Ryanair landings

[danielsirrom]

Hello all. please go easy on me. first post and all that.

I fly about 4 round trips/year, about half of these on Ryanair. I am not a pilot and do not claim to have any technical knowledge of flying.

Why are Ryanair landings so bl**dy hard, often accompanied by quite pronounced sideways lurches on touchdown (my son bruised the side of his abdomen through it striking the armrest on our last flight)?

I have done a search on here and couldn't find anything. There is some stuff on the web about pilots rushing and being under time pressures. Is this really the reason?

Regards

Dan

[Caudillo]

Dan it has nothing to do with time pressures. Landing an aircraft takes a considerable amount of skill - in tough weather conditions, even more so. When the runway is very wet, a landing that you can feel is desirable in order to ensure a good purchase on the ground, so as to avoid aquaplaning. It may be a short runway, in which case floating above it for a while is clearly undesirable. Furthermore, there are schools of thought that say all landings should be positive rather than smooth. Your position in the aircraft will also influence how you perceive the hardness of the landing.

One thing that is possible (although this goes for any airline) is that it was landined by a new pilot - either to commercial aviation or to the type of aircraft. It's perhaps more likely at Ryanair than another carrier, given their growth and their recruiting policies.

[perkin]

my son bruised the side of his abdomen through it striking the armrest on our last flight

That sounds like the seatbelt wasn't 'securely fastened' if he was able to move with enough force to bruise himself by striking the armrest...

[BOAC]

Here's a link to previous discussions on this topic
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=206365

..........which gives you yet another link - and I'm moving this to that forum.

[Contacttower]

Could someone answer me this:

In a plane like the modern PA28s (with tapered wings that suffer a lot from ground effect) it is really possible to kiss the ground with the only clue to the fact that one has touched down being the sound of the wheels...

However, whenever I'm flying as a passenger in an airliner the landings always seem much more of an 'event'. I've always assumed that it is impossible to 'grease' a heavy jet on in the same way as a light aircraft because there is so much travel in the undercarriage suspension...which means no matter how lightly one touches down initially one can't help but feel the jolt as the plane 'sits down' fully on its gear and the suspension compresses under the plane's weight.

Is that true? Or have I been unlucky to never experience a 'greaser' as a passenger?

[IRRenewal]

A few quotes from the B737NG FCTM (Flight Crew Training Manual):

Landing Flare Profile

Avoid rapid control column movements during the flare. If the flare is too abrupt and thrust is excessive near touchdown, the airplane tends to float in ground effect. Do not allow the airplane to float; fly the airplane onto the runway. Do not extend the flare by increasing pitch attitude in an attempt to achieve a perfectly smooth touchdown. Do not attempt to hold the nose wheels off the runway.

Pitch and Roll Limit Conditions

The Ground Contact Angles - Normal Landing figure illustrates body roll angle/pitch angles at which the airplane structure contacts the runway. Prolonged flare increases the body pitch attitude 2° to 3°. When prolonged flare is coupled with a misjudged height above the runway aft body contact is possible.

Fly the airplane onto the runway at the desired touchdown point and at the desired airspeed. Do not hold it off and risk the possibility of a tailstrike.

Note: A smooth touchdown is not the criterion for a safe landing.

[perkin]

the airplane tends to float in ground effect

Noticed this one many times as pax on a 737, almost to the point of mild fear and an un-nervingly large distance along one of the runways at LHR! They just don't seem to want to land sometimes! From a pax perspective, it often feels as if its sometimes a struggle to get the aircraft on the ground.

In answer to the prevous poster, I have experienced quite a few greasers as pax (737/A320/F70), so it is possible, but whether they were intentional or not is an entirely different matter! ;)

[Diaz]

The problem is you don't usually remember the greasers anywhere near as much as the hard landings.

Besides- how hard the landing is can have little to do with the airfield- flying into Samos (LGSM) I was amazed at how smoothly the plane touched down- especially compared to the return to Manchester where it felt like we bounced!

[AdamC]

It has nothing to do with their skill, as has already been established.

Smooth touchdowns are not the key to a safe landing, I'd rather have a very hard landing that is perfectly safe than a very smooth landing which isn't safe at all.

It has nothing to do with airline either, I've had horrible landings with Ryanair and I've also had some of the best.. Either way, I don't criticize or praise the crew for it, whatever the outcome of the touchdown is - It was safe and thats what they are there to do, safely fly the aircraft.

I've had worse landings with Emirates than I have Ryanair, haha. :rolleyes:

[Saintsman]

Hard landing? Probably the co-pilots turn ;)

[electricdeathjet]

Want a nice landing for a Quid? hahahahahaha

Pay lots of money, fly with Nigel and get a greaser everytime ;)

[danielsirrom]

Don't qiute follow the logic there...."you've paid peanuts for your flight so we're going to slam the plane onto the runway....that will show'em!"

Anyway I'm not particularly complaining, and certainly not questioning the ability of the crew, just interested in this phenomenon.

Dan

[ryansf]

From recent flights, I have found the Dublin crews to be quite rough with the plane, with hard landings, fast taxis etc, and these were on clear, calm days! The Italian crews from Pisa treated it like an aircraft should be treated - it was perhaps one of the smootest flights I'd been on!

[rmac]

BOAC, thanks for the thread link earlier in this one. I note that Tight Slot closed the other thread as "getting heated" due to the presentation of a little hard evidence by an "unqualified" passenger on the number of landing accidents experienced by Ryanair.

One of the things which tends to confuse me is the attempt to mystify the concept of motor skills and muscle memory (including funnily enough the bottom cheeks of a regular pax). In the same way that a pilot gaining experience can judge a physical effect and adjust it, a frequent pax can learn to tell the difference between a positive landing and a carrier deck one, for which I understand carrier aircraft have specially strengthened gear compared to their land based sisters.

I fly from an airfield which is used regularly by Ryanair, and have noticed that their movements about the field tend to be a little rushed compared to the other operators. The culture of an organisation can be quite pervasive, and if the culture at Ryanair is "on time at all costs" mission focused, and this may be contributing to rough handling of the aircraft, then the circle can only be broken by outside comment, accepted at face value by the professionals at the front end, who are after all only human.

While pprune is a wonderful site, I have unfortunately witnessed rather a lot of professional preciousness and a fairly condescending approach to non-pilot contributors, even those who are quite measured in their comments.

"Methinks thou dost protest too much..........:uhoh:"

rmac

[Swanie]

Just out of curiosity, how do 'auto landing' touch-downs compare to the usual manually flown ones?

[The Real Slim Shady]

Rmac,

The culture of an organisation can be quite pervasive, and if the culture at Ryanair is "on time at all costs" mission focused, and this may be contributing to rough handling of the aircraft

Let me assure you that the Ryanair culture is that safety transcends any other consideration. Whilst we are conscious of maintaining the schedule we have sufficient spare capacity to pick up on major delays.

As for "rough handling" let me assure you that I always teach that a swept wing airplane should be put on the ground at the right speed in the right place. A gentle touchdown is not important.

[electricdeathjet]

Yes but why can everyone else do it with a bit of style?

[TightSlot]

While pprune is a wonderful site, I have unfortunately witnessed rather a lot of professional preciousness and a fairly condescending approach to non-pilot contributors, even those who are quite measured in their comments.

One of the conundrums of PPRuNe is this - people who don't fly commercial jets for a living post questions here in the hope of getting a response from somebody who does do so. When a response is eventually offered, those who asked it simply refuse to accept the answer. This process is somewhat demoralizing for those who have taken the trouble to answer. PPRuNe is choc-full of experts on flying who have never flown an aircraft: There are experts on Cabin Crew who have never done the job and others that are experts in safety procedures and systems that have never been trained. You can visit the Airlines, Airports & Routes forum to read advice on how to run an airline from people who etc. etc.

I'm not suggesting that debate is in any way a bad thing, or that scepticism is unhealthy: However, as in the previous Ryanair landing thread, when professionals offer an opinion, or explain a procedure, surely the wise course would be to treat them with some weight?

BTW rmac - please don't consider this as some sort of personal attack, as that is not the intent: It is however, intended as a general observation.

[Contacttower]

The thing is though while non-flying 'experts' aren't usually very good at giving opinions on these subjects, quite often neither are the professionals. There probably are plenty of Ryanair pilots on this site, but even if there was a 'problem' (purely from a passenger comfort point of view) with Ryanair's landings I slightly doubt any would admit to on here.

Now it is true that Ryanair take a lot more 'low houred' pilots than other airlines do (which is great by the way and they should be commended for doing so) and therefore it does stand to reason that the landings may not be as comfortable, but just as safe, as some other airlines. I've just started my twin rating for example, on the Twin Comanche (one the coolest planes ever to grace the air btw) and my landings at the moment are pretty awful, and I'd expect the same if I had just started on the 737-800. Maybe that goes some way to answering the original poster's question. Having said that though I don't think 4 round trips a year is anywhere near enough to draw conclusions about the differences between airlines in terms of landing quality...there are just so many other variables to take into account.

[PAXboy]

Non pilot speaking
Maybe that goes some way to answering the original poster's question.Also:
Unknown wind at 30 feet off the ground
Wind at 25 foot that lifted a/c more than expected
Wind at 15 foot that dropped a/c more than expected
Unexpected wash of air around the corner of that larger hanger half a mile away
A unexpected flicker from an engine
A surprise ...I have had bumps and greasers from every airline across the 42 years that I have been a pax, in everything from light singles to 744s and Concorde.

I have been on the flight deck into STN in the most appalling wind and rain and watched someone (in a Lo Co 734) pull off the most amazingly smooth landing when he could hardly see out of the windscreen and was juggling everything.

I have been in a respected mainline carrier into MUC on a 320 with a smooth-as-smooth slide down the approach and then experienced a suddenly faster sink rate that shook and rattled everything at touch down so that people who were asleep woke up and screamed.

In other words ... there is no telling what about anything from a landing. :ugh:

[Contacttower]

In other words ... there is no telling what about anything from a landing. :ugh:

Quite, and I think what irritates pro pilots sometimes (as mentioned on the 'Things I always wanted to know as a PILOT' thread) is that passengers 'judge' the landing and then equate that with the skill of the pilot. Which of course is completely wrong.

[rmac]

Tightslot

I don't see anything in your post that I could possibly construe as a personal attack.

I've seen my ATPL friends (one an ex SF C130 pilot, now flying 320's for a large UK carrier, who's blushes I shall spare) who haven't flown GA sized aircraft for years, try to land my Crusader (light twin 2500kg MTOW) and flare ridiculously high while leaving just enough power dialled in to keep us flying ten feet off the runway :} As I have indicated, motor skills, muscle memory and perception, at the point of arrival they subconsciously reverted to their airliner technique. I am sure they could have as much fun with me in a 737. The physiology behind it is all fairly basic stuff, not a great black art far from the understanding of mortals.

Slim

I wrote, and you quoted "if", and I assure you it is very much an "if", not an indictment.

I also wrote "methinks thou dost protest too much" as a comment of some who bite too hard on a non pilots casual comment, as I have read from time to time.

As I further commented, there is a difference between a firm landing and a carrier deck one, would you not agree? I would suggest that a well travelled intelligent individual would have established enough memory and perception of many landings, to recognise if one may have been harder than the others ? I've travelled commercially for a decade for hundreds of thousands of miles a year, and there have been two landings only in that time that have made me think, "they must have broken something", but then I rarely travel with locos, so I have no basis for comparison and cannot help there.

In the words of Tight Slot, please do not construe this as any kind of personal attack, its meant to be food for thought.

[danielsirrom]

Thanks for all the responses, info and opinions.

I suppose the question I was trying to get the answer to was;

Why are (in my humble opinion, and in the opinion of a number of others) Ryanair landings often harder than those of other airlines?

and NOT

Why are some landings harder than others?

Again I am certainly not having a go at any one or criticising anyone's skill.

Dan

PS earlier point about tightness of the seatbelt taken.

[IRRenewal]

I would suggest that a well travelled intelligent individual would have established enough memory and perception of many landings, to recognise if one may have been harder than the others ?

Maybe, maybe not.

Have you ever thought about the perceived difference in firmness of a landing depending on where you're sitting in the cabin? Any pitch change during touchdown can greatly influence the experience.

For instance, if the aircraft starts a pitch down just before touchdown this will be experienced by the pilots as a reduction in G, but by passengers and FAs in the rear as an increase in G. Add to that the G loading on impact, and what might feel as a smooth landing up front could be perceived as a firm landing in the back. This could also happen the other way around.

Do you always sit in the same seat row? Is this right above the wheels so the above mentioned effect is minimised? (But never cancelled, because on touchdown the point around which the aircraft pitches changes from an aerodynamic one based on the CofG to a fixed one based on the gear, which changes as the oleos compress). Do you have information about the CofG, the attitude and more importantly the rate of change of attitude of the aircraft on touchdown? Even the pilots don't have all that information readily to hand.

A 'hard' landing is one after which engineering inspection is required. That is the definition. Anything else is a firm landing and according to the quotes I supplied earlier is as Mr Boeing intended it to be. That doesn't mean that some are not more firm than we wanted them to be, but this has nothing to do with the operator of the aircraft, be it LoCo or Legacy.

[galdian]

From my experience I would go along the line from PAXboy - don't ask me why but MOST pilots get their BETTER landings in BAD weather conditions rather than good.

Got to work harder, maybe?? Or pasengers expecting less and being more forgiving and therefore more likely to be "pleasantly surprised??" Dunno!

Also aircraft varients create their own difficulties - eg you show me any pilot who quotes he gets the same consistent quality landings in the 737-8 as he did in the Classics.... and I'll be able to point to a bald faced liar.:eek:

Most times - maybe. Good weeks/bad weeks - probably.
As consistent as the Classic - never! :ok:

Talking of pax perception only - previous comments about smooth Vs safe Vs ambient conditions spot on.

[172driver]

From my experience I would go along the line from PAXboy - don't ask me why but MOST pilots get their BETTER landings in BAD weather conditions rather than good.

Funny you should say that. I am noticing the same in my own flying (spamcan, I hasten to add). Could be that extra bit of concentration.

Anyway, back to RYR: I've used them a lot and had - as with any airline - the whole range from greasers to 'arrivals'.

However, let's not forget that RYR operate a lot into relatively short fields, where a 'float' is not an option. Couple that with rain and you'd want the guys at the pointy end to put her down rather assertively. I'd rather have a little shudder on landing then mud on my shoes walking away from an overrun.....

[smith]

When I was studying my atpl subjects it was recommended that a firm landing was more desirable to a butterfly with sore feet. The theory being a firm landing will dissipate some of the energy and reduce the speed of the aircraft saving wear and tear on the brakes.

Have also been in a few autolands in pea-soup and the aircraft has firmly contacted the ground.

[MidmarMile]

Being based in South Africa I am not able to comment on the quality of landings of various Northern hemishere LCCs.

Forgive me as I take the thread on a slightly different tack.

Does the landing gear configuration of an impact (???) on the average hardness of the landing?

Most short haul planes (eg. 737 family) have two wheels on a single axle on either side of the plane.
A330/340 have a dolly with 4 wheels on either side of the plane.
747s have two dollys on either side of the plane with the inner dollys slightly forward of the outer ones.

Surely the dollys, and especially double/offset dollys, help to reduce the "hardness" of the landing felt by the passengers?

[G SXTY]

Does the landing gear configuration of an impact (???) on the average hardness of the landing?

Oh yes. Aircraft with trailing link undercarriage (e.g. BAe146 and the ATR series) tend to be quite forgiving. At the other end of the scale is the Dash 8, which has long and very rigid undercarriage legs bolted straight to a very rigid wing. 'Positive arrivals' are the norm, and I've managed only two greasers out of around 40 landings in the last month. They were both on very long runways with light winds - on shorter runways, it's very much a case of right speed and right place.

Silky smooth landings are nice for the passengers (and my ego) but they're not the aim of the game.

[Mark in CA]

In the old days, we used to say the smooth landings were former Air Force pilots while the hard landings were former Navy pilots (hitting the carrier deck).

[ford cortina]

I am a 737-800 Driver. wıth not too many hours on type.
Sometimes they are real greasers, othertimes they are a good firm hit. From my limited time as a 737 pilot, not ryanair, İ have discovered that landing a 50+ tonne aircraft is a bit of a black art.
Now if any passengers, who are not pilots want to have a go at landing, lets see how well you do in the sim.
İ am sorry if you fly with me and its a bit hard, but at least it is safe, İ too want to get home to my famıly as well.

[Notso Fantastic]

To repeat:
Why are (in my humble opinion, and in the opinion of a number of others) Ryanair landings often harder than those of other airlines?
B737NG landings are always hard or firm. You can land a 737-300/400 much softer. The reason lies in the oleos. They do not give at all. It's like driving a car with a very hard suspension over rough ground. Why they are like that I do not know, but you cannot do a soft landing in an NG. It is not Ryanair pilots as the poster is trying to make out....it is down to Mr. Boeing.

[Put1992]

Don't qiute follow the logic there...."you've paid peanuts for your flight so we're going to slam the plane onto the runway....that will show'em!"

Anyway I'm not particularly complaining, and certainly not questioning the ability of the crew, just interested in this phenomenon.

Dan


Hmmmm. It may just be my hastiness, but I think that might, have just been a joke:8

[MarcJF]

Any landing I can walk away from is fine by me.

[Final 3 Greens]

Silky smooth landings are nice for the passengers

Not if they are preceeded by a long float where I can see the runway flashing past :eek:

Give me a nice firm arrival in the touchdown zone any time.