detail. Let us for example look at a CAT 2 approach into Stansted. We get the latest ATIS coming up to CLN and check in with Essex Radar with "Bloggs XXX a Boeing 797 with X-ray".

At this stage the conditions are within limits.

Then things start to get busy and suddenly you are on finals. While all this is going on the RVR is dropping and Essex are so bl**dy busy that they are late in handing you over to "Keep 160 to 4DME" to Stansted Tower.

They tell you on check-in that the RVR is now xxx/yyy/zzz.

This is below your minimas but since you have already passed the IAF with above minimas then you are allowed under JARs to continue to minima and land (if you can see the runway).

So, absolutely none of you Monday morning quarterbackers out there can have a go at any particular crew for you simply do not know the circumstances. You might well have recorded the ATIS at the time but that is meaningless for the ATIS is history.

For example, Essex Radar require you to check in with your aircraft type and ATIS Callsign.

I went into STN one night and my F/O did EXACTLY that. The ATIS was giving a 05 arrival and I was not too bothered when I came off ABBOT on a heading of 270° which looked like the feed-in for the downwind for 05.

Imagine my surprise when we were then told to lock on and call established! We are still at 6000 feet.

I told the man that this would put us on to a heading for downwind and was then told that the runway had just been changed to 23!!!!!!!!!

We were now rather high!!!!!!!! And fast!!!!!!!!!!

Anyway, we made it and landed safely. I complained about the unexpected runway change on taxi-in and was told that I should listen to the ATIS!

I rather lost my rag at that point and asked "them" to listen to "their" tapes and to confirm which ATIS we had confirmed on check-in with Essex Radar.

We got a grovelling and I mean a grovelling apology and so the matter went no further.

Finally, I would always advocate making an approach in marginal conditions when you have a sensible amount of fuel on board but not when you are down to minimums.

flapsarefun
30th Apr 2006, 20:54
Orni and A4 ...knowing the limit (from training)and RECOGNISING when it is to be applied are 2 different things(ie due lack of prep time , fatigue etc). BUSY B, A4, HAUGHTY probably work in an airline that supports their pilots rather than feeding off their backs! Are u guys SOOOO wrapped up in cotton wool all the time? ... or just have never flown 900 in 9 months.

Clearly 'haughty' wont be happy until I state the obvious. OF COURSE minima should not be busted. Where minima are concerned there is only black n white. Shoutin high handed rmks about lack of training tells me u know nothing of low fares. .... you lucky girl. And as for you BUSY B in HKG.....well do they still serve you colonial tea whilst briefing your highness with the notams as you sort the world out?....not an fr luxury in 5 mins! Actually most FR Capts do report early and make every effort to do the right thing and read the appropriate paperwork.

But WE should should care about the ROOT of the problem and not be sniping at each other. To paint a picture, company pressure is institutionalised in FR. (see me rmks on report times). I suspect the minima increase was perhaps missed by trained but fatigued guys at the end of a 4 sector day in a 20 sector week who had not enuf time to read the notams properly at the start of the day. Not 100% condonable but it is arrogant of some of the above to absolve 'small factor' company pressure. FR will dish out 'Raps on knuckles' but the irony is that FR should be changing their policy of pilot intimidation and overwork to one of support.... maybe even borrow some cotton wool from Haughty.

flapsarefun
30th Apr 2006, 20:54
Orni and A4 ...knowing the limit (from training)and RECOGNISING when it is to be applied are 2 different things(ie due lack of prep time , fatigue etc). BUSY B, A4, HAUGHTY probably work in an airline that supports their pilots rather than feeding off their backs! Are u guys SOOOO wrapped up in cotton wool all the time? ... or just have never flown 900 in 9 months.

Clearly 'haughty' wont be happy until I state the obvious. OF COURSE minima should not be busted. Where minima are concerned there is only black n white. Shoutin high handed rmks about lack of training tells me u know nothing of low fares. .... you lucky girl. And as for you BUSY B in HKG.....well do they still serve you colonial tea whilst briefing your highness with the notams as you sort the world out?....not an fr luxury in 5 mins! Actually most FR Capts do report early and make every effort to do the right thing and read the appropriate paperwork.

But WE should should care about the ROOT of the problem and not be sniping at each other. To paint a picture, company pressure is institutionalised in FR. (see me rmks on report times). I suspect the minima increase was perhaps missed by trained but fatigued guys at the end of a 4 sector day in a 20 sector week who had not enuf time to read the notams properly at the start of the day. Not 100% condonable but it is arrogant of some of the above to absolve 'small factor' company pressure. FR will dish out 'Raps on knuckles' but the irony is that FR should be changing their policy of pilot intimidation and overwork to one of support.... maybe even borrow some cotton wool from Haughty.

Finman
30th Apr 2006, 21:02
For all the clever hindsight merchants - what do you make of the actual notam:
EGSS ILS AVAILABILTY AFTER NIGHTLY RWY WORKS IS AS FOLLOWS.
CAT 1 ILS 0600-0730 MON-THU AND 0600-0900 SUN (CAT 3 IS AVBL
IF FORECAST WEATHER CONDITIONS REQUIRES).
CAT 3 ILS AVBL AFTER 0730 MON-THU AND AFTER 0900 SUN.
FLIGHT LEVEL FROM SFC TO UNL
VALID FROM 1657 27-FEB-2006 TO 2359 30-JUL-2006: (A0376/06)

So, in adverse wx conditions, is Cat 3 available or not?????

Finman
30th Apr 2006, 21:02
For all the clever hindsight merchants - what do you make of the actual notam:
EGSS ILS AVAILABILTY AFTER NIGHTLY RWY WORKS IS AS FOLLOWS.
CAT 1 ILS 0600-0730 MON-THU AND 0600-0900 SUN (CAT 3 IS AVBL
IF FORECAST WEATHER CONDITIONS REQUIRES).
CAT 3 ILS AVBL AFTER 0730 MON-THU AND AFTER 0900 SUN.
FLIGHT LEVEL FROM SFC TO UNL
VALID FROM 1657 27-FEB-2006 TO 2359 30-JUL-2006: (A0376/06)

So, in adverse wx conditions, is Cat 3 available or not?????

the grim repa
30th Apr 2006, 21:02
JW411 - i assume you made errors in your posting by mistake.

you say passing the iaf,you are allowed to continue approach to minima.I Would beg to differ in that it is the final approach fix that is the approach ban defining limit and this makes a huge difference to your argument.

You say that you have recorded the atis,but then say that you are passed the minimas and they are below your limits.You can NOT continue with the approach,because you have not passed the FAF.Getting the atis coming up to CLN is a far way from touchdown and i would suggest to you that you might get an update closer to home,even keep your ears honed for atc passing the rvrs.

"I was high and fast" but i made it in safely.Well do not go taking a chip at atc and monday morning quarterbacks until you are outside of the glasshouse.Losing the rag,very professional.I Am happy for you that you got your grovelling apology though.Big of the atc to admit their mistake.If only we were all as big as that.

I Find your post and your tone self righteous and would urge you to join your colleagues in the remedial class for commanders.Back to the books boys.There are some damning postings on here about the state of play within ryanairs pilots ability.

the grim repa
30th Apr 2006, 21:02
JW411 - i assume you made errors in your posting by mistake.

you say passing the iaf,you are allowed to continue approach to minima.I Would beg to differ in that it is the final approach fix that is the approach ban defining limit and this makes a huge difference to your argument.

You say that you have recorded the atis,but then say that you are passed the minimas and they are below your limits.You can NOT continue with the approach,because you have not passed the FAF.Getting the atis coming up to CLN is a far way from touchdown and i would suggest to you that you might get an update closer to home,even keep your ears honed for atc passing the rvrs.

"I was high and fast" but i made it in safely.Well do not go taking a chip at atc and monday morning quarterbacks until you are outside of the glasshouse.Losing the rag,very professional.I Am happy for you that you got your grovelling apology though.Big of the atc to admit their mistake.If only we were all as big as that.

I Find your post and your tone self righteous and would urge you to join your colleagues in the remedial class for commanders.Back to the books boys.There are some damning postings on here about the state of play within ryanairs pilots ability.

autobrake3
30th Apr 2006, 21:04
I whole heartedly agree with you with regard to Ryr policy. Nevertheless the notams have been around since at least the beginning of Feb.

autobrake3
30th Apr 2006, 21:04
I whole heartedly agree with you with regard to Ryr policy. Nevertheless the notams have been around since at least the beginning of Feb.

the grim repa
30th Apr 2006, 21:06
Finman - Cat 3 is not available at night when centreline lights and touchdown zone lights are out of service.Cat 2 is available but only at rvrs greater than 550m.What you see in the notam is just the ils radiating capability.

the grim repa
30th Apr 2006, 21:06
Finman - Cat 3 is not available at night when centreline lights and touchdown zone lights are out of service.Cat 2 is available but only at rvrs greater than 550m.What you see in the notam is just the ils radiating capability.

Finman
30th Apr 2006, 21:10
I agree Dids but in the 30 secs you have to read the notams in FR do you not think that there is more to blame here than the pilots?

Finman
30th Apr 2006, 21:10
I agree Dids but in the 30 secs you have to read the notams in FR do you not think that there is more to blame here than the pilots?

the grim repa
30th Apr 2006, 21:12
Finman - Cat 3 is not available at night when centreline lights and touchdown zone lights are out of service.Cat 2 is available but only at rvrs greater than 550m.What you see in the notam is just the ils radiating capability.

the grim repa
30th Apr 2006, 21:12
Finman - Cat 3 is not available at night when centreline lights and touchdown zone lights are out of service.Cat 2 is available but only at rvrs greater than 550m.What you see in the notam is just the ils radiating capability.

chiglet
30th Apr 2006, 21:13
I AM NOT A PILOT
I AM ATC
Not [that] long ago, we had a [Foreign] Long haul B747 inbound to Manchester. At 25DME, the wx was 2000M SKC. AT 10D, the wx was 900M IRVR 300M TD 500M MP 1000 SE..........The a/c diverted to Brum. Station Manager asked "WHY"? A/C CAT3 etc. We, [ATC] didn't know, but, was the crew current? Was the a/c [fully] "serviceable"?
The point is..........The Captain was FULLY informed of the IRVR ALL the way down the appoach
First contact [with Tower] ABC123 xx miles..... Roger ABC123 Continue approach, IRVR 400m.
Admittedly, I am speaking for Manch. Essex Radar/Stansted I freely admit that I know nowt.
watp,iktch

chiglet
30th Apr 2006, 21:13
I AM NOT A PILOT
I AM ATC
Not [that] long ago, we had a [Foreign] Long haul B747 inbound to Manchester. At 25DME, the wx was 2000M SKC. AT 10D, the wx was 900M IRVR 300M TD 500M MP 1000 SE..........The a/c diverted to Brum. Station Manager asked "WHY"? A/C CAT3 etc. We, [ATC] didn't know, but, was the crew current? Was the a/c [fully] "serviceable"?
The point is..........The Captain was FULLY informed of the IRVR ALL the way down the appoach
First contact [with Tower] ABC123 xx miles..... Roger ABC123 Continue approach, IRVR 400m.
Admittedly, I am speaking for Manch. Essex Radar/Stansted I freely admit that I know nowt.
watp,iktch

Finman
30th Apr 2006, 21:13
yea, you said that. Read what I wrote.

Finman
30th Apr 2006, 21:13
yea, you said that. Read what I wrote.

thrustucantrust
30th Apr 2006, 21:15
Like I said willing whores. Flaps, you are a muppet. Jw411, you dont know what you are talking about, and if you are both ryr skippers ,then god help us. Probably 3000hrs all in the same brainwashed first job ex cadet early command types. All well and good in a controlled enviorment, but from personnal experience with ryr it isnt. It will take a hull loss for tyhe enema to be administered. Personnally I wont fly ryr. Too much attitude throughout, and on the lucky side of the numbers so far.

thrustucantrust
30th Apr 2006, 21:15
Like I said willing whores. Flaps, you are a muppet. Jw411, you dont know what you are talking about, and if you are both ryr skippers ,then god help us. Probably 3000hrs all in the same brainwashed first job ex cadet early command types. All well and good in a controlled enviorment, but from personnal experience with ryr it isnt. It will take a hull loss for tyhe enema to be administered. Personnally I wont fly ryr. Too much attitude throughout, and on the lucky side of the numbers so far.

Few Cloudy
30th Apr 2006, 21:18
Touch down lighting, is where you touch down...

Most helpful Pittsle.

I was referring to the comment: Also add in the effect of the reduced APCH lighting on R05...

FC.

Few Cloudy
30th Apr 2006, 21:18
Touch down lighting, is where you touch down...

Most helpful Pittsle.

I was referring to the comment: Also add in the effect of the reduced APCH lighting on R05...

FC.

JW411
30th Apr 2006, 21:42
the grim repa:

I don't think you read my post as well as you should have old son.

I said that by the time you are transferred to "Tower" and you have already passed the decision point and are then given RVRs that are below minimum then you may continue and land if it is possible. (The CAA used to qualify this as being 1000 feet above the runway). Please read your JAR requirements.

I have no intentions in starting an ATC versus Pilots battle but on that particular occasion I WAS GIVEN HUGE ATTITUDE from ATC on taxi-in and so I responded in kind and accurately.

If you think I am carping about something about which I had almost forgotten about since this discussion came about, and it seems that you think an announced runway change is unimportant, can you just imagine the chaos that would occur if the ATIS at LHR is giving easterly landings when they are in fact landing west!

As a matter of further comment; my local airport has recently introduced an automatic ATIS system. This means that every time a rabbit farts on the airport the ATIS letter changes. I recently sat through ATIS "C" to "Q" on a night of freezing fog in 10 minutes! So who the hell do YOU believe?

JW411
30th Apr 2006, 21:42
the grim repa:

I don't think you read my post as well as you should have old son.

I said that by the time you are transferred to "Tower" and you have already passed the decision point and are then given RVRs that are below minimum then you may continue and land if it is possible. (The CAA used to qualify this as being 1000 feet above the runway). Please read your JAR requirements.

I have no intentions in starting an ATC versus Pilots battle but on that particular occasion I WAS GIVEN HUGE ATTITUDE from ATC on taxi-in and so I responded in kind and accurately.

If you think I am carping about something about which I had almost forgotten about since this discussion came about, and it seems that you think an announced runway change is unimportant, can you just imagine the chaos that would occur if the ATIS at LHR is giving easterly landings when they are in fact landing west!

As a matter of further comment; my local airport has recently introduced an automatic ATIS system. This means that every time a rabbit farts on the airport the ATIS letter changes. I recently sat through ATIS "C" to "Q" on a night of freezing fog in 10 minutes! So who the hell do YOU believe?

Aloue
30th Apr 2006, 21:56
Throwing insults at Ryanair pilots is not going to advance this matter any further than the endless exchange of insults we have seen on many pprune discussions with "superior" pilots (and a few others) throwing mud at colleagues.

There is no airline that does not find itself at the receiving end of pilot decisions that could have been better, or that are disputed. The issue is: what was the cause and the context for the behaviour - and then asking if everybody is interested in doing something about it and can they do something about it.

Most of the comments here are about the minima issue, but there is the whole business of FTLs and fitness for flight the day after the diversions - not least among the cabin crew. The issue is why did all of this pan out in a manner which is so different to that which is normal in the aviation industry and why is it that none of these matters ever seem to get resolved with Ryanair.

If the pressure gets really intense somebody might get fired, but that would really be missing the point. Missing the point ... which seems to be something that some posters above appear to specialise in doing.

Aloue
30th Apr 2006, 21:56
Throwing insults at Ryanair pilots is not going to advance this matter any further than the endless exchange of insults we have seen on many pprune discussions with "superior" pilots (and a few others) throwing mud at colleagues.

There is no airline that does not find itself at the receiving end of pilot decisions that could have been better, or that are disputed. The issue is: what was the cause and the context for the behaviour - and then asking if everybody is interested in doing something about it and can they do something about it.

Most of the comments here are about the minima issue, but there is the whole business of FTLs and fitness for flight the day after the diversions - not least among the cabin crew. The issue is why did all of this pan out in a manner which is so different to that which is normal in the aviation industry and why is it that none of these matters ever seem to get resolved with Ryanair.

If the pressure gets really intense somebody might get fired, but that would really be missing the point. Missing the point ... which seems to be something that some posters above appear to specialise in doing.

Sunfish
30th Apr 2006, 22:39
I imagine that there is a statictical method of determining if "company culture" is pressurising pilots. One could perhaps calculate the frequency of diversions by various airlines and then compare them. After allowing for different airports etc. it may be possible to rerach some conclusion.

Sunfish
30th Apr 2006, 22:39
I imagine that there is a statictical method of determining if "company culture" is pressurising pilots. One could perhaps calculate the frequency of diversions by various airlines and then compare them. After allowing for different airports etc. it may be possible to rerach some conclusion.

woodpecker
30th Apr 2006, 22:53
In the early days of ETOPS every piece of paperwork had to be retained for inspection by the CAA.

This thread has highlighted insufficient briefing times to do the job properly. The lack of a serviceable printer was also quoted.

Perhaps Ryanair should be required to retain all their paperwork for later inspection. I would suggest with such a requirement any sensible crew would most certainly make sure they had all the briefing material they needed for each planned sector, including details of lighting deficiencies.

It suites me to use them to Spain. Perhaps I will pick up the AIS information and push it under the flight deck door in future!

woodpecker
30th Apr 2006, 22:53
In the early days of ETOPS every piece of paperwork had to be retained for inspection by the CAA.

This thread has highlighted insufficient briefing times to do the job properly. The lack of a serviceable printer was also quoted.

Perhaps Ryanair should be required to retain all their paperwork for later inspection. I would suggest with such a requirement any sensible crew would most certainly make sure they had all the briefing material they needed for each planned sector, including details of lighting deficiencies.

It suites me to use them to Spain. Perhaps I will pick up the AIS information and push it under the flight deck door in future!

chiglet
30th Apr 2006, 22:57
[QUOTE=JW411]the grim repa:
I don't think you read my post as well as you should have old son.
I said that by the time you are transferred to "Tower" and you have already passed the decision point and are then given RVRs that are below minimum then you may continue and land if it is possible. (The CAA used to qualify this as being 1000 feet above the runway).

So "Essex Radar/APC" have NOT kept you informed/up to date on current IRVRs then?
watp,iktch

chiglet
30th Apr 2006, 22:57
[QUOTE=JW411]the grim repa:
I don't think you read my post as well as you should have old son.
I said that by the time you are transferred to "Tower" and you have already passed the decision point and are then given RVRs that are below minimum then you may continue and land if it is possible. (The CAA used to qualify this as being 1000 feet above the runway).

So "Essex Radar/APC" have NOT kept you informed/up to date on current IRVRs then?
watp,iktch

terrain safe
30th Apr 2006, 23:37
(The CAA used to qualify this as being 1000 feet above the runway).

Still do

8 Approach Ban -All Aircraft
8.1 The requirements for the commencement and continuation of an approach are defined in Articles 38, 39 and 40 of the Air Navigation Order 2000.
8.2 An aircraft may commence an instrument approach regardless of the reported RVR/Visibility but the approach shall not becontinued below 1000 ft above the aerodrome if the relevant RVR/Visibility for that runway is at the time less than the specified minimum for landing.
8.3 Where RVR is not available, RVR values may be derived by converting the reported visibility in accordance with paragraph 7.
8.4 If, after passing 1000 ft in accordance with paragraph 8.2, the reported RVR/Visibility falls below the applicable minimum, the approach may be continued to DA/H or MDA/H.
8.5 The approach may be continued below DA/H or MDA/H and the landing may be completed provided that the required visualreference is established at the DA/H or MDA/H and is maintained.

Aip AD 1-1-17


If you are passed to tower after passing 1000 feet then something has seriously gone wrong. The tower will asking radar for you long before this point. You wiil be given the RVR before you reach a 1000 feet agl, indeed usually on first contact with the tower. There is no excuse of saying that we had passed the decision point which is for these conditions 200 feet or so.

terrain safe
30th Apr 2006, 23:37
(The CAA used to qualify this as being 1000 feet above the runway).

Still do

8 Approach Ban -All Aircraft
8.1 The requirements for the commencement and continuation of an approach are defined in Articles 38, 39 and 40 of the Air Navigation Order 2000.
8.2 An aircraft may commence an instrument approach regardless of the reported RVR/Visibility but the approach shall not becontinued below 1000 ft above the aerodrome if the relevant RVR/Visibility for that runway is at the time less than the specified minimum for landing.
8.3 Where RVR is not available, RVR values may be derived by converting the reported visibility in accordance with paragraph 7.
8.4 If, after passing 1000 ft in accordance with paragraph 8.2, the reported RVR/Visibility falls below the applicable minimum, the approach may be continued to DA/H or MDA/H.
8.5 The approach may be continued below DA/H or MDA/H and the landing may be completed provided that the required visualreference is established at the DA/H or MDA/H and is maintained.

Aip AD 1-1-17


If you are passed to tower after passing 1000 feet then something has seriously gone wrong. The tower will asking radar for you long before this point. You wiil be given the RVR before you reach a 1000 feet agl, indeed usually on first contact with the tower. There is no excuse of saying that we had passed the decision point which is for these conditions 200 feet or so.

unfazed
1st May 2006, 07:48
Looks to me like a Ryanair witchhunt !

Why ???

Well how about the fact that they are a massively successful airline that has shaken up and changed the industry, they deliver vast quantities of people all around Europe every day of the year safely and for reasonable cost?

Now that's bound to piss off a few people :{ even not factoring in possible cultural prejudices and petty jealousy

And no I don't work for them but I have flown with them a few times as a passenger. Not a fan of the airline because they are a bit too hard nosed but can't help noticing that they are thriving despite being under such minute scrutiny and as far as I am aware they have a good safety record.

And let's face it you don't just go to bed, wake up and find yourself suddenly transformed into a JAR 737 Captain

How come others are not "observed" with such interest ?

unfazed
1st May 2006, 07:48
Looks to me like a Ryanair witchhunt !

Why ???

Well how about the fact that they are a massively successful airline that has shaken up and changed the industry, they deliver vast quantities of people all around Europe every day of the year safely and for reasonable cost?

Now that's bound to piss off a few people :{ even not factoring in possible cultural prejudices and petty jealousy

And no I don't work for them but I have flown with them a few times as a passenger. Not a fan of the airline because they are a bit too hard nosed but can't help noticing that they are thriving despite being under such minute scrutiny and as far as I am aware they have a good safety record.

And let's face it you don't just go to bed, wake up and find yourself suddenly transformed into a JAR 737 Captain

How come others are not "observed" with such interest ?

sky9
1st May 2006, 08:07
It seems to me that this is a good time for the IAA to do a full and detailed audit of the Ryanair operation at EGSS during this 36 hr. period.
They could examine the paperwork required for Cat 3 approaches (Do they have a Cat 3 minima card that allows their pilots to modify the minima in case of A/P and ground aid failures?).
The could check the training for low visibility approaches and refresher courses.
They could do a full audit of the duty and rest periods of all crews flying over that period. Were Minimum Rest periods compromised? If so by whom and on whose request.
They could examine whether there a culture of fear within the airline that modifies peoples behaviour.

sky9
1st May 2006, 08:07
It seems to me that this is a good time for the IAA to do a full and detailed audit of the Ryanair operation at EGSS during this 36 hr. period.
They could examine the paperwork required for Cat 3 approaches (Do they have a Cat 3 minima card that allows their pilots to modify the minima in case of A/P and ground aid failures?).
The could check the training for low visibility approaches and refresher courses.
They could do a full audit of the duty and rest periods of all crews flying over that period. Were Minimum Rest periods compromised? If so by whom and on whose request.
They could examine whether there a culture of fear within the airline that modifies peoples behaviour.

GBALU53
1st May 2006, 08:31
Rules and regulations are there for a reason (SAFETY), Pilots and there commercial departments are putting to much pressure into operations to operate on time.

Keep within the rules and everone will be safe go outside them then there tends to be areas for accidents or inciidents.

Everone working in aviation from bog cleaners upto Pilots and Chief Executive Offices want to have safe and happy memories of working in the indistery.

GBALU53
1st May 2006, 08:31
Rules and regulations are there for a reason (SAFETY), Pilots and there commercial departments are putting to much pressure into operations to operate on time.

Keep within the rules and everone will be safe go outside them then there tends to be areas for accidents or inciidents.

Everone working in aviation from bog cleaners upto Pilots and Chief Executive Offices want to have safe and happy memories of working in the indistery.

A4
1st May 2006, 09:37
Unfazed,

I don't think "jealousy" has anything to do with it. I also work for a successful, very large, LoCo. However I don't feel the need and never am I pressured into bending the rules to keep the show on the road. Once this line is crossed it is the first link in the chain. I do sincerely feel for the pilots at RYR as it appears there is a culture of fear which is starting to affect peoples judgement.

When I first got my Command, I was given one piece of advice which has stuck with me.

If you are ever tempted to "push the envelope", practice justifying your actions in your best courtroom voice because if it all goes horribly wrong that's where you could end up (of course if you're dead then it's not your problem, but somebody elses). If you step outside the rules (in a normal operational situation) you will not have a leg to stand on. If the company sacks you for NOT going outside the rules - they will not have a leg to stand on.

Unfazed you are quite right - you don't wake up a JAR Captain one morning, you have to work at it - and keep working at it. Are pilots being promoted "too early" at RYR? - I don't know. Is the training system creaking at RYR? I don't know. Is the Command training sufficient at RYR? - I don't know. But after the alledged activity at STN last week, these are the questions the IAA/CAA should be investigating.

There is no witch hunt here. All airlines have their problems and incidents but is does seem that RYR has more than most - some, alledgedly, very close to catastrophe (CIA/BVS). I don't know if it's down to lack of training, ignorance, culture or because of the scale of the operation. Whatever it is, it needs addressing - now.

The whole industry would suffer if a LoCo suffered a serious accident - times are tough enough at the moment with fuel costs and wafer thin margins (but not SO thin at RYR..... four times the profit of EZY....?)

We are Professionals and the public deserve a Professional operation and ATTITUDE from the company as well as pilots - even if their ticket only cost £5.99.

Fly safe,

A4

A4
1st May 2006, 09:37
Unfazed,

I don't think "jealousy" has anything to do with it. I also work for a successful, very large, LoCo. However I don't feel the need and never am I pressured into bending the rules to keep the show on the road. Once this line is crossed it is the first link in the chain. I do sincerely feel for the pilots at RYR as it appears there is a culture of fear which is starting to affect peoples judgement.

When I first got my Command, I was given one piece of advice which has stuck with me.

If you are ever tempted to "push the envelope", practice justifying your actions in your best courtroom voice because if it all goes horribly wrong that's where you could end up (of course if you're dead then it's not your problem, but somebody elses). If you step outside the rules (in a normal operational situation) you will not have a leg to stand on. If the company sacks you for NOT going outside the rules - they will not have a leg to stand on.

Unfazed you are quite right - you don't wake up a JAR Captain one morning, you have to work at it - and keep working at it. Are pilots being promoted "too early" at RYR? - I don't know. Is the training system creaking at RYR? I don't know. Is the Command training sufficient at RYR? - I don't know. But after the alledged activity at STN last week, these are the questions the IAA/CAA should be investigating.

There is no witch hunt here. All airlines have their problems and incidents but is does seem that RYR has more than most - some, alledgedly, very close to catastrophe (CIA/BVS). I don't know if it's down to lack of training, ignorance, culture or because of the scale of the operation. Whatever it is, it needs addressing - now.

The whole industry would suffer if a LoCo suffered a serious accident - times are tough enough at the moment with fuel costs and wafer thin margins (but not SO thin at RYR..... four times the profit of EZY....?)

We are Professionals and the public deserve a Professional operation and ATTITUDE from the company as well as pilots - even if their ticket only cost £5.99.

Fly safe,

A4

BusyB
1st May 2006, 09:59
flapsarefun,

"Are u guys SOOOO wrapped up in cotton wool all the time? ... or just have never flown 900 in 9 months."

No I'm not wrapped in cotton wool and no I haven't flown 900 in 9 months, it took me 10.

"Shoutin high handed rmks about lack of training tells me u know nothing of low fares"

Sorry, wasn't this about LWMO. I bought an extremely cheap ticket from BA last week. I'm sure they cope with LWMO as part of normal ops the way professional airlines do.

"And as for you BUSY B in HKG.....well do they still serve you colonial tea whilst briefing your highness with the notams as you sort the world out?....not an fr luxury in 5 mins!"

Do advise me where in HKG I can get that sort of service. I can't wait!:confused:

BusyB
1st May 2006, 09:59
flapsarefun,

"Are u guys SOOOO wrapped up in cotton wool all the time? ... or just have never flown 900 in 9 months."

No I'm not wrapped in cotton wool and no I haven't flown 900 in 9 months, it took me 10.

"Shoutin high handed rmks about lack of training tells me u know nothing of low fares"

Sorry, wasn't this about LWMO. I bought an extremely cheap ticket from BA last week. I'm sure they cope with LWMO as part of normal ops the way professional airlines do.

"And as for you BUSY B in HKG.....well do they still serve you colonial tea whilst briefing your highness with the notams as you sort the world out?....not an fr luxury in 5 mins!"

Do advise me where in HKG I can get that sort of service. I can't wait!:confused:

woodpecker
1st May 2006, 10:36
Being disembarked at Bournemouth in the rain with the queue for immigration out to the tarmac even though the Ryanair Captain had been asked to keep us all onboard.... I can cope with that.

Sitting in an emergency exit row and having my wife's scarf removed for takeoff and landing (and put in the overhead locker...regulations!!) when the other side of the aircraft (still in an emergency exit row) there is a 90 year old with his two walking sticks in the overhead locker.... I can just cope with that.

But landing "below limits", whatever the reason.... Can't cope with that.

woodpecker
1st May 2006, 10:36
Being disembarked at Bournemouth in the rain with the queue for immigration out to the tarmac even though the Ryanair Captain had been asked to keep us all onboard.... I can cope with that.

Sitting in an emergency exit row and having my wife's scarf removed for takeoff and landing (and put in the overhead locker...regulations!!) when the other side of the aircraft (still in an emergency exit row) there is a 90 year old with his two walking sticks in the overhead locker.... I can just cope with that.

But landing "below limits", whatever the reason.... Can't cope with that.

jondc9
1st May 2006, 15:19
Hi:

I don't have access to the approach charts at the airport in question. Can you please tell me what the lowest glide slope intercept altitude is at the airport?

In the USA, if you have passed the final approach fix, or in the case of an ILS the lowest GS intercept YOU may proceed on the approach if the wx goes down below minimums and you may land IF ALL THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE APPROACH are met upon reaching DH (DA) (cat 1 or 2). This may be the 1000' business , but again I don't have the charts.


Also, by any stretch of the imagination, was the fog over just the RVR transmissometers and NOT over the runway itself? I've been in a situation of a very localized fog , covering the transmissometers giving a below mins report...however the runway itself was quite clear and in sight 5 miles out. We made a pilot report (pirep) of visbility 3 miles plus and landed all with relatively good respect for the regulations. This was at KPIT.


Having asked these questions in order to give the pilots every benefit of the doubt, it still sounds like they "busted mins" and :

if they had crashed, additional grief would come from the CAA.


if they didn't crash, they will probably "get away with it".

also, who knows, the airline in question may have some special relief in their ops specs for this situation. (thought I doubt it). For example in chicago, at Midway airport, Southwest had a special instrument approach procedure authorizing lower than standard mins...this seemed to factor into the december over run.

regards

jon

jondc9
1st May 2006, 15:19
Hi:

I don't have access to the approach charts at the airport in question. Can you please tell me what the lowest glide slope intercept altitude is at the airport?

In the USA, if you have passed the final approach fix, or in the case of an ILS the lowest GS intercept YOU may proceed on the approach if the wx goes down below minimums and you may land IF ALL THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE APPROACH are met upon reaching DH (DA) (cat 1 or 2). This may be the 1000' business , but again I don't have the charts.


Also, by any stretch of the imagination, was the fog over just the RVR transmissometers and NOT over the runway itself? I've been in a situation of a very localized fog , covering the transmissometers giving a below mins report...however the runway itself was quite clear and in sight 5 miles out. We made a pilot report (pirep) of visbility 3 miles plus and landed all with relatively good respect for the regulations. This was at KPIT.


Having asked these questions in order to give the pilots every benefit of the doubt, it still sounds like they "busted mins" and :

if they had crashed, additional grief would come from the CAA.


if they didn't crash, they will probably "get away with it".

also, who knows, the airline in question may have some special relief in their ops specs for this situation. (thought I doubt it). For example in chicago, at Midway airport, Southwest had a special instrument approach procedure authorizing lower than standard mins...this seemed to factor into the december over run.

regards

jon

Daysleeper
1st May 2006, 17:06
Also, by any stretch of the imagination, was the fog over just the RVR transmissometers and NOT over the runway itself?........

Unfortunately that would also be illegal in Europe. You cant do visual approaches below a certain RVR, the precise figure escapes my memory right now but 800 meters rings some bells

Daysleeper
1st May 2006, 17:06
Also, by any stretch of the imagination, was the fog over just the RVR transmissometers and NOT over the runway itself?........

Unfortunately that would also be illegal in Europe. You cant do visual approaches below a certain RVR, the precise figure escapes my memory right now but 800 meters rings some bells

BBT
1st May 2006, 18:32
Jondc9, having read a couple of your contributions to other threads, may I politely suggest that before jumping with with "authoritive" pronouncements you might like to ask a few questions, or at least ensure you understand important things like "this 1,000' business" (though you are right, it is a variation on the FAA theme). Telling us about KPIT is all very interesting, but hardly relevant to the information provided in this case, etc. etc. etc. It is also interesting that you feel that "if they had crashed, additional grief would come from the CAA." and that since they didn't crash "they will probably "get away with it". From whence do you get such nuggets?

BBT
1st May 2006, 18:32
Jondc9, having read a couple of your contributions to other threads, may I politely suggest that before jumping with with "authoritive" pronouncements you might like to ask a few questions, or at least ensure you understand important things like "this 1,000' business" (though you are right, it is a variation on the FAA theme). Telling us about KPIT is all very interesting, but hardly relevant to the information provided in this case, etc. etc. etc. It is also interesting that you feel that "if they had crashed, additional grief would come from the CAA." and that since they didn't crash "they will probably "get away with it". From whence do you get such nuggets?

jondc9
1st May 2006, 19:24
BBT:

From whence do I get such nuggets? From observing the way airlines operate from the cockpit and the ground for almost 30 years. From watching regulatory authority sweep things under the rug to keep things going.


If no one is hurt, an airline that "busts mins" might get a little hand slap, don't do it again.

IF someone is hurt, the governmental authority will likely have more pressure upon it to "do something".

And BBT, I did ask questions. I also state that the information I am giving is a USA thing not a BRITISH thing. IF it is not correct, please show me the FARS that have changed since I checked them last.

It would seem that you have a chip on your shoulder.

I have never had the chance to fly in England. I imagine fog in England is like fog in America. Sometimes it can cover just certain parts of the aerodrome and not the parts that really matter to pilots(runways). I think my KPIT experience is quite relevent as stated. Especially when I ask if something similiar happened in this case...if it did not, just say so. I don't subscribe to the london times.

In England, if the visibility is low, are your ATC people required to leave the control tower and make another observation? This being the cloud over the tower scenario. Please note this is in the form of a question and not a statement.

In your flying career have you ever seen fog covering just the transmissometers and not the runway? (also in the form of a question)

And to daysleeper who mentions that a visual approach would be illegal in my previously described scenario, I didn't make a visual. I made an ILS and made a pilot report of actual runway visibility from the aircraft. As it was quite a bit above the published mins of 1/2 mile we were ok. It was the unique situation of fog over the rvr gadgets and not over the runway that I was describing.


Perhaps the name of this forum shouldn't be the professional pilots rumor network, it should be the european pilots forum.

regards

jon

jondc9
1st May 2006, 19:24
BBT:

From whence do I get such nuggets? From observing the way airlines operate from the cockpit and the ground for almost 30 years. From watching regulatory authority sweep things under the rug to keep things going.


If no one is hurt, an airline that "busts mins" might get a little hand slap, don't do it again.

IF someone is hurt, the governmental authority will likely have more pressure upon it to "do something".

And BBT, I did ask questions. I also state that the information I am giving is a USA thing not a BRITISH thing. IF it is not correct, please show me the FARS that have changed since I checked them last.

It would seem that you have a chip on your shoulder.

I have never had the chance to fly in England. I imagine fog in England is like fog in America. Sometimes it can cover just certain parts of the aerodrome and not the parts that really matter to pilots(runways). I think my KPIT experience is quite relevent as stated. Especially when I ask if something similiar happened in this case...if it did not, just say so. I don't subscribe to the london times.

In England, if the visibility is low, are your ATC people required to leave the control tower and make another observation? This being the cloud over the tower scenario. Please note this is in the form of a question and not a statement.

In your flying career have you ever seen fog covering just the transmissometers and not the runway? (also in the form of a question)

And to daysleeper who mentions that a visual approach would be illegal in my previously described scenario, I didn't make a visual. I made an ILS and made a pilot report of actual runway visibility from the aircraft. As it was quite a bit above the published mins of 1/2 mile we were ok. It was the unique situation of fog over the rvr gadgets and not over the runway that I was describing.


Perhaps the name of this forum shouldn't be the professional pilots rumor network, it should be the european pilots forum.

regards

jon

BBT
1st May 2006, 19:49
Jondc9, first and foremost this has nothing to do with U.S. v Europe nor do I have "a chip on my shoulder". If you read what I said closely you will not see any grounds for reaching such conclusions, nor is there justification for making such accusations. In fact, it is your ability to confidently head off at a tangent that is what I was getting at. (Also, you clearly don't "do" irony or you might have stopped to think about what I was getting at).

Second I withdraw my remarks, as the prospect of a further exchange on this does not bear thinking about. Apologies.

BBT
1st May 2006, 19:49
Jondc9, first and foremost this has nothing to do with U.S. v Europe nor do I have "a chip on my shoulder". If you read what I said closely you will not see any grounds for reaching such conclusions, nor is there justification for making such accusations. In fact, it is your ability to confidently head off at a tangent that is what I was getting at. (Also, you clearly don't "do" irony or you might have stopped to think about what I was getting at).

Second I withdraw my remarks, as the prospect of a further exchange on this does not bear thinking about. Apologies.

kms901
1st May 2006, 20:08
i have flown many times with Ryanair, mostly successfully, but things are not improving. I have resolved to fly myself to the destinations that I can from now on for two reasons:

1. I will not compromise my safety for commercial reasons, whatever the circumstances.

2. I have more hours (and a lot more takeoffs/landings) than most Ryanair FO's.

I await the abuse.

kms901
1st May 2006, 20:08
i have flown many times with Ryanair, mostly successfully, but things are not improving. I have resolved to fly myself to the destinations that I can from now on for two reasons:

1. I will not compromise my safety for commercial reasons, whatever the circumstances.

2. I have more hours (and a lot more takeoffs/landings) than most Ryanair FO's.

I await the abuse.

old-timer
1st May 2006, 20:32
Scary - sign of the times I fear

old-timer
1st May 2006, 20:32
Scary - sign of the times I fear

jondc9
1st May 2006, 21:29
KMS901


Hi, you mentioned the number of flying hours that ryanair f/o's have. this is a sincere question: about how many hours do they have?

I am very interested and do not have the answer.


In the USA there are some places that hire very low time copilots. I mean well under 1500 hours. (we have an expression here too about P51 time(and not the Mustang), do you have that expression too and does it apply?)

thanks

jon

jondc9
1st May 2006, 21:29
KMS901


Hi, you mentioned the number of flying hours that ryanair f/o's have. this is a sincere question: about how many hours do they have?

I am very interested and do not have the answer.


In the USA there are some places that hire very low time copilots. I mean well under 1500 hours. (we have an expression here too about P51 time(and not the Mustang), do you have that expression too and does it apply?)

thanks

jon

Hial Flyer
1st May 2006, 22:45
[QUOTE=JW411]the grim repa:
I don't think you read my post as well as you should have old son.
I said that by the time you are transferred to "Tower" and you have already passed the decision point and are then given RVRs that are below minimum then you may continue and land if it is possible. (The CAA used to qualify this as being 1000 feet above the runway).
So "Essex Radar/APC" have NOT kept you informed/up to date on current IRVRs then?
watp,iktch


As ATCO's during LVP's we have to vector the aircraft to a minimum of a 10 mile final, at SS in excess of 3000ft. When established the current IRVR is passed to the a/c, then the a/c is transferred to the TWR who will again pass the IRVR. The a/c will be well above the decision altitude when the IRVR's are given.

Hial Flyer
1st May 2006, 22:45
[QUOTE=JW411]the grim repa:
I don't think you read my post as well as you should have old son.
I said that by the time you are transferred to "Tower" and you have already passed the decision point and are then given RVRs that are below minimum then you may continue and land if it is possible. (The CAA used to qualify this as being 1000 feet above the runway).
So "Essex Radar/APC" have NOT kept you informed/up to date on current IRVRs then?
watp,iktch


As ATCO's during LVP's we have to vector the aircraft to a minimum of a 10 mile final, at SS in excess of 3000ft. When established the current IRVR is passed to the a/c, then the a/c is transferred to the TWR who will again pass the IRVR. The a/c will be well above the decision altitude when the IRVR's are given.

chiglet
2nd May 2006, 00:07
Thanx Hial,
Not [that familiar with SS procs.
watp,iktch

chiglet
2nd May 2006, 00:07
Thanx Hial,
Not [that familiar with SS procs.
watp,iktch

Daysleeper
2nd May 2006, 04:49
jondc9made a pilot report of actual runway visibility from the aircraft.

you cant do this in Europe.

If you think the IRVR is wrong best you can do is try to persuade ATC to send someone out to do a manual reading (count lights) this would probably take 30 minutes plus to arrange. A JAR OPS manual would have a phrase something like "regardless of whether the runway can be seen a visual approach may not be continued below 1000' if the reported RVR is below xxx(800) meters."

So in your scenario, we get to 1000' AGL on the ILS and the RVR is 300m we cannot continue the ILS because of the approach ban, but we see the runway so we call visual but we cannot continue a visual approach because of the approach ban.

The regulation is there to prevent people either
A: lying that they can see the runway or
B: flying into sucker gaps in the fog.

Daysleeper
2nd May 2006, 04:49
jondc9made a pilot report of actual runway visibility from the aircraft.

you cant do this in Europe.

If you think the IRVR is wrong best you can do is try to persuade ATC to send someone out to do a manual reading (count lights) this would probably take 30 minutes plus to arrange. A JAR OPS manual would have a phrase something like "regardless of whether the runway can be seen a visual approach may not be continued below 1000' if the reported RVR is below xxx(800) meters."

So in your scenario, we get to 1000' AGL on the ILS and the RVR is 300m we cannot continue the ILS because of the approach ban, but we see the runway so we call visual but we cannot continue a visual approach because of the approach ban.

The regulation is there to prevent people either
A: lying that they can see the runway or
B: flying into sucker gaps in the fog.

klink
2nd May 2006, 07:14
The term of decision point is confused here with decision altitude (DA).
i.e. the mentioned decision point refers to the approach ban, meaning that the approach can be continued past this point regardless of what happens to the RVR.
Say, you do the CAT III, and before this point (can be the Glideslope Intercept point / Final Approach Point - can be at 5NM final) the RVRs are the minimum 200 meters; if after this point the RVRs decrease too, say, 100 meters, it is at your discretion to continue the approach to your Decision Height of 50' (to "Look and see"). If Wx then doesn't improve and you make a GA, you'llnot be able to even start the approach next tim, since the RVR are below the minima needed at your "gate".


Edit: Changed Desision Altitude into Decision Height, for the CatIII example. Thanks JAR!

klink
2nd May 2006, 07:14
The term of decision point is confused here with decision altitude (DA).
i.e. the mentioned decision point refers to the approach ban, meaning that the approach can be continued past this point regardless of what happens to the RVR.
Say, you do the CAT III, and before this point (can be the Glideslope Intercept point / Final Approach Point - can be at 5NM final) the RVRs are the minimum 200 meters; if after this point the RVRs decrease too, say, 100 meters, it is at your discretion to continue the approach to your Decision Height of 50' (to "Look and see"). If Wx then doesn't improve and you make a GA, you'llnot be able to even start the approach next tim, since the RVR are below the minima needed at your "gate".


Edit: Changed Desision Altitude into Decision Height, for the CatIII example. Thanks JAR!

JAR
2nd May 2006, 10:12
Is that not Decision Height?

JAR
2nd May 2006, 10:12
Is that not Decision Height?

RAT 5
2nd May 2006, 10:43
A couple of questions;

1. Are you sure you cannot get a PIREPS from a landing a/c? In the past, before JAA, at a major European airport which was giving 450m for my CAT 1a/c, a local operator made a CAT 3 approach and confirmed that "the RVR on Touchdown was well in excess of what ATC was publishing". At the OM we were visual with the whole length of the runway and all approach lights. We landed, wrote a report to our C.P who forwarded it to the local CAA and never heard another word. I always thought PIREPS was an acceptable report in any circumstance, not only RVR's.

2. Did ATC, either via radio or ATIS, declare "Low Vis Procedures in force"? If so then an autoland is OK if the relevant minima were respected. If not, and minima were below appropriate CAT 1, then an autoland is not authorised.

There still seems to be the question hanging about as to whether these events ever really happened, and if so what has been published to the crews of the offending airline? Surely they must have taken steps to ensure there is no repeat. The WIP is on-going and this situation will arise again. So, what is the unequivical truth? or is this just a rumour? The RVR's could have been bouncing +/- minima continuously. One a/c lands the next Goes Around due to lower RVR's. Nothing unusual there.

RAT 5
2nd May 2006, 10:43
A couple of questions;

1. Are you sure you cannot get a PIREPS from a landing a/c? In the past, before JAA, at a major European airport which was giving 450m for my CAT 1a/c, a local operator made a CAT 3 approach and confirmed that "the RVR on Touchdown was well in excess of what ATC was publishing". At the OM we were visual with the whole length of the runway and all approach lights. We landed, wrote a report to our C.P who forwarded it to the local CAA and never heard another word. I always thought PIREPS was an acceptable report in any circumstance, not only RVR's.

2. Did ATC, either via radio or ATIS, declare "Low Vis Procedures in force"? If so then an autoland is OK if the relevant minima were respected. If not, and minima were below appropriate CAT 1, then an autoland is not authorised.

There still seems to be the question hanging about as to whether these events ever really happened, and if so what has been published to the crews of the offending airline? Surely they must have taken steps to ensure there is no repeat. The WIP is on-going and this situation will arise again. So, what is the unequivical truth? or is this just a rumour? The RVR's could have been bouncing +/- minima continuously. One a/c lands the next Goes Around due to lower RVR's. Nothing unusual there.

Aloue
2nd May 2006, 12:23
Rat5 - all very good points IMHO. The facts do count, which tends to be forgotten by some contributors.

Aloue
2nd May 2006, 12:23
Rat5 - all very good points IMHO. The facts do count, which tends to be forgotten by some contributors.

JW411
2nd May 2006, 21:46
Hial Flyer:

I am well aware of what you are SUPPOSED to do at STN when LVPs are in force. However, as I pointed out in my last posting what actually happens is not always along strict guidelines.

My last post was not perhaps written exactly as intended in that several commas were perhaps missing and it was open to interpretation.

Let me start again:

London hands me over to Essex Radar shortly after Clacton.

I am required to check in with my Aircraft Type and the ATIS code.

This I do and I get either 'Direct Abbot' or Radar Vectors.

Now then, in normal circumstances it all works out well and I get descents and vectors to 3000 ft and sometimes 2000 ft and then I get handed over to 123.8 with the admonition that I should maintain 160 to 4D.

Now, in fairness, I don't remember being told to maintain 160 to 4D in LVP but I can certainly remember getting late handovers to Tower.

On the other hand, the same organisation has put me at 6000 feet thinking I was landing on 05 when they had changed to 23 without telling me.

What I am trying to say is that I do not trust anyone including myself!

Now let us look at a CAT2 approach and landing, for example.

Under the Old Queen we could not even start a CAT2 approach until we had the touchdown RVR (usually 300 metres). Therefore, we had to go round the LOREL hold until ATC came up with a touch down RVR of 300 metres.

Life changed under JARS. Suddenly it was perfectly legal to start an approach with less than touch down PROVIDED that when you got to the IAF (or decision point if you like) that the RVR was now 300 metres. For G-registered aircraft (which Ryanair are absolutely NOT) the British CAA said that should the RVR go below minimums after 1000 feet AGL then you could continue the approach and land.

Now I have been flying for a European airline for many years and we didn't use the 1000 foot rule but used the IAF instead.

I could name at least two major European very major airfields that would give vectors to quite a late stage and by the time you were transferred to Tower and given the RVRs you were already past the decision point. This was probably not strictly kosher but at least you could have a look.

Stansted is NOT perfect and they used to have a dragon on the ground frequency who would have frightened horses if given half a chance.

JW411
2nd May 2006, 21:46
Hial Flyer:

I am well aware of what you are SUPPOSED to do at STN when LVPs are in force. However, as I pointed out in my last posting what actually happens is not always along strict guidelines.

My last post was not perhaps written exactly as intended in that several commas were perhaps missing and it was open to interpretation.

Let me start again:

London hands me over to Essex Radar shortly after Clacton.

I am required to check in with my Aircraft Type and the ATIS code.

This I do and I get either 'Direct Abbot' or Radar Vectors.

Now then, in normal circumstances it all works out well and I get descents and vectors to 3000 ft and sometimes 2000 ft and then I get handed over to 123.8 with the admonition that I should maintain 160 to 4D.

Now, in fairness, I don't remember being told to maintain 160 to 4D in LVP but I can certainly remember getting late handovers to Tower.

On the other hand, the same organisation has put me at 6000 feet thinking I was landing on 05 when they had changed to 23 without telling me.

What I am trying to say is that I do not trust anyone including myself!

Now let us look at a CAT2 approach and landing, for example.

Under the Old Queen we could not even start a CAT2 approach until we had the touchdown RVR (usually 300 metres). Therefore, we had to go round the LOREL hold until ATC came up with a touch down RVR of 300 metres.

Life changed under JARS. Suddenly it was perfectly legal to start an approach with less than touch down PROVIDED that when you got to the IAF (or decision point if you like) that the RVR was now 300 metres. For G-registered aircraft (which Ryanair are absolutely NOT) the British CAA said that should the RVR go below minimums after 1000 feet AGL then you could continue the approach and land.

Now I have been flying for a European airline for many years and we didn't use the 1000 foot rule but used the IAF instead.

I could name at least two major European very major airfields that would give vectors to quite a late stage and by the time you were transferred to Tower and given the RVRs you were already past the decision point. This was probably not strictly kosher but at least you could have a look.

Stansted is NOT perfect and they used to have a dragon on the ground frequency who would have frightened horses if given half a chance.

worldwidewolly
2nd May 2006, 22:35
I think we are all gone a little technical here and have gone off the original story.
Which is..........

http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=641142006

worldwidewolly
2nd May 2006, 22:35
I think we are all gone a little technical here and have gone off the original story.
Which is..........

http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=641142006

ornithopter
3rd May 2006, 07:55
I think PIREPS are not allowed due to possibility of misleading information. In the past I have seen the runway from a few miles off, but getting closer entered a fog bank and it disappears.

Some people above are suggesting that recognition of a fact and learning of a fact are different things - yes that is true, but good training will help you recognise what you know to be the facts.

Also people are saying that STN is really busy and so things may have been missed and that humans make mistakes. Well these things are true - we do make mistakes and STN is busy. However, STN is no so busy that you forget to do your job (I fly into or out of somewhere busier every day). And we are not talking about one or two mistakes being made - we are talking about a large number of aircraft landing below limits, so therefore a large number of mistakes. If indeed a lot of aircraft did land below limits, then it proves that Ryanairs training/awareness/culture leads people into making these mistakes and so therefore needs changing. QED.

If the reported facts are wrong and aircraft didn't land below limits, then that is a different matter.

ornithopter
3rd May 2006, 07:55
I think PIREPS are not allowed due to possibility of misleading information. In the past I have seen the runway from a few miles off, but getting closer entered a fog bank and it disappears.

Some people above are suggesting that recognition of a fact and learning of a fact are different things - yes that is true, but good training will help you recognise what you know to be the facts.

Also people are saying that STN is really busy and so things may have been missed and that humans make mistakes. Well these things are true - we do make mistakes and STN is busy. However, STN is no so busy that you forget to do your job (I fly into or out of somewhere busier every day). And we are not talking about one or two mistakes being made - we are talking about a large number of aircraft landing below limits, so therefore a large number of mistakes. If indeed a lot of aircraft did land below limits, then it proves that Ryanairs training/awareness/culture leads people into making these mistakes and so therefore needs changing. QED.

If the reported facts are wrong and aircraft didn't land below limits, then that is a different matter.

mojito
3rd May 2006, 09:19
JW411, in UK you use 1000ft for the approach ban, anywhere else it is OM or equivalent position (such as 4NM point). Approach ban is applicable for both for CATI and CATII/III approaches....

Cheers

mojito
3rd May 2006, 09:19
JW411, in UK you use 1000ft for the approach ban, anywhere else it is OM or equivalent position (such as 4NM point). Approach ban is applicable for both for CATI and CATII/III approaches....

Cheers

CloggyUK
3rd May 2006, 09:49
Stansted is NOT perfect and they used to have a dragon on the ground frequency who would have frightened horses if given half a chance.

What does that have to do with it? You're always welcome for a visit, that way we can talk about these things at an adult level. Send me a PM to arrange it.

Besides, the outage of lights are published in a NOTAM. It should ring a bell when it says Centreline lights not available. But from what i've heard is that Ryanair is not the best in sorting out which NOTAM's are current and which ones aren't. So I understand it that you guys have difficulties getting the correct ones.

C

CloggyUK
3rd May 2006, 09:49
Stansted is NOT perfect and they used to have a dragon on the ground frequency who would have frightened horses if given half a chance.

What does that have to do with it? You're always welcome for a visit, that way we can talk about these things at an adult level. Send me a PM to arrange it.

Besides, the outage of lights are published in a NOTAM. It should ring a bell when it says Centreline lights not available. But from what i've heard is that Ryanair is not the best in sorting out which NOTAM's are current and which ones aren't. So I understand it that you guys have difficulties getting the correct ones.

C

JW411
3rd May 2006, 10:22
CloggyUK:

I thank you very much for kind invitation but there would be no point in me visiting you.

Firstly I have already visited your splendid empire and secondly I am now retired.

JW411
3rd May 2006, 10:22
CloggyUK:

I thank you very much for kind invitation but there would be no point in me visiting you.

Firstly I have already visited your splendid empire and secondly I am now retired.

Fifty Above
3rd May 2006, 13:36
I was flying that night and we diverted to LGW (at 2205 RVRs were 375m). I understand that all Cpts arriving at STN that evening have been phoned by FR management and asked to confirm the weather conditions when they landed.

EasyJet passengers were coached to STN; I listened to Swissport LGW read out a statement by FR that their pax would have to "make their own onward travel arrangements and contact customer service in the morning."

I'll remember that statement next time I think of booking with FR.

Fifty Above
3rd May 2006, 13:36
I was flying that night and we diverted to LGW (at 2205 RVRs were 375m). I understand that all Cpts arriving at STN that evening have been phoned by FR management and asked to confirm the weather conditions when they landed.

EasyJet passengers were coached to STN; I listened to Swissport LGW read out a statement by FR that their pax would have to "make their own onward travel arrangements and contact customer service in the morning."

I'll remember that statement next time I think of booking with FR.

RAT 5
3rd May 2006, 16:08
Worldwidewolly:

Interesting comment in the Scotsman article:

"Thirty four flights to Stansted, including many Ryanair services, diverted to other airports because the visibility dipped to as low as 200 metres - less than that required for night landings at the airport.

But several flights - all of them believed to be Ryanair - landed anyway to avoid costly delays".

This is statement of fact as to why an action was taken. It suggests an illegal action and the reason for it. If no RYR a/c landed below limits it is an erronious statement bring the airline into undeserved disrepute. If the action did happen it suggests that the airline ordered its crews to break the law for commercial reasons. That sounds highly libellous unless proved. Given MOL's history of resorting to the courts and having judgement given against him, I would have thought this was an excellent chance for a victory.

What is he doing in repsonse to such a charge?

Secondly, given the publicised weak intervention of the F/O in the NYO case, & the rather stronger action of the F/O in the CIA, and subsequently no doubt the RYR's strong encouragement of good CRM at all times, what were the F/O's doing during all this time of making alledged illegal approaches? I understand the F/O is PF during an autoland. They have the TOGA switches in their control. The power of the index finger can be mighty indeed, or not.

Regarding pax finding their own way home from LGW: Is it not the case that a pax has a contract with a carrier to be transported, within reasonable time and comfort, from A - B. It is always the carriers responsibility to deliver the pax to the airport of destination. Refer back to a thread some months ago concerning RYR and diversions. RYR had issued an instruction to crews forbidding them to allow pax to disembark at the airport if diversion. No matter what the inconvenience to said pax they and their bags had to be delivered to contractual destination. How do you square this with the alledged report of their actions at LGW. This might be another case for a pax. v RYR. victory.

RAT 5
3rd May 2006, 16:08
Worldwidewolly:

Interesting comment in the Scotsman article:

"Thirty four flights to Stansted, including many Ryanair services, diverted to other airports because the visibility dipped to as low as 200 metres - less than that required for night landings at the airport.

But several flights - all of them believed to be Ryanair - landed anyway to avoid costly delays".

This is statement of fact as to why an action was taken. It suggests an illegal action and the reason for it. If no RYR a/c landed below limits it is an erronious statement bring the airline into undeserved disrepute. If the action did happen it suggests that the airline ordered its crews to break the law for commercial reasons. That sounds highly libellous unless proved. Given MOL's history of resorting to the courts and having judgement given against him, I would have thought this was an excellent chance for a victory.

What is he doing in repsonse to such a charge?

Secondly, given the publicised weak intervention of the F/O in the NYO case, & the rather stronger action of the F/O in the CIA, and subsequently no doubt the RYR's strong encouragement of good CRM at all times, what were the F/O's doing during all this time of making alledged illegal approaches? I understand the F/O is PF during an autoland. They have the TOGA switches in their control. The power of the index finger can be mighty indeed, or not.

Regarding pax finding their own way home from LGW: Is it not the case that a pax has a contract with a carrier to be transported, within reasonable time and comfort, from A - B. It is always the carriers responsibility to deliver the pax to the airport of destination. Refer back to a thread some months ago concerning RYR and diversions. RYR had issued an instruction to crews forbidding them to allow pax to disembark at the airport if diversion. No matter what the inconvenience to said pax they and their bags had to be delivered to contractual destination. How do you square this with the alledged report of their actions at LGW. This might be another case for a pax. v RYR. victory.

Fifty Above
3rd May 2006, 16:41
RAT 5 from what I heard over the air, it was simply a case of the FR boys not being aware of (or having overlooked during their briefings) the increased minima - indeed there was dialogue on Brest Control frequency between an easyJet and two FR aircraft, both of whom diverted to LGW upon enlightenment!
I don't believe that there would have been any Company input on a decision to continue to STN, merely an "oversight" on the part of the crews. I know many FR guys at STN and they are a good bunch and certainly wouldn't knowingly breach the rules.

Fifty Above
3rd May 2006, 16:41
RAT 5 from what I heard over the air, it was simply a case of the FR boys not being aware of (or having overlooked during their briefings) the increased minima - indeed there was dialogue on Brest Control frequency between an easyJet and two FR aircraft, both of whom diverted to LGW upon enlightenment!
I don't believe that there would have been any Company input on a decision to continue to STN, merely an "oversight" on the part of the crews. I know many FR guys at STN and they are a good bunch and certainly wouldn't knowingly breach the rules.

WHBM
3rd May 2006, 17:31
EasyJet passengers were coached to STN; I listened to Swissport LGW read out a statement by FR that their pax would have to "make their own onward travel arrangements and contact customer service in the morning.
The train fare is cheaper from Gatwick to central London than it is from Stansted !

Do FR still sell the Stansted Express tickets from the cart in flight ? I would be particularly hacked off if they sold me one of these (non refundable) and then did a diversion.

WHBM
3rd May 2006, 17:31
EasyJet passengers were coached to STN; I listened to Swissport LGW read out a statement by FR that their pax would have to "make their own onward travel arrangements and contact customer service in the morning.
The train fare is cheaper from Gatwick to central London than it is from Stansted !

Do FR still sell the Stansted Express tickets from the cart in flight ? I would be particularly hacked off if they sold me one of these (non refundable) and then did a diversion.

CamelhAir
3rd May 2006, 17:44
Once again, the consequences of inadequate preparation time and operational back-up are coming home to roost. Once again the IAA are complicit in Ryanairs cutting of the margin to the bone, and beyond. Once again the IAA show they consider it possible to adequately and safely prepare for a duty day in 45mins, whilst completely ignoring the operation realities of the STN ops room in the morning. Once again the IAA ignore the impossibility to do so.
MOL has his agenda, to make money at all costs, which he does (not that I am defending him). The IAA have their agenda, which is to impartially regulate the safety of the operation. As usual, they have abdicated this responsibility. May the unthinkable never happen, but if it does, may the book be thrown at the IAA for such gross incompetence, irresponsibility and negligence.

CamelhAir
3rd May 2006, 17:44
Once again, the consequences of inadequate preparation time and operational back-up are coming home to roost. Once again the IAA are complicit in Ryanairs cutting of the margin to the bone, and beyond. Once again the IAA show they consider it possible to adequately and safely prepare for a duty day in 45mins, whilst completely ignoring the operation realities of the STN ops room in the morning. Once again the IAA ignore the impossibility to do so.
MOL has his agenda, to make money at all costs, which he does (not that I am defending him). The IAA have their agenda, which is to impartially regulate the safety of the operation. As usual, they have abdicated this responsibility. May the unthinkable never happen, but if it does, may the book be thrown at the IAA for such gross incompetence, irresponsibility and negligence.

RAT 5
3rd May 2006, 19:15
50above.
I was not implying any direct company input into the decision: I was observing that the article in the Scotsman might be interpreted in that way. I have absolute confidence that no crew would knowlingly bust the rules. The consequences are just too dire, not to mention the total break down in the professionalism of 2 pilots.

Camelhair:
We have heard on this forum many times about the lack of back up staff and printer breakdown etc in STN crewroom. In discussion with friends about this, and the 5 earlies roster of RYR, it would seem the 45 mins report time is due to most departures being around 0630. The max consecutive earlies before 0545 under IAA rules is 2, hence the 45 mins rule. Noww they can do 5 consecutive earlies, but with -1.00 they could not. He also said that crewing, when calling you out or giving changes, always give a report time of -1.00 because they know that if you come at -45 you will go late. HM!

RAT 5
3rd May 2006, 19:15
50above.
I was not implying any direct company input into the decision: I was observing that the article in the Scotsman might be interpreted in that way. I have absolute confidence that no crew would knowlingly bust the rules. The consequences are just too dire, not to mention the total break down in the professionalism of 2 pilots.

Camelhair:
We have heard on this forum many times about the lack of back up staff and printer breakdown etc in STN crewroom. In discussion with friends about this, and the 5 earlies roster of RYR, it would seem the 45 mins report time is due to most departures being around 0630. The max consecutive earlies before 0545 under IAA rules is 2, hence the 45 mins rule. Noww they can do 5 consecutive earlies, but with -1.00 they could not. He also said that crewing, when calling you out or giving changes, always give a report time of -1.00 because they know that if you come at -45 you will go late. HM!

the grim repa
3rd May 2006, 20:43
A Warning for anyone involved in landing below minima at stn.The IAA has the info.(minute by minute rvrs for the period in question) and is coming after you.To protect your livelihood.You have got to contact the IAA asap and your relevant pilot association.The IAA was conducting an audit that day in STN.This is not scaremongering,but ryanair management will throw you to the wolves on this one.

If you know of anyone involved do them a favour and pass on this message.

the grim repa
3rd May 2006, 20:43
A Warning for anyone involved in landing below minima at stn.The IAA has the info.(minute by minute rvrs for the period in question) and is coming after you.To protect your livelihood.You have got to contact the IAA asap and your relevant pilot association.The IAA was conducting an audit that day in STN.This is not scaremongering,but ryanair management will throw you to the wolves on this one.

If you know of anyone involved do them a favour and pass on this message.

Finman
3rd May 2006, 20:54
No surpirses which REPA meeting you went to then.....

Finman
3rd May 2006, 20:54
No surpirses which REPA meeting you went to then.....

the grim repa
3rd May 2006, 20:56
Was there a REPA meeting on today?

the grim repa
3rd May 2006, 20:56
Was there a REPA meeting on today?

Finman
3rd May 2006, 20:58
Pull the other one. Its got bells on.

Finman
3rd May 2006, 20:58
Pull the other one. Its got bells on.

the grim repa
3rd May 2006, 21:01
Ding-a-ling!!

the grim repa
3rd May 2006, 21:01
Ding-a-ling!!

wince
4th May 2006, 19:57
the grim repa:
Due to the breakdown in training at europes lowest airline.It became apparent two nights ago that pilots flying for ryanair were not aware of certain JAA limitations
Surely pilots should know about NOTAMS and limitations from their flying school days and/or previous flying experience.
Where all the flights landing at STN that night only RYR?

wince
4th May 2006, 19:57
the grim repa:
Due to the breakdown in training at europes lowest airline.It became apparent two nights ago that pilots flying for ryanair were not aware of certain JAA limitations
Surely pilots should know about NOTAMS and limitations from their flying school days and/or previous flying experience.
Where all the flights landing at STN that night only RYR?

sky9
4th May 2006, 20:06
Grim Repa
I wonder if the audit will cover such things as rest periods and taxis back to base.

sky9
4th May 2006, 20:06
Grim Repa
I wonder if the audit will cover such things as rest periods and taxis back to base.

Flap 5
4th May 2006, 21:06
Looks to me like a Ryanair witchhunt !
Why ???
Well how about the fact that they are a massively successful airline that has shaken up and changed the industry, they deliver vast quantities of people all around Europe every day of the year safely and for reasonable cost?
Now that's bound to piss off a few people :{ even not factoring in possible cultural prejudices and petty jealousy
And no I don't work for them but I have flown with them a few times as a passenger. Not a fan of the airline because they are a bit too hard nosed but can't help noticing that they are thriving despite being under such minute scrutiny and as far as I am aware they have a good safety record.
And let's face it you don't just go to bed, wake up and find yourself suddenly transformed into a JAR 737 Captain
How come others are not "observed" with such interest ?

Someones been listening to Tony Blair and his 'we've been a wonderful government so what if a few criminals have been incorrectly released in to the community' type of logic! :hmm:

Reference the red herring of the ATIS argument (it may state visibility of 10k, what matters is what it is actually like when you arrive) I understood several aircraft were involved. The first may get away with the argument that the conditions only worsened after the FAF / 1000ft point, the subsequent arrivals could not.

Flap 5
4th May 2006, 21:06
Looks to me like a Ryanair witchhunt !
Why ???
Well how about the fact that they are a massively successful airline that has shaken up and changed the industry, they deliver vast quantities of people all around Europe every day of the year safely and for reasonable cost?
Now that's bound to piss off a few people :{ even not factoring in possible cultural prejudices and petty jealousy
And no I don't work for them but I have flown with them a few times as a passenger. Not a fan of the airline because they are a bit too hard nosed but can't help noticing that they are thriving despite being under such minute scrutiny and as far as I am aware they have a good safety record.
And let's face it you don't just go to bed, wake up and find yourself suddenly transformed into a JAR 737 Captain
How come others are not "observed" with such interest ?

Someones been listening to Tony Blair and his 'we've been a wonderful government so what if a few criminals have been incorrectly released in to the community' type of logic! :hmm:

Reference the red herring of the ATIS argument (it may state visibility of 10k, what matters is what it is actually like when you arrive) I understood several aircraft were involved. The first may get away with the argument that the conditions only worsened after the FAF / 1000ft point, the subsequent arrivals could not.

Pilot Pete
4th May 2006, 23:09
JW411, in UK you use 1000ft for the approach ban, anywhere else it is OM or equivalent position (such as 4NM point). Approach ban is applicable for both for CATI and CATII/III approaches....Cheers

JAR-OPS 1.405 Commencement and continuation of approach
(a) The commander or the pilot to whom
conduct of the flight has been delegated may
commence an instrument approach regardless of the
reported RVR/Visibility but the approach shall not
be continued beyond the outer marker, or equivalent
position, if the reported RVR/visibility is less than
the applicable minima. (See IEM OPS 1.405(a).)
(b) Where RVR is not available, RVR values
may be derived by converting the reported visibility
in accordance with Appendix 1 to JAR-OPS 1.430,
sub-paragraph (h).
(c) If, after passing the outer marker or
equivalent position in accordance with (a) above, the
reported RVR/visibility falls below the applicable
minimum, the approach may be continued to DA/H
or MDA/H.
(d) Where no outer marker or equivalent
position exists, the commander or the pilot to whom
conduct of the flight has been delegated shall make
the decision to continue or abandon the approach
before descending below 1 000 ft above the
aerodrome on the final approach segment. If the
MDA/H is at or above 1 000 ft above the
aerodrome, the operator shall establish a height,
for each approach procedure, below which the
approach shall not be continued if the
RVR/visibility is less than the applicable minima.
(e) The approach may be continued below
DA/H or MDA/H and the landing may be completed
provided that the required visual reference is
established at the DA/H or MDA/H and is
maintained.
(f) The touch-down zone RVR is always
controlling. If reported and relevant, the mid point
and stop end RVR are also controlling. The
minimum RVR value for the mid-point is 125 m or
the RVR required for the touch-down zone if less,
and 75 m for the stop-end. For aeroplanes equipped
with a roll-out guidance or control system, the
minimum RVR value for the mid-point is 75 m. My bold

Interesting points to note.

1. It's the Outer Marker for the approach ban, or it's equivalent position, failing that 1000'AGL. No differentiation between 'UK and elsewhere' under JAR Ops as mojito stated.

2. An often overlooked consideration is my last bold text quote about mid point and stop end values of 125m and 75m (for the 737 with no rollout guidance). If your 'slow down' run will enter these parts of the runway then you need to consider the mid and stop end RVRs too.

PP

Pilot Pete
4th May 2006, 23:09
JW411, in UK you use 1000ft for the approach ban, anywhere else it is OM or equivalent position (such as 4NM point). Approach ban is applicable for both for CATI and CATII/III approaches....Cheers

JAR-OPS 1.405 Commencement and continuation of approach
(a) The commander or the pilot to whom
conduct of the flight has been delegated may
commence an instrument approach regardless of the
reported RVR/Visibility but the approach shall not
be continued beyond the outer marker, or equivalent
position, if the reported RVR/visibility is less than
the applicable minima. (See IEM OPS 1.405(a).)
(b) Where RVR is not available, RVR values
may be derived by converting the reported visibility
in accordance with Appendix 1 to JAR-OPS 1.430,
sub-paragraph (h).
(c) If, after passing the outer marker or
equivalent position in accordance with (a) above, the
reported RVR/visibility falls below the applicable
minimum, the approach may be continued to DA/H
or MDA/H.
(d) Where no outer marker or equivalent
position exists, the commander or the pilot to whom
conduct of the flight has been delegated shall make
the decision to continue or abandon the approach
before descending below 1 000 ft above the
aerodrome on the final approach segment. If the
MDA/H is at or above 1 000 ft above the
aerodrome, the operator shall establish a height,
for each approach procedure, below which the
approach shall not be continued if the
RVR/visibility is less than the applicable minima.
(e) The approach may be continued below
DA/H or MDA/H and the landing may be completed
provided that the required visual reference is
established at the DA/H or MDA/H and is
maintained.
(f) The touch-down zone RVR is always
controlling. If reported and relevant, the mid point
and stop end RVR are also controlling. The
minimum RVR value for the mid-point is 125 m or
the RVR required for the touch-down zone if less,
and 75 m for the stop-end. For aeroplanes equipped
with a roll-out guidance or control system, the
minimum RVR value for the mid-point is 75 m. My bold

Interesting points to note.

1. It's the Outer Marker for the approach ban, or it's equivalent position, failing that 1000'AGL. No differentiation between 'UK and elsewhere' under JAR Ops as mojito stated.

2. An often overlooked consideration is my last bold text quote about mid point and stop end values of 125m and 75m (for the 737 with no rollout guidance). If your 'slow down' run will enter these parts of the runway then you need to consider the mid and stop end RVRs too.

PP

AIMS by IBM
5th May 2006, 08:41
The question that should be raised: “Should the information that is needed in order to decide subsequent action in case of failing equipment (ground as well as airborne) be readily available to the crew?”

This may be integrated in the QRH or as a handy dandy.

The ICAO AWO Manual may give you the answer.

Clearly the Captain is the sole responsible but how many hurdles does he have to take to get to the required information when informed on short notice there is a problem with one of the components (ground or airborne), clearly the MEL does not apply in this case and the FOM does for non type related issues….so what do you do? You go in the hold or reduce you speed to buy some time and get the books out.

On another note, what do you do if a failure occurs after you passed the app ban. It may very well be that if the failure hapened before the app ban you already had to increse your minima in such a way that you could never have started the approach anyway? The safety implications are the same in both cases so should the decision be different?

In short: the approach ban is there for fluctuations in visibility only and not to cover technical problems that make an increase in min required RVR compulsary. You do not escape this principle because you are inside the app ban.

That is the spirit of the app ban rule .......as much as there is a spririt of the rules that govern B 747 flights across half of the world with one engine out...it is simply NOT done.

AIMS by IBM
5th May 2006, 08:41
The question that should be raised: “Should the information that is needed in order to decide subsequent action in case of failing equipment (ground as well as airborne) be readily available to the crew?”

This may be integrated in the QRH or as a handy dandy.

The ICAO AWO Manual may give you the answer.

Clearly the Captain is the sole responsible but how many hurdles does he have to take to get to the required information when informed on short notice there is a problem with one of the components (ground or airborne), clearly the MEL does not apply in this case and the FOM does for non type related issues….so what do you do? You go in the hold or reduce you speed to buy some time and get the books out.

On another note, what do you do if a failure occurs after you passed the app ban. It may very well be that if the failure hapened before the app ban you already had to increse your minima in such a way that you could never have started the approach anyway? The safety implications are the same in both cases so should the decision be different?

In short: the approach ban is there for fluctuations in visibility only and not to cover technical problems that make an increase in min required RVR compulsary. You do not escape this principle because you are inside the app ban.

That is the spirit of the app ban rule .......as much as there is a spririt of the rules that govern B 747 flights across half of the world with one engine out...it is simply NOT done.

Pilot Pete
5th May 2006, 09:04
The question that should be raised: “Should the information that is needed in order to decide subsequent action in case of failing equipment (ground as well as airborne) be readily available to the crew?”

It is, in Part A section 8. Many companies reproduce this in the form of a 'handy dandy' laminated card, others do not. It is also available in the Jepp Text manual. Both these publications are available on the flight deck. It only takes a few seconds during your brief to extract the relevant page from the manual and have it available before you start your LVO approach.

On another note, what do you do if a failure occurs after you passed the app ban. It may very well be that if the failure hapened before the app ban you already had to increse your minima in such a way that you could never have started the approach anyway? The safety implications are the same in both cases so should the decision be different?

I think you mean the 'Alert Height', in my company 1000'RA. It depends on what the failure is. With some aircraft failures you will require a go around, as the aircraft may now not be capable of an autoland. Others will have no effect. The same with ground based equipment.

PP

Pilot Pete
5th May 2006, 09:04
The question that should be raised: “Should the information that is needed in order to decide subsequent action in case of failing equipment (ground as well as airborne) be readily available to the crew?”

It is, in Part A section 8. Many companies reproduce this in the form of a 'handy dandy' laminated card, others do not. It is also available in the Jepp Text manual. Both these publications are available on the flight deck. It only takes a few seconds during your brief to extract the relevant page from the manual and have it available before you start your LVO approach.

On another note, what do you do if a failure occurs after you passed the app ban. It may very well be that if the failure hapened before the app ban you already had to increse your minima in such a way that you could never have started the approach anyway? The safety implications are the same in both cases so should the decision be different?

I think you mean the 'Alert Height', in my company 1000'RA. It depends on what the failure is. With some aircraft failures you will require a go around, as the aircraft may now not be capable of an autoland. Others will have no effect. The same with ground based equipment.

PP

AIMS by IBM
5th May 2006, 09:09
It is, in Part A section 8. Many companies reproduce this in the form of a 'handy dandy' laminated card, others do not. It is also available in the Jepp Text manual. Both these publications are available on the flight deck. It only takes a few seconds during your brief to extract the relevant page from the manual and have it available before you start your LVO approach.
PP

I do not get your point, you are only repeating what I said before.


As far as I know there is no alert height on the B 737 NG and on those Aircraft that have one the interpretation marging as to what it really means are wide open.


Definition:

The alert height is a specified radio height, based on the characteristics of the aeroplane and its fail-operational landing system. In operational use, if a failure occurred above the alert height in one of the required redundant operational systems in the aeroplane (including, where appropriate, ground roll guidance and the reversionary mode in a hybrid system), the approach would be discontinued and a go-around executed unless reversion to a higher decision height is possible. If a failure in one of the required redundant operational systems occurred below the alert height, it would be ignored and the approach continued.


Alert height is type related and a fixed value determined by certification. In my opinion it is illegal to increse it above it's certified value of usually about 100 feet agl. Doing so would expose the aircraft with a failure much longer that needed (read certified). Once more it's clear that companies that do this, abuse the redundancy available for commercial reasons only...in my opinion a NO GO.

AIMS by IBM
5th May 2006, 09:09
It is, in Part A section 8. Many companies reproduce this in the form of a 'handy dandy' laminated card, others do not. It is also available in the Jepp Text manual. Both these publications are available on the flight deck. It only takes a few seconds during your brief to extract the relevant page from the manual and have it available before you start your LVO approach.
PP

I do not get your point, you are only repeating what I said before.


As far as I know there is no alert height on the B 737 NG and on those Aircraft that have one the interpretation marging as to what it really means are wide open.


Definition:

The alert height is a specified radio height, based on the characteristics of the aeroplane and its fail-operational landing system. In operational use, if a failure occurred above the alert height in one of the required redundant operational systems in the aeroplane (including, where appropriate, ground roll guidance and the reversionary mode in a hybrid system), the approach would be discontinued and a go-around executed unless reversion to a higher decision height is possible. If a failure in one of the required redundant operational systems occurred below the alert height, it would be ignored and the approach continued.


Alert height is type related and a fixed value determined by certification. In my opinion it is illegal to increse it above it's certified value of usually about 100 feet agl. Doing so would expose the aircraft with a failure much longer that needed (read certified). Once more it's clear that companies that do this, abuse the redundancy available for commercial reasons only...in my opinion a NO GO.

Pilot Pete
5th May 2006, 09:15
Sorry, thought your comment was a question, not a question with the answer!

If your company don't have an Alert Height and they are operating under JAR OPS then I think you should seek some clarification from them.

PP

Pilot Pete
5th May 2006, 09:15
Sorry, thought your comment was a question, not a question with the answer!

If your company don't have an Alert Height and they are operating under JAR OPS then I think you should seek some clarification from them.

PP

AIMS by IBM
5th May 2006, 09:24
Sorry, thought your comment was a question, not a question with the answer!

If your company don't have an Alert Height and they are operating under JAR OPS then I think you should seek some clarification from them.

PP

Semantics ...do not worry....however it is not the company that has an alert height but the Aircraft Type....semantics again....

How wonderfull this PPRuNe can be....

AIMS by IBM
5th May 2006, 09:24
Sorry, thought your comment was a question, not a question with the answer!

If your company don't have an Alert Height and they are operating under JAR OPS then I think you should seek some clarification from them.

PP

Semantics ...do not worry....however it is not the company that has an alert height but the Aircraft Type....semantics again....

How wonderfull this PPRuNe can be....

JW411
5th May 2006, 09:29
I had it in mind (and I am talking about CAT2) that you have to be able to slow your aircraft to 60 knots before entering the mid-point sector for 125 metres to apply. If you cannot then you must have touch down RVR in the mid point also.

JW411
5th May 2006, 09:29
I had it in mind (and I am talking about CAT2) that you have to be able to slow your aircraft to 60 knots before entering the mid-point sector for 125 metres to apply. If you cannot then you must have touch down RVR in the mid point also.

Pilot Pete
5th May 2006, 10:27
Aims

Interesting, as we have the Alert Height of 1000'RA for the -NG too!

JW411

Indeed, to be considered 'relevant' for landing we use the 'above 60kts' rule too. JAR-OPS states this;

JAR-OPS 1.405 Commencement and continuation of approach

(f) The touch-down zone RVR is always controlling. If reported and relevant, the mid point and stop end RVR are also controlling. The minimum RVR value for the mid-point is 125 m or the RVR required for the touch-down zone if less, and 75 m for the stop-end. For aeroplanes equipped with a roll-out guidance or control system, the minimum RVR value for the mid-point is 75 m.

Note. “Relevant”, in this context, means that part of the runway used during the high speed phase of the landing down to a speed of approximately 60 knots. [Ch. 1, 01.03.98; Amdt. 3, 01.12.01]

again, my bold

So I think you are mis-understanding the 60kts bit. If you are ABOVE 60kts as you enter the mid-point (or stop-end), then those RVR minimums apply also (they become "controlling").

PP

Pilot Pete
5th May 2006, 10:27
Aims

Interesting, as we have the Alert Height of 1000'RA for the -NG too!

JW411

Indeed, to be considered 'relevant' for landing we use the 'above 60kts' rule too. JAR-OPS states this;

JAR-OPS 1.405 Commencement and continuation of approach

(f) The touch-down zone RVR is always controlling. If reported and relevant, the mid point and stop end RVR are also controlling. The minimum RVR value for the mid-point is 125 m or the RVR required for the touch-down zone if less, and 75 m for the stop-end. For aeroplanes equipped with a roll-out guidance or control system, the minimum RVR value for the mid-point is 75 m.

Note. “Relevant”, in this context, means that part of the runway used during the high speed phase of the landing down to a speed of approximately 60 knots. [Ch. 1, 01.03.98; Amdt. 3, 01.12.01]

again, my bold

So I think you are mis-understanding the 60kts bit. If you are ABOVE 60kts as you enter the mid-point (or stop-end), then those RVR minimums apply also (they become "controlling").

PP

AIMS by IBM
5th May 2006, 10:38
My understanding is that an aircraft that is at Alert Height with a reduced redundancy and well positioned on the ILS can continue with its approach and landing simply because it has been flight tested that it can do so under the most adverse conditions.

It is obvious that if you start to do this from 1000 ft that the failure may cause a deviation that grows as time progresses.

I am non stating that it would not be possible but merely that it has not been certified.

The same reasoning counts for overweight automatic landings…..possible….but not certified.

There is a very good reason behind the numbers that reflect limitations.

AIMS by IBM
5th May 2006, 10:38
My understanding is that an aircraft that is at Alert Height with a reduced redundancy and well positioned on the ILS can continue with its approach and landing simply because it has been flight tested that it can do so under the most adverse conditions.

It is obvious that if you start to do this from 1000 ft that the failure may cause a deviation that grows as time progresses.

I am non stating that it would not be possible but merely that it has not been certified.

The same reasoning counts for overweight automatic landings…..possible….but not certified.

There is a very good reason behind the numbers that reflect limitations.

Pilot Pete
5th May 2006, 10:56
My understanding is that an aircraft that is at Alert Height with a reduced redundancy and well positioned on the ILS can continue with its approach and landing simply because it has been flight tested that it can do so under the most adverse conditions.

It is obvious that if you start to do this from 1000 ft that the failure may cause a deviation that grows as time progresses.

The Alert Height is where, if above it you can do fault rectification, switching etc but below which you don't. If you have the capability to rectify a problem before the Alert Height you may do so and continue the approach, bearing in mind your Autoland/ LVO capability. If you have passed the Alert Height then you should NOT trouble-shoot and fault rectify. You ascertain any required increase in minima due to the fault and continue to that or you go around.

I see you are in TEXAS, so I guess you would follow the relevant FARs.....

PP

Pilot Pete
5th May 2006, 10:56
My understanding is that an aircraft that is at Alert Height with a reduced redundancy and well positioned on the ILS can continue with its approach and landing simply because it has been flight tested that it can do so under the most adverse conditions.

It is obvious that if you start to do this from 1000 ft that the failure may cause a deviation that grows as time progresses.

The Alert Height is where, if above it you can do fault rectification, switching etc but below which you don't. If you have the capability to rectify a problem before the Alert Height you may do so and continue the approach, bearing in mind your Autoland/ LVO capability. If you have passed the Alert Height then you should NOT trouble-shoot and fault rectify. You ascertain any required increase in minima due to the fault and continue to that or you go around.

I see you are in TEXAS, so I guess you would follow the relevant FARs.....

PP

AIMS by IBM
5th May 2006, 11:20
The Alert Height is where, if above it you can do fault rectification, switching etc but below which you don't. If you have the capability to rectify a problem before the Alert Height you may do so and continue the approach, bearing in mind your Autoland/ LVO capability. If you have passed the Alert Height then you should NOT trouble-shoot and fault rectify. You ascertain any required increase in minima due to the fault and continue to that or you go around.

I see you are in TEXAS, so I guess you would follow the relevant FARs.....

PP

The whole idea of Alert Height is that once below you can continue on the same minima that's why they keep it so low.

It occurs to me that you may be mixing two concepts.
A height stipulated by your airline that allows you to go into a split cockpit setting (Checklist by one flying by the other) and the Alert Height.

These are two different concepts and are not related.

To put it in a nutshell:

1.App ban: you can continue if RVR go below

2.Alert Height: You can continue with your app with same mininma for certain technical failures only if you use the certified alert height.

3.Split cockpit Height: Lowest height were you can switch etc...

There is a temptation to set 2 and 3 at the same value but in my opinion that is illegal.

AIMS by IBM
5th May 2006, 11:20
The Alert Height is where, if above it you can do fault rectification, switching etc but below which you don't. If you have the capability to rectify a problem before the Alert Height you may do so and continue the approach, bearing in mind your Autoland/ LVO capability. If you have passed the Alert Height then you should NOT trouble-shoot and fault rectify. You ascertain any required increase in minima due to the fault and continue to that or you go around.

I see you are in TEXAS, so I guess you would follow the relevant FARs.....

PP

The whole idea of Alert Height is that once below you can continue on the same minima that's why they keep it so low.

It occurs to me that you may be mixing two concepts.
A height stipulated by your airline that allows you to go into a split cockpit setting (Checklist by one flying by the other) and the Alert Height.

These are two different concepts and are not related.

To put it in a nutshell:

1.App ban: you can continue if RVR go below

2.Alert Height: You can continue with your app with same mininma for certain technical failures only if you use the certified alert height.

3.Split cockpit Height: Lowest height were you can switch etc...

There is a temptation to set 2 and 3 at the same value but in my opinion that is illegal.

Pilot Pete
5th May 2006, 11:42
3.Split cockpit Height: Lowest height were you can switch etc...

There is a temptation to set 2 and 3 at the same value but in my opinion that is illegal.

We have no such thing as a 'split cockpit height'. Our Alert Height is 1000', above which (and I quote)

"If any of the following conditions apply:

Master Caution Illumination
Autopilot Disengagement
No Flare Annunciation
Stab Out of Trim Light


Reset the alert, continue the approach, attempt rectification, re-consider Autoland/LVO capability."

We are not talking about QRH drills like an hydraulic failure....

If below the Alert Height

"Instrument switching is NOT permitted. A go-around should be made for:
Engine malfunctions resulting in loss of thrust
Failure of a required airport facility
Failure of a required aicraft system
Continuous ILS deviation warning above 200'RA
Any ILS deviation below 200'RA


Continuation of the approach is recommended in the event of the following:

Engine Fire warning, without loss of thrust
Pilot incapacitation - consider fuel, weather, diversion availability and aircraft serviceability


PP

Pilot Pete
5th May 2006, 11:42
3.Split cockpit Height: Lowest height were you can switch etc...

There is a temptation to set 2 and 3 at the same value but in my opinion that is illegal.

We have no such thing as a 'split cockpit height'. Our Alert Height is 1000', above which (and I quote)

"If any of the following conditions apply:

Master Caution Illumination
Autopilot Disengagement
No Flare Annunciation
Stab Out of Trim Light


Reset the alert, continue the approach, attempt rectification, re-consider Autoland/LVO capability."

We are not talking about QRH drills like an hydraulic failure....

If below the Alert Height

"Instrument switching is NOT permitted. A go-around should be made for:
Engine malfunctions resulting in loss of thrust
Failure of a required airport facility
Failure of a required aicraft system
Continuous ILS deviation warning above 200'RA
Any ILS deviation below 200'RA


Continuation of the approach is recommended in the event of the following:

Engine Fire warning, without loss of thrust
Pilot incapacitation - consider fuel, weather, diversion availability and aircraft serviceability


PP

ojay
5th May 2006, 14:13
has anyone got any idea what the degraded minima would be with downgraded/failed elements of the cat 3 lighting system(s)? -I think this is the crux of the problem,

with b/rgds

ojay
5th May 2006, 14:13
has anyone got any idea what the degraded minima would be with downgraded/failed elements of the cat 3 lighting system(s)? -I think this is the crux of the problem,

with b/rgds

Pilot Pete
5th May 2006, 14:34
If I knew how to post an image from my clipboard I could provide the downgraded ground equipment list.....

PP

Pilot Pete
5th May 2006, 14:34
If I knew how to post an image from my clipboard I could provide the downgraded ground equipment list.....

PP

Pilot Pete
5th May 2006, 15:10
Ok, try this link to downgraded equipment (http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g184/Pilot_Pete/LVOs/LVODowngrade.jpg)

PP

Pilot Pete
5th May 2006, 15:10
Ok, try this link to downgraded equipment (http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g184/Pilot_Pete/LVOs/LVODowngrade.jpg)

PP

wince
5th May 2006, 16:30
Pilot Pete,
EGSS NOTAM:
DUE RESURFACING, RWY CL AND TDZ LIGHTING NOT AVBL. RWY LEAD ON/OFF WHERE AFFECTED WILL BE REPLACED BY BLUE EDGE LIGHTS. 02 APR 05:00 UNTIL 31 OCT 05:00
so this means no CATIII autoland at night right?

wince
5th May 2006, 16:30
Pilot Pete,
EGSS NOTAM:
DUE RESURFACING, RWY CL AND TDZ LIGHTING NOT AVBL. RWY LEAD ON/OFF WHERE AFFECTED WILL BE REPLACED BY BLUE EDGE LIGHTS. 02 APR 05:00 UNTIL 31 OCT 05:00
so this means no CATIII autoland at night right?

King Pokey
5th May 2006, 16:51
Runway operating on reduced distance (I think 1900m) mon-wed night and full close sat and sun night anyway. ILS is still CAT 3 (when required, sometimes CAT 1) but I think JAR Ops minima are 300m by day and 550m by night without CL and TDZ. On the night in question I understand that the weather was quickly down below 550m as far as 200m and stayed that way until after 0500z. Some backsides to be smacked methinks.

King Pokey
5th May 2006, 16:51
Runway operating on reduced distance (I think 1900m) mon-wed night and full close sat and sun night anyway. ILS is still CAT 3 (when required, sometimes CAT 1) but I think JAR Ops minima are 300m by day and 550m by night without CL and TDZ. On the night in question I understand that the weather was quickly down below 550m as far as 200m and stayed that way until after 0500z. Some backsides to be smacked methinks.

Pilot Pete
5th May 2006, 17:29
Pilot Pete,
EGSS NOTAM:
DUE RESURFACING, RWY CL AND TDZ LIGHTING NOT AVBL. RWY LEAD ON/OFF WHERE AFFECTED WILL BE REPLACED BY BLUE EDGE LIGHTS. 02 APR 05:00 UNTIL 31 OCT 05:00
so this means no CATIII autoland at night right?

According to the Downgraded Equipment List affect on minima, the notam would suggest;

CATIII A and B approaches not allowed at night due to no centreline lights.

This would over-ride the increased minima of 300m RVR for night CatIIIB, or 500m for CATIIIA, due to no TDZ lights.

For those not familiar with such things it makes sense because you are getting very close to the ground on a CATIIIA approach (haven't checked Stansted, but 50 feet RA is a usual CATIIIA Decision Height). At this point you are seeking your visual reference, which for CATIIIA is:

"3 consecutive lights: being any combination of:The centre of the Approach or TDZ lights or R/W Centre Line or R/W Edge lights, must be attained and maintained."

Bearing in mind where the aircraft will be at 50' (above the threshold), then you really need the centreline lights to stand a chance of seeing the runway in time.

PP

Pilot Pete
5th May 2006, 17:29
Pilot Pete,
EGSS NOTAM:
DUE RESURFACING, RWY CL AND TDZ LIGHTING NOT AVBL. RWY LEAD ON/OFF WHERE AFFECTED WILL BE REPLACED BY BLUE EDGE LIGHTS. 02 APR 05:00 UNTIL 31 OCT 05:00
so this means no CATIII autoland at night right?

According to the Downgraded Equipment List affect on minima, the notam would suggest;

CATIII A and B approaches not allowed at night due to no centreline lights.

This would over-ride the increased minima of 300m RVR for night CatIIIB, or 500m for CATIIIA, due to no TDZ lights.

For those not familiar with such things it makes sense because you are getting very close to the ground on a CATIIIA approach (haven't checked Stansted, but 50 feet RA is a usual CATIIIA Decision Height). At this point you are seeking your visual reference, which for CATIIIA is:

"3 consecutive lights: being any combination of:The centre of the Approach or TDZ lights or R/W Centre Line or R/W Edge lights, must be attained and maintained."

Bearing in mind where the aircraft will be at 50' (above the threshold), then you really need the centreline lights to stand a chance of seeing the runway in time.

PP

ojay
5th May 2006, 20:34
thanks, pilot pete

ojay
5th May 2006, 20:34
thanks, pilot pete

Danny
7th Feb 2007, 10:48
This issue has just resurfaced with an interesting article by David Learmount over on the FlightGlobal website: Probe into Ryanair's April series of possible Stansted fog rule breaches hits buffer as Irish aviation safety agency delays response

By David Learmount

UK CAA awaits response from Irish Aviation Authority

Seven months after full details of alleged breaches of safety regulations by Irish-registered aircraft operating into London Stansted airport were passed to the Irish Aviation Authority (IAA), the agency says it has not yet completed its investigation nor taken any action.

The UK Civil Aviation Authority, which confirms it passed the details of the alleged events to the IAA, says it would normally have expected an outcome by now.

The issue under investigation is regulatory:... Read more of the article (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/02/06/211913/probe-into-ryanairs-april-series-of-possible-stansted-fog-rule-breaches-hits-buffer-as-irish.html)

A330busdriver
7th Feb 2007, 11:50
Whats the problem?


Ryanair is the IAA's biggest customer.

Does anyone think that they (the IAA) are going to bite the hand that feeds it?

Wake up and smell the Euros changing hands.

Doctor Cruces
9th Feb 2007, 07:59
I have friends working in Ireland and one of them tells me that putting the IAA in charge of flying is like putting Count Dracula in charge of a blood bank

Doc C

:*

Cuillin
9th Feb 2007, 08:40
If this had been an African-registered cargo aircraft it would have been banned from UK skies by now.

A4
9th Feb 2007, 11:22
Quote from article:

Stansted's first NOTAM on the subject did not emphasise that the runway lighting downgrade affected the RVR minima, according to Conway.

No excuse. NOTAM's are not there to instruct pilots what to do. They provide factual information that the crew are required to act upon according to the law. Trying to throw the blame back onto the NOTAM is ridiculous - the blame lies with a training (or lack of) issue.

Increased minima with reduced lighting is as fundamental as ensuring your wings are properly de-iced - this is basic stuff...........

A4

blackmail
9th Feb 2007, 13:13
A4,
thanks to ryr, we are now all experts in increased minimas with reduced lighting & can recite the relevant tables forward & backward.