Cullen concern over Ryanair landings

[An Paddy Eile]

THE IRISH TIMES


Cullen concern over Ryanair landings

Wednesday, 21 February 2007 16:56
The Minister for Transport, Martin Cullen, has confirmed that he asked the British Ministry of Transport for details of dangerous landing approaches made by Ryanair.
This relates to the issue of Ryanair pilots landing planes too fast at some English airports.
Launching an €86m grants scheme for regional Irish airports, the minister said he was also anxious to know if the same had happened in Ireland.
Advertisement

The minister said aircraft and passenger security is central to good practice in the aviation sector and he hoped a recent incident involving a Ryanair flight from Stansted to Cork was the exception rather than the rule.
He said he would only call for a formal investigation by the Irish Aviation Authority when he has all of the facts.
He said the IAA carried out 'regular audits of all airlines, including Ryanair'. Mr Cullen said that it was his understanding that to date, the IAA has been satisfied with the procedures that have been in place.
He added that he was anxious to find out if it was possible that what happened at British airports had happened in Ireland.
The British Air Line Pilots Association has claimed that the reported incidents are due to Ryanair's low-cost culture and fast turnaround times, but Ryanair Chief Executive Michael O'Leary blames 'jet jockeys' for attempting irregular manoeuvres.
He added that pilots would be demoted if they failed to follow safety procedures.
Last month, the Irish Air Accident Investigation Unit issued a report on a 'serious incident' involving a Ryanair plane attempting to land at Cork Airport in June last year

[Beaver diver]

Simple as a piece of cake. Time VS money = rush, that makes low cost airlines surviving. Government bodies involved in aviation, know that damn well, but for a profit maker like Ryanair and many others, they will close their eyes untill the last possible moment (read;accident). After all, It is a big revenue for tax office every year,so why bother stopping that unless necessary?

[Rongotai]

One aspect of this debate that I have not yet seen discussed is the effect of the double bind on performance.
If it is correct that an airline operates with strong injunctions on its employees to run to time with short turn rounds, and that there are sanctions (formal or informal) on employees who have poor records in this respect; and if it is true that at the same time the management of that airline tells its employees that it will not tolerate unsafe practices and applies serious sanctions to those that use them, then there will be frequent occasions when flight crew encounter situations that are a double bind - the only way to keep to time is to bust the SOPs - so whatever they do they are likely to incur the wrath of management.
Cognitive processing - i.e. making judgments about how to act on the environment - becomes impaired when confronting a double bind. It doesn't matter how experienced or professional you are, it is a function of the situation you are in.
In fact the more experienced and professional you are the more likely you are to be caught in the double bind. This is because:
(a) you probably have more at stake personally; and
(b) you probably have many, many experiences of trying to make up lost time, but not many of having to break SOPs in order to achieve that. Therefore there is a tendency to have a cognitive bias towards time keeping in making judgments.
I have absolutely no knowledge of the actual situation at Ryanair other than what I read here and elsewhere, so I have deliberately generalised my point. Others will know whether or not the situation I posit is or is not applicable in this case.

[mini]

I'm confused. If the Minister is concerned as to whether FR has been naughty in Ireland - surely in the first instance he should consult the IAA? If there were incidents of this nature - he seems to think that they would be dangerous, I would have thought that the IAA would be aware of them and therefore have investigated any wrongdoing?

I think this has more to do with the upcoming election rather than safety concerns...

The fact that IMHO the said Minister tends to be more hot air than substance clouds my judgement... :sad:

[PAXboy]

Exactly so mini. The minister will make an investigation and when that is complete, he will decide if there should be an ... investigation.

Observe 110% politics in action.

[Tom the Tenor]

Minister Cullen's concerns about Ryanair landings also helps a little bit in deflecting off the political heat from him over the Irish Government's very poor handling of the Cork Airport crisis and in the next breath he forks out Irish taxpayers cash to sum of Euro 600 million buying out the Westlink toll bridge in Dublin in a General Election stunt. Wonder what distraction Minister Cullen will come up with next - whatever it is it will be 110% political.

[harrogate]

... last time I mentioned a ropey Ryanair landing on here, I was universally panned as a mere spectator who knows nothing about anything.

[Cyrano]

...universally panned as a mere spectator who knows nothing about anything

Actually, that sounds like a good description of the Minister in question... :cool:

[rubik101]

Is the suggestion that Ryanair are using faster than normal approach and landing speeds to achieve their 25 minute turn rounds? If so, then Harrogate, the Minister and anyone else who thinks that should be panned. Ryanair and easyjet work to 25 minute turn rounds and both acheive a good percentage of them on a regular basis. So just where is the problem here and why are we having a discussion on this subject, yet again? ad nauseam, ad nauseam, etc. etc. blah blah and so on.

[Midland 331]

Humble ex-industry SLF with some ops. background here. Sling rotten fruit as you wish.

I flew with RYR this week.

The "arrival" at Teesside was akin to a carrier deck landing, simply, I guess, so we could make an intersection and not backtrack.

I've landed there many, many times, some times on the jump seat. And observed countless landings.

RYR drivers should not underestimate the effect of the hard thump and G-force on the passengers. Many were physically uncomfortable, several commented that it was the worst landing they had experienced.

Crews can be sneering of passenger's responses. Do we really "know nothing"? Brutal handling is blatantly obvious to them, and about the worst advert for the company.

r

[curser]

Rubik are you being deliberately obtuse or are you trying to spin the thread? If its the former then, no. Nobody is suggesting that FR are deliberately flying fast approach speeds in order to maintain their schedule. What is being suggested is that the guys are being put under considerable pressure to maintain an often unrealistic schedule, that this has possibly clouded the judgment of a few leading to the resent spate of FR incidents.
With regard to the rough arrivals, try not to be too hard on them, nobody is more aware then the pilots of a bad landing. Often Jepp. miss print the airport elevation by a foot or two and this has caught me out a number of times.

[onion]

I think what maybe arising here is the fact that Ryanair often break the rule on fly at 250+knots below 10,000ft. They aren't the only ones though, bmi do it to and actually did it last night (310knots 4 miles out) resulting in a go round. It is breaking the rules but many airlines do it. Its not always time keeping related though and is often pilots getting it wrong.

[FlapsOne]

rubik101

You won't find too many 25 min turnrounds on the EZ network - there are some but not many.

In so many circumstances it's just impossible!

[Midland 331]

>With regard to the rough arrivals, try not to be too hard on them, nobody is more aware then the pilots of a bad landing. Often Jepp. miss print the airport elevation by a foot or two and this has caught me out a number of times.

Agreed. However, from where I was sitting, I noted a nicely stabilised approach from around eight miles (I know the landmarks), with the wind straight down the runway, but a huge dollop of spoiler as we came over the undershoot.

Sure, I've got partial knowledge, sitting down the back, but it sure looked like an attempt to save time to me...and left the passengers scared.

r

[Faire d'income]

This relates to the issue of Ryanair pilots landing planes too fast at some English airports.


Was the minister referring to the high energy incidents that occured at Skavska, Knock and Cork or the 'technical breach' of landing in low visibility at night with the lights, that you are required to see, not even being turned on? Or is there new information? My guess is that the minister is referring to the mentioned incidents and like the IAA is giving the Irish media the impression that it is somehow the responsibility of foreign authorities. Cullen like the IAA are happy to spin to the gullible that it is nothing to do with them.

The British Air Line Pilots Association has claimed that the reported incidents are due to Ryanair's low-cost culture and fast turnaround times, but Ryanair Chief Executive Michael O'Leary blames 'jet jockeys' for attempting irregular manoeuvres.

This is a bit like Jose Mourinho blaming the players that he bought for losing or misbehaving. It is amazing how O'Leary can publically wash his hand of all responsibility for anything that happnes in Ryanair. It has been said here that he states pilot only 'fly' 18 hours a week. Here timesonline.co.uk (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/article676356.ece) is an interview quoting him as saying pilots only 'work' 18 hours a week.

There’s a reason there’s a legal maximum: you can’t go over it. It’s designed to ensure that they are rested. They’re working 18 hours a week! How would you not be rested?”

As I have said here before if the CX of Ryanair thinks pilots only work 18 hours a week the following is just some of what he considers not to be work:

* checking weather for destinations/alternates/en route airfields
* checking weathers charts for the various levels likely to be flown
* checking Notams for destinations/alternates/en route airfields
* checking the maintenance status of the aircraft
* checking the flight plan is legal and accurate
* checking aircraft performance against weight and runway length
* checking the fuel load for each leg to be flown
* external pre-flight inspection of the aircraft
* checking status of tech log including fuel/oil etc on board
* ensuring required security checks have been carried out
* pre-flight cockpit set-up and programming of Navigational computers for the flight
* liasing with cabin crew/engineer/dispatcher to exchange relevant info
* getting Air Traffic clearance/checking slots
* briefing for pushback/taxi and departure from destination
* receiving/checking and inputting load sheet data
* Ensuring all necessary systems are working and carrying out all before start checks
* any unusual events/decisions such as use of the MEL/disruptive pax/missing pax w bags etc.

And people outside Ryanair wonder why there are incidents. :ugh:

[A4]

Curser
Quote: Often Jepp. miss print the airport elevation by a foot or two and this has caught me out a number of times.

You're joking I assume....... :uhoh:

BMI - 310 knots to 4D............ what on earth were they thinking......:ugh:

....... with the wind straight down the runway, but a huge dollop of spoiler as we came over the undershoot.

So a new novel way of inducing the flare...... deploy the spoilers.... no wonder it was a "firm" arrival.:hmm:

A4

[fadec_primary_channel]

They aren't the only ones though, bmi do it to and actually did it last night (310knots 4 miles out) resulting in a go round.
Thats quite a serious allegation, just wondered where and under what circumstances this happened.

[bia botal]

I think what maybe arising here is the fact that Ryanair often break the rule on fly at 250+knots below 10,000ft.
clearly you have no idea of the rules governing the speed that an aircraft may be flown below 10,000 or fl100.:ugh:
They aren't the only ones though, bmi do it to and actually did it last night (310knots 4 miles out) resulting in a go round.
please do tell us all onion where oh where did this happen. what flap did they have out did they have the gear out as well,,,, gee that would have been a sight to see, and how did you find out so quickly perhaps you where sitting in the cockpit "NOT":D
It is breaking the rules but many airlines do it. Its not always time keeping related though and is often pilots getting it wrong.
Oh god someone please help me:yuk: :yuk:


So a new novel way of inducing the flare...... deploy the spoilers.... no wonder it was a "firm" arrival.

A4 you and onion have got to be brothers:} :} :}

[A4]

Hello bia,

Don't have bro - just a sister :}

You have to agree (well you don't have to) that deploying the spoilers "in the undershoot", so presumably still airborne one hopes, is an unusual way to operate - if it's true.

Don't know much about the B738 (me being a Bus driver) - are the spoilers inhibited with landing flap selected?

A4 :)

[Midland 331]

>You have to agree (well you don't have to) that deploying the spoilers "in the undershoot", so presumably still airborne one hopes, is an unusual way to operate - if it's true.

True? I was looking at 'em!

Just to qualify, "a large dollop", being appropriate to what one sees in the air, rather than in the landing roll.

Enough to significantly increse the sink rate, and plonk us firmly down at the extreme end of the runway. That, and the deceleration certainly spooked the passengers...

My whole point is that "driving style" is far more obvious and influential than some folks "on the inside" realise...

r

[onion]

Bia Botal I should of said that it is breaking the rules if your flying at 250+knots below 10,000ft in class G which is where I was basing my arguments on as I have knowledge of Ryanair operations within these areas. Regarding the bmi go around it was as I stated but have now recieved full info on it. Will not give out information on where it happened to protect anyone involved but it was come down from higherlevels with a following wind trying to make an out of wind runway. As I said pilots can get things wrong sometimes, no one was put in danger, just a go around, thankfully aviation is safety orientated.

[benhurr]

As a pilot and a spectator I would just like to point a few things out to maybe clarify things for a few of the previous posters.

1. To minimise time on the ground it makes more sense to fly at a slower approach speed to ensure a convenient exit from the runway. Landing faster will mean a longer ground run.

2. 310 Kts at four miles out would be highly unlikely in any jet aircraft. At around 4 miles, in most cases, landing flap would be taken and the clearance to land would have been given. 310 kts would mean no gear extended and you wouldn't get to 4 miles in such a configuration.

3. Spoilers in the undershoot. Type specific, but if being used as speed brakes or air brakes then highly unlikely with landing flap deployed. Lift dump would be unavailable until the weight on wheels switches are active.

4. Speed above 250 kts is permitted below FL100, and is sometimes encouraged by ATC.

5. Errors with jepp charts of one or two feet should not result in a heavy landing if the rad alt is used as an advisory alert if being unable to judge the height off the ground is hard to judge by looking out (even I can't work this one out. Who uses a barometric altimeter to judge the flare?)

Why people go on about 25 minute turnarounds is totally beyond me. Surely this is the time between brakes on and brakes off? How does taxiing faster, landing faster, flying unstable approaches etc. possibly reduce this time? Clearly there is a time pressure but this might have more to do with punctuality targets or crew duty issues or anything else. All pilots try to minimise time on the ground, doesn't matter who they fly for.

Sorry, this post has turned out longer than I planned, sorry for any realism it is only implied;)

[Midland 331]

>3. Spoilers in the undershoot. Type specific, but if being used as speed brakes or air brakes then highly unlikely with landing flap deployed. Lift dump would be unavailable until the weight on wheels switches are active.

737-800. I got the impression that a nose-down input activated them...

r

[curser]

A4, spot on I was indeed joking.
Benhur I was using irony to play down the point about rough landings, which while never pleasant for any of those involved are not for the most part dangerous or indicative of poor company safety ethos. Now watch carefully because I'm going to use it again, I really enjoyed your post and feel you know what your talking about.

[RAT 5]

Someone might care to look at RYR schedule block times and sector flight times and then comment. I'm told it is not uncommon to have block times shorter than flight times. If so, that is real schedule-keeping pressure.

Spare a thought for the struggling line trainers trying to impart some aviating knowledge into 200 hour pilots under such circumstances and 25 min turn rounds. Wow! And all that with an NPA waiting for on a nasty day.

However, professionalism should never be compromised by any pilot. I operate by the maxim that I'd rather be 5 minutes late than 20 years early.

[benhurr]

Rat 5 , that was kind of what I was hinting at... How on earth can anyone schedule a block time less than a flight time?
I am asking this as a serious question.


Being but a humble line pilot I don't understand technical stuff such as "nose down input" so I think it best that I don't pass comment.

[Permafrost_ATPL]

This is a useful thread. Let's see how long we can debate the non-existant relationship between approaching/landing fast and a short turnaround :}

P

[old,not bold]

While we're at it, is there a relationship between excessive touchdown speed (if that's possible at all) brake temperatures, and turn-round time?

Only asking, I don't know the answer. Is there one?

[lgw_warrior]

Just a couple of points-

The speed brakes during the final approach phase are in the armed position ie,when the air/ground sensors sense the a/c is on the ground (weight on wheels)all 12 spoiler panels extend,during flight,with more than 2.5 units of control wheel turn the flight spoilers (8 of the 12) extend,to assist roll.now those who have had the pleasure of actually flying a real a/c would know that putting a 60 tonne piece of metal on a 45m wide strip of tarmac is quite an art,especially during the last few hundred feet-even if,as mentioned,the wind is straight down the runway.therefore quite large inputs in roll are required which = flight spoiler movement.

also,with regards "carrier landings" as with 250 below 10,atc may request minimum time on the runway ie. aircraft right up your a%$e.therefore getting of at the first intersection or high speed turn off may be requied.

oh yeah,and while im at it,speeding up youre approach from say 145 kts to 165 kts = about 22 seconds saved-hardly worth it.

back seat drivers....

[curser]

Listen to the FR guys, they tell you and have posted here that they feel under pressure. Is there a link between 25min turn rounds and safety? Probably not if a safety culture exists which is supportive of the commander. Again, listen to the FR guys, do they seem to work within that sort of corporate culture? The Minister may be going into this investigation for all sorts of reasons, it doesn't matter. This is a real opportunity to get it sorted. Ben, "nose down imput" he's trying to tell you the micro switch is on the nose gear.

[Agaricus bisporus]

Mr Boeing forbids the use spoilers with flap 5 or more, so if the report of use in the undershoot is correct it is a clear indication of non-compliance with aircraft limitations and therefore a very serious matter. However, lets be sure this wasn't automatic deployment on touchdown before we start slinging mud.

[akerosid]

Although I disagree with the minister on many issues, I'm bound to say that he's completely within his rights to request such a report. Too often (particularly in relation to DUB Airport), there's a tendency to put corporate or regulatory bodies between the minister and the issue, so he can say, "oh, someone else's problem" and effectively wash his hands of it. Now, those who say it's just an election gimmick may be right, but frankly I don't see even the most cynical minister making an issue of air safety.

Frankly, I find FR's response dismaying; it's just another opportunity for a slanging match and for an airline which says it takes air safety seriously, this attitude is unhelpful and inappropriate.

To use the well worn Swiss cheese model, I think we can see many of these cheeses lining up already, to the extent that, if FR were to have a serious accident, how many of the likely contributory factors would be issues NOT discussed on various threads on PPRUNE?

I think it's time FR were shown in no uncertain terms who is in charge as far as air safety regulation is concerned:
- Is there Corporate manslaughter legislation in Ireland? (I should know, but off the top of my head, I don't);
- The IAA should have the right (as the FAA did, in relation to Frank Lorenzo) to order the removal of persons whose behaviours/ attitudes pose a danger to air safety.
- The IAA should be in a position to levy fines with interest for air safety infractions, (which, if necessary, should be enforced through grounding of aircraft).
- IAA to establish a confidential reporting system, with effective and thorough investigations of air safety issues (with fines for non-cooperation or obstructionism).

It's the old tombstone imperative; do it now, or wait until there's a major accident ...

[Midland 331]

>back seat drivers....

We don't know everything, but do, at least, credit us with knowing something.

Some of us can tell when drivers are in a rush.

And aviation seems not too tolerant of those in a hurry....

also,with regards "carrier landings" as with 250 below 10,atc may request minimum time on the runway ie. aircraft right up your a%$e.therefore getting of at the first intersection or high speed turn off may be requied.

I worked at Teesside for a number of years, then flew very regularly as a passenger there for a good while afterwards. This chap was going for the intersection to save time. I've experienced this many times, but never with quite so much force, particularly with the brakes sounding like a slowing tube train.

Nothing up his derriere, as I saw up the approach as we turned off, and nothing arrived. The only thing "chasing" him was the MOL "fast food" culture.

And what that culture does to professionals is pretty obvious to some of the passengers. The whole point of my particiaption in this thread is to share my experience from twelve years at the commercial end of the business, namely that passengers are more perceptive than folks driving may sometimes appreciate.

>therefore quite large inputs in roll are required which = flight spoiler movement. No sensations of roll or correction experienced, just a coincidental wallop down.

There appear to be lots of holes forming in this particular cheese.

r

[An Paddy Eile]

I really must say that I don't think any of this has anything to do with "faster approaches". That is simply a laymans term for what was reported as unstable approaches in the recent incident reports. No one can seriously believe that Ryanair or anyone else will land at a higher speed to save time.

They will approach faster however and try to close the gap between becoming stabilised and the 500 foot stabilised approach gate. I know, cos I've been there. And in the end, it is more effiecient. Sometimes it goes wrong and you go around (and subsequently waste more time than you could ever has used up by taking your time in the first place, hence the reluctance to correct your error). The recent events were cases of gross errors during the initial approach that were blatantly unrecoverable but were continued to the limit (or beyond) anyway.

As for 25 minute turnarounds, surely no body believes that these are the root of the problem either. They are purely a link in the chain. Each link is relatively harmelss, but chain can give you an awful whack when you least expect it. Ryanair management will not accept this though. They see - pilots are trained, pilots get it wrong, pilots fault.

Martin Cullen is grossly in error. He has said that the Cork incident was highlighted by a foreign authority. He wants them to give him the info so he can decide whether to approach the IAA about conducting an investigation. It was the bloody AAIU that investigated it in the first place!!! Plonker!

Nonetheless, I don't care what Cullen says because he is not an aviation professional. I don't expect him to get it right. I simply welcome the fact that a further review of Ryanair practices may result. That has to be a good thing, even if only to stop us all worrying. (no sarcasm intended! :} )

Cullens remarks are the first sign that some people outside of the aviation industry itself are standing up and saying "What oh old boy! What's going on here?". I can do nothing but say it's about time.

[caulfield]

I see no inherent danger in a fast/noise abatement approach.The Cork incident was dangerous because it was too low.The airline cant attract the right stuff because of their horrendous reputation so they're getting more and more of these incidents.They're stuck with a mismatch of low-hour cadets,mostly from Belgium/Holland,who they upgrade way too early,and a melee of management Irish/Brit pilots and then a whole bunch of people from anywhere from Brazil to Serbia.The good pilots do occasionally join but leave because they dont like being stepped on.Their training is quite good to be fair;if they only understood that you only get the good guys when the malarkey stops.Provide the rating,the uniform,the car pass,treat the pilots with respect and they'll turn it around.Otherwise,they're on a one-way trip to perdition.They have the potential to beat their third-rate cousin from Luton but they're shooting themselves in the foot.Passenger growth is still good but any safety problems will quickly put an end to that.

[Doctor Cruces]

MIDLAND331

Sometimes the pilot can "feel" the start of a roll almost before it happens and puts in a control movement to stop it before it gets going.

Spent many a happy hour on the flight deck of of my company's TriStars watching the PF doing just that and feeling nothing, but the control surfaces (including roll control spoilers) must have been going barmy on some very windy appoaches.

Haven't heard of the 737 having pitch inuut controlled spoilers (willing to be corrected having limited experience here) , but the Tristar was first with that, years before its time, made for a wonderfully stable approach.

Doc C

[RYR-738-JOCKEY]

The problem with Ryanair consists of a three letter word. MOL. He's running the company like a cab driver in Rome. (No offense intended...). Our safety culture consists of strict SOP's and "you're fired if..." -memo's, accompanied by mandatory safety-seminars on our days off. All this combined with pilots from 42 different nationalities, with less than desired experience.
However, the attention we have got during the last few months, has nothing to do with lack of safety. Come on, who believes we're landing above Vref to save time? And aiming for the first exit...really, who doesn't? Ever heard of reducing RWY occupancy time? Rushed approaches has nothing to do with lack of safety...it's simply bad airmanship..and it could happen to anyone. We're getting big, and that will add to the number of incidences.

[fireflybob]

We're getting big, and that will add to the number of incidences

Why should that necessarily be so?

[Danny]

Just a gentle reminder, once again, that this is the 'professional pilots' rumour network. Whilst input from non-professional pilots, enthusiasts, Flight Sim 'pilots', spotters or anyone else is welcome, the line has to be drawn when there is garbage being posted by those who either try to pretend they know or think they know but in reality don't know what they are on about.

Examples from this thread are the mention of spoilers being "deployed" by someone who is not a professional pilot and has never actually done a ground school for the B737NG or is even licensed to operate one. As a passenger with a bit of knowledge, it is easy to see how the conclusion that spoilers were "deployed" in the "undershoot" but in all probability only roll spoilers were seen on the side the passenger was sitting. To try and twist it to represent anything else, including "pitch" spoilers is just embarrassing and does those who really don't know no favours.

As in all cases, it becomes very obvious to the rest of us who do hold the necessary licences and have the experience of operating the real thing, that those who try to pretend they know or would like us all to think that they know about flying heavy metal, in reality don't know much at all. There are some people using terminology on here that makes me squirm with embarrassment and immediately rings alarm bells because it is more often than not, someone trying too hard to be something they are not such as an airline pilot. :rolleyes:

We are the first to have a go at journalists who are sloppy on their research and report aviation incidents and accidents with non-standard terminology. So, why are some posters, especially on this thread, trying so hard to sound as though they have knowledge of everything aviation when it is quite obvious that in reality they are just making fools of themselves? :hmm:

If you are going to make observations about how a pilot is handling an aircraft or performing a manoeuvre and you have never actually flown the type or something similar then please try to do so with the necessary objectivity and understanding that you don't have all the facts or experience to do so. It is just as bad as bad journalism to try and pretend that you know exactly what you are talking about when in reality it is obvious to the rest of us that simply is not the case.

[PAXboy]

caulfield Passenger growth is still good but any safety problems will quickly put an end to that.As a pax and cynic I would reply, "No it won't."

If RYR lose one hull - there will be nothing more than a blip in revenue. Lose two in one year and it might hesitate. MoL did not get rich by misunderstanding the Pax.

[maxalt]

Absolutely right.
Based on recent events, he'll rush to pile the full blame onto the crew, fire a few scapegoats to enhance the spin that 'something is being done to correct the jet-jockies' and then continue on regardless - with fingers crossed.

And the public will lap it up.

[lgw_warrior]

The procedure you have observed at the outer marker is called the low drag approach,i believe in good vis conditions that is standard sop with Ryanair,and a few other operators.it goes something like this-

glide slope capture,usually required (by ATC) to maintain 160 kts to 4 miles or the outer marker(which is approx 4 miles),flaps 5 or 10,depending on a/c weight.

approaching 4 miles/outer marker gear down,flaps 15,30 etc.The a/c will be fully configured aprroaching the 1000FT "gateway" (fully configured and on speed) which is required or a go-around is required.

obviously,during low vis ops getting configured earlier is the name of the game.

Just a thought,but are all Ryan aircraft fitted with a flight data monitoring system....

so if pilots were doing,on a regular basis what this thread is all about someone would know about it..

[PAXboy]

An Paddy EileI don't care what Cullen says because he is not an aviation professional. Unfortunately ... you have to care because is the politician and will hold the ultimate power.

A simple example, in the UK, all Prime Ministers know that they have to change the people in charge. Thatcher did not like the BBC so she gave them a Chairman who changed their Director General who changed the BBC beyond the staff's worst nightmares. It really is that simple.

[An Paddy Eile]

PAXboy,

You're dead right. I can't really say that what he says is irrelevant. What I meant was that his statement shows that he apparently is still not yet in possession of the facts. But the fact that an investigation is even being considered is progress in my mind. That's the important bit. The accuracy of his press released statement is irrelevant.

[ElNino]

Let's see how long we can debate the non-existant relationship between approaching/landing fast and a short turnaround

Indirectly, there may well be. Not in the sense that you may touch down a few knots fast, but I would think definitely in the sense that one may feel pressured into arriving as early as possible in order to maximise the turnaround time. This may be well manifest itself into pilots pushing the aeroplane to the edge of what they feel comfortable with, perhaps configuring later than they would like, maybe accepting a direct that would leave the aircraft high, etc etc etc. 25 mins is not enough to absorb delays and still turn around a 738 size aircraft with the thoroughness required. Given FR's rather publicly held aversion to delays, it's manifestly nonsense to suggest that short-turnarounds on every sector don't, most probably subconsciously, pressure pilots to an extent. Of course there is a difference between ultra conservative approaches and time, efficient and safe approaches, the type we should all strive for. However, unless the day is going completely to plan, which is rare enough, I fail to see how constantly operating under a time constraint is conducive to safety.

And aiming for the first exit...really, who doesn't? Ever heard of reducing RWY occupancy time?

It depends where you are. If rwy occupancy is a issue, yes, aiming for the exit conducive to the shortest time on the runway is important. However, if occupancy is not an issue, and I doubt it is most places FR go to, why stress the brakes, the engines and the pax to make the earliest possible exit? Once stopping is assured, why not let it roll out gently, thus keeping the brakes cooler, saving the fuel from reversing and not fightening the pax.

[Few Cloudy]

"A large dollop of spoiler" - would that have been on both wings? You couldn't see the other wing could you?

So let's say it was probably only on the wing you could see. Now I presume that you don't know that the flight (assymetric) spoiler is a feature of almost all passenger jet aircraft, acting in conjunction with the aileron system, to counter the initial adverse yaw effect which ailerons cause and speed up roll reaction.

When used in flight to increase drag, these same devices are speedbrakes. When they deploy after landing, they are ground spoilers (and usually deploy to a greater angle) This is done to kill lift, so that the aircraft sits hard on the wheels, for the wheelbrakes to work properly.

I can well imagine a last minute correction on a gusty final causing such a "dollop" to appear. No one in his right senses would attempt to slow down an airliner by pulling speedbrake on final. It is in any case forbidden past a very small flap angle.

I don't mind you not knowing this. I do mind you criticising pilots for airmanship when you have scanty knowledge.

Next bleat - what are "fast landings" anyway? Landings where the approach speed was over limits? Landings which were long because of this (the usual result of too much speed over the threshold)? In that case they are long landings and not fast ones.

Then the hard braking complaint. There are quite a few airfields (Luton is one) where if you don't make the turn off, you will have to turn back on the runway to taxy out. This causes great big problems for ATC and following aircraft, who have been counting on you making the turn. Some fields (Chicago is one) demand you stop by a certain point, because they are giving take off clearance to an aircraft on a crossing runway. Not all hard deceleration is caused by a long landing, though it can be.

I once had a passenger snarl at me as he disembarked, "I bet the copilot made that landing didn't he?" When I said that as a matter of fact he had (it was a good landing) he then sneered "But you just had to make that turn off didn't you?" Well there wasn't time to give him the course - first he would have needed one in good manners anyway - but it shows how some ignorant people try to get satifaction by assuming knowledge.

FC.

[BitMoreRightRudder]

There's far too much knowledge and common sense in your post for this particular thread FC ;)

[An Paddy Eile]

Few Cloudy, don't mean to direct anything at you nor to pick at your post.

Then the hard braking complaint. There are quite a few airfields (Luton is one) where if you don't make the turn off, you will have to turn back on the runway to taxy out. This causes great big problems for ATC and following aircraft, who have been counting on you making the turn.Without wanting to get too much off topic...

Almost every instance of hard braking in an attempt to make a particular turnoff, in particular in somewhere like Luton, has been the result of a poor approach and/or landing. In particular it is usually the result of an extended float while the pilot tries to grease the landing. (Resisting urge to get on soap box...)

Not all hard deceleration is caused by a long landing

No ATC anywhere will expect you to make a turnoff that is not reasonable and not within the normal performance ability of your aircraft. So, it is not enough to say that you are doing a good job because you are trying to make an exit to avoid creating problems for ATC. You would not need your good skills if you had not screwed up the flare and landing in the first place. I do not intend to to imply that I have never screwed up myself, but it's a flawed defense of hard braking.

If ATC expect you to make a turnoff that requires significantly heavier than normal braking or unusual effort, that's their problem. I'd roll on by every time, or of course tell them that I can't do it. Some pilots have a preoccupation with showing off their skills. I never understood how stopping quickly show you're good at what you do. Surely it just means that the guys who built the brakes got it right?

As for the eejits that slam on the brakes at somewhere like MAN where you have an almost endless choice of turnoffs. Don't get me started. I once flew with a Captain who stood upright on the brake pedals (his arse was practically out of his seat!) to make 'Bravo' I think it was. He had to slow to less than ten knots to make the 90 degree turn. There were two more RET's just yards away ahead of us. Without question, he was wasting significant time trying to make that turn. Either RET at 30 odd knots would have much more efficient in every way. :ugh:

[Midland 331]

>I don't mind you not knowing this. I do mind you criticising pilots for airmanship when you have scanty knowledge.

Oh dear. This has all got a bit fraught.

I made it absolutely clear from the first line of my first post in this thread that I was no expert. I don't claim to be, and I don't know all the terminology. This is easy to spot and a "soft target".

I simply wanted to bring in the passenger's perspective on this issue. Maybe this is not important.

And, if you were in my postion, saw spoilers shoot up with no noticable roll, followed by a very hard wallop, what would you conclude?

The issue is simple. And, sadly, I need to state it again. Heavy landings and obvious rapid deceleration hack off the passengers and give the unfavourable impression of unnceccessary haste.

And Ryanair seem to be an airline in a terribile hurry.

Take a look at this thread:-

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=236492

Twelve years of working at the commercial sharp end of the airline business, meeting regular flyers and high spending cutomers, taught me that what are termed "SLF" are far more perceptive than is maybe realised.

I simply brought my (admittedly partial) knowledge of the operational side of the business into my post.

r

[An Paddy Eile]

Lads, might be running the risk of having the Mods close this post too because we're all getting off topic.....

[DFC]

Have we reached the point where MOL could split it up and create a UK entity to be sold off for a vast sum to some idiot like Sir Alan your fired but my company is not doing very well salt?.................. only to buy it back again for £1 in cahoots with some dragon's den person in 5 years time and make even more money in the process all on the back of thousands of UK pension schemes?

The whole "problem" with Ryanair is that everyone from the CAA to BA have vast sums from their pension schemes riding on their profit.

"Go ahead punk, make my day" said the Irish man to the BA Captain waiting for a pesion!!!

You will only get a hull loss when one is written off. Take the data plate back to Boeing and they will "repair" the aircraft provided you pay the money. Ask Quantas!!

Regards,

DFC

[Few Cloudy]

Hi Midland, Hi Paddy,
I guess Midland, that you are very interested in flying (great!) but possibly don't fly privately, so not wishing to state the obvious, steering an aircraft is not like steering a car, in that an input - even an abrupt one - doesn't necessarily cause an abrupt reaction, as felt or seen from the cabin. An incipient roll due to a gust, if caught in a timely manner (and believe me all pilots are very alert at the flare phase of a gust approach) can be cancelled out - for instance by a short sharp opposite control input. This gives you your "Spoiler but no Roll" case.
Paddy. as you know (I am also guessing) it is not black or white - it is a matter of degree. My remarks were intended to help folks in the back, unaware of the actions up front. The ability to let it drift down to taxy speed (Basel, Nice in some cases) using idle reverse doesn't exist in the cases I mentioned above - you have to do something to get the ship to slow down in time - ie. effective amounts of reverse and just before turn off some braking. This is felt by all on board and compared to his/her previous experience by each passenger / cabin crew member. A long landing (which again no one deliberately goes for in LTN) will cause even harder deceleration - or missing the turn off.
By the way, a long hold-off landing is not the best way to "grease it on" - the best way is to keep the thrust on longer and fly it right to the ground - chop thrust about 5 feet up - maybe 2 knots over VThreshold but under control and in the right place.
FC.

[Midland 331]

FC,

Thanks for the kind and considered reponse.

Really, my posts in this thread are not about the intricacies of flying, but the perception of passengers to less than gentle handling. They were prefaced by a clear statement that I am a "layman", not a professional aviator. Maybe I should scuttle off to the SLF forum....?

(For the record, I have around two hours in my log book, plus an hour in a full scale 737-200 flight sim. during which time I managed to arrive on 14 at Leeds in low visibility without breaking anything!. Oh, and many years of flying as a staff passenger, sometimes on the jump seat, but always with an interest in how the aircraft was handled. Private aviation seems like a nasty drug habit:- addictive, anti-social, expensive. Hence, I've kept "clean".)

I am familiar with the characteristic lifting of a spoiler during a roll movement. What I saw was far more pronounced, and for a longer duration, followed by a relatively rapid sink. And not a hint of aileron movement. Strange.

Really, I don't want to add much more to this thread. My original, simple, point remains:- this particular chap seemed in a belting hurry, and was a pretty bad advert for his company.

r

[An Paddy Eile]

Few Cloudy,

Point taken. I see where you're coming from.

Incidentally,

By the way, a long hold-off landing is not the best way to "grease it on"

I couldn't agree more lad! The long hold off is a by product of a poor attempt to "grease it on". A proper smooth touchdown won't use up any extra runway. I was referring to the eejits that float for ever trying to get a smooth landing, then have to jump on the brakes to avoid the trees and perimeter fence.

[PAXboy]

DFC The whole "problem" with Ryanair is that everyone from the CAA to BA have vast sums from their pension schemes riding on their profit.
How so?
I am a simple pax and tax payer (i.e. I pay twice :hmm:) and I seriously want to know what you mean by that. My expectation is that employees of a Civil Aviation Authority (of ANY nationality) are civil servants who are paid by the agreed scales for their job.

Tell me that I am hopelessly naïve but - How can it be that their pensions are dependant upon a carrier? Any carrier?? Or have I badly misunderstood your statement?

[BEagle]

It isn't just the lo-cos who practise the bang it on, slam on the brakes, get off the runway quick technique.....

Try the usual LH-at-FRA technique......... Bang, slam, lurch.

I was always taught to land a large aircraft far more gently and criticised if I didn't - and yes, I am aware of the different characterstics of modern aircraft brakes.

However, I don't the subject being discussed here is the handling of the aircraft after landing, it is more about unstabilised approaches.

[Jambo Buana]

Danny,

Any chance we could have a professional pilot only forum here please? This is frankly embarrassing and not what you probably envisioned setting up.

Caulfield and RYR 737 NG posts are close to being correct apart from teh statement by one saying 'of course I go for the 1st RET, who doesnt.' I really disagree with that and have made comments to RYR crews who have needlessly subjected me to excessive braking on landing. The problem is that we fly too much and some of us have lost the finesse that we once had. Also forget how scared most pax are. The guys who point it at RET 1 are generally the ones who dont know how or where to find and calculate brake cooling schedules!

PS Yes we do fly cleaner for longer than most other airlines. The policy is F5 to 3.5nms from touchdown. You must still be fully spooled up etc BY 500agl. This is absolutely no problem with 900ft being about the norm. So the spotter in Dublin is right, well done!

[discountinvestigator]

With regards to the flight crew being able to feel the bump that the pax feel, please remember the percussion effects. The pax at CofG may only feel downforces, whereas you at the front may feel the mix of the increasing nose up pitch as well as the sink. Effectively, you get rotation, and they get thump, as the aircraft rotates around the nose. Well, not exactly, but that is all I can think to express it.

Combine that with tail wag on the 738 down the back and it can get exciting for at least half the pax.

My main concern is over the IAA reviews of Ryanair. I fly in Irish registered aircraft, on lease, all over the world. Would somebody like to tell me why FAA based processes are allowed on board if the aircraft is meant to be flown in an Irish manner? Pick up a pax safety card on a Colombian MD80 to see what I mean.

You will find that the time saving that you are talking about is not just from the fly faster brigade, but the conversion of the published IFR approach, including flying overhead the beacon on the aerodrome, out and back to land, as opposed to the visual positioning and dive for landing.

The reason for stopping hard in the Ryanair Southwest model is the cost per minute of the airframe. It is cheaper to change the brakes more often than it is to keep the xxx-by-the-hour maintenance charges rolling along. So, stop hard, get off the runway and get to the gate. Brakes on and stop the clock.

Do not forget how much extra energy you carry when you get a runway change from ATC and you were expecting to fly over the aerodrome and then procedure turn, as opposed to the now straight-in. Say 25 nautical miles shorter to run. Oh, and for environmental reasons, you now have a 5 knot tailwind. No time to brief... no time to set up the FMS...

Still, you can do a lot of damage to a 738 on an overrun before it is written off by the insurance company.

[Jambo Buana]

DI,

You are right about the 'back of the plane effect' it is quite pronounced. We are flying 20 flights per week, and that has been over a dozen years in my case and over 20 years in some of the Dublin based pilots case. You do loose sensitivity in your own backside as all the little muscles anticipate g loading after this amount of flying. I constantly tell myself to 'feel' more and never forget the SLF are normally quite a scared bunch!

But you are wrong with your assessment of RYR and SWA braking policy. Both airlines have had the same policy for several years now, and they changed together after the Midway accident last year. Minimum autobrake setting is 2 now on all landings. Also the aircraft are scehduled for 8 flights per day and they get done whether you are 30 seconds late inbound or 1 hour late so each minute makes no difference. RYR own/lease purchase their a/c so flight time makes no odds again. And as for the brakes, they come from the engineers budget not FLT Ops! They both present their own cases to O'Leary.

Hope this helps.

[Danny]

Perhaps if some of you were able to differentiate between approaches and landings you wouldn't have some of the more nonsensical distractions that keep appearing here, from being deleted. :ugh:

Sadly, far too many posters, yet again, keep trying to impress the rest of us with their lack of qualification when it comes to discussing the subject matter. You are either someone with experience of the topic and state with qualification your reasons for mentioning something or else you do not have experience and should limit your your posting to questions or clarification. :rolleyes:

It is far too easy for many of us to spot the pretenders or wannabes who would like us to believe that they are knowledgeable. It's bad enough trying to keep the debates civil between some of the more easily upset but experienced pilots on here without having the pretenders get their blood pressure up with waffle and yukspeak that just shouts to the rest of us "dipstick alert"!!!! :rolleyes:

If a post is deleted, it is because you don't have editorial control. You may not like it but it keeps the majority on here sane! :hmm: