Ryanair B738 off runway in Limoges (LFBL/France)

[Palyvestre]

Sorry french article. Picture. Seems to have no damage. No injury.

http://www.crash-aerien.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=40121#40121

[Right Engine]

Prediction - Nothing will be reported on the UK news channels.

I would love to know why (as a BA pilot). Whenever such a mishap occurs with a BA aircraft it will be BREAKING NEWS - BA CRASH IN XYZ.

Perhaps someone from the BBC/ITN/SKY could explain this anomoly....

[POL.777]

Is the incident today?:confused:
According Ryanair live flight information the FR1216 and 1217 are both on time.
Good to hear that there is no injuries.

[old,not bold]

Rough translation............

Limoges (France) -

An aircraft of the low-cost Irish airline Ryanair went off the runway, without serious consequences, at the regional airport of Limoges. The reasons are not known but may have been connected with the weather.

The aircraft - a B737-800 - was operating flight FR1216 between Charleroi and Limoges. The passenger total is not known but should have been in the order of 100. The aircraft had just landed at 1630 local in weather conditions made challenging by gusts and rain when, for undetermined reasons, the pilots failed to stop it before the end of the runway and it went several metres on to the grass.

http://www.crash-aerien.com/airlines/FR/B738.jpg

Slides were deployed so as to evacuate the aircraft and there were no injuries. Several witnesses said that they heard an explosion without being able to say exactly if it happened before or after landing, and others said that the aircraft touched down very fast. The airport management declined to comment. The damage from the incident is not known at the moment.


http://www.crash-aerien.com/forum/images/google_actu.jpg (http://news.google.fr/news?hl=fr&tab=wn&ned=fr&q=site:www.crash-aerien.com&ie=UTF-8&scoring=n)

[lexoncd]

Incident or Accident.........It's a bank holiday so the news hacks aren't on the case. having said that anything that happens outside of the uk and doesn't involve uk citizens isn't newsworthy.....

[kingdee]

to Ryanair .Press release on website explains all .Now let the investigators look into why it happened . So lets not turn this is into a ryanair bashing site

[CorkEICK]

http://www.ryanair.com/site/EN/notices.php?notice=gops&code=080321-Limoge_Incident-EN-GB

[old,not bold]

IN my opinion it was a mistake for Ryanair to fit the cabin with ASIs to enable passengers to measure the actual airspeed at touchdown and compare that with the speed they have calculated it should have been.

I know that Ryanair's corporate policy is to provide passengers with everything they could possibly want, completely FOC, but this is going too far, IMHO. We don't want this to become another Ryanair bashing, but some things have to be said.

[JW411]

Right Engine:

Publicity is usually in direct proportion to basic aviation survival facts such as the good old addage "'tis always better to go through the far hedge slow than the near hedge fast".

[slip and turn]

Where's the cabin ASI on one of these then? Blowed if I've ever seen it ... must drop down with the life vest on the new ones I guess :p

Limoges looks much like Bristol except twice as high and a bit longer. They used it all then? ILS on this runway only? And is it 22 or is it 21? Seems to be a bit in-betweeny thesedays, but was magnetically nearer 21 last time old not bold overflew it!

Actually the look of the runway reminds me of Biggin on the Bump http://www.panoramio.com/photo/6067174 ... personally not done bad WX in anything bigger than a PA31 at Biggin, but always thought it must've been interesting in Bernie's Challenger :uhoh:

A skid? ... into a run-off area? Like they have a Grands Prix? Bit of wheel damage? That'll be ok then for the main event ...

Hang on a minute...isn't a 737-800 something like 40m long? And isn't it all off the end?? Oh well, what's a factor of 300% between friends ...

[Skydrol Leak]

Right engine,

As a "posh" airline pilot (BA) you obviously have to take all the crap that comes with it. True enough isn't it? Look at Beckham hahahaha...When you play like the big boys you have to act like the big boys...
By the way; anomoly is spelled anamoly and I know that the BA pilots spend a lot of time studying, but isn't the studying of your first language kind of a must?Flying comes secondary I believe. I don't really know since i am branched down to Ryanair level.

Peace

[BEagle]

Generic (not specific to any particular airline) comment.

Are the runway friction characteristics of these minor airports as well catalogued as those of major airports?

It's just that an 'explosion' after touchdown and a skid sounds awfully like aquaplaning and a 'slippery when wet' runway.

Some years ago, the UK AIP guidance to treat 'slippery when wet' runways as icy when they were actually were wet was replaced by the rather useless recommendation 'operators should make appropriate allowance'....:rolleyes:

We saw the result of that at Lulsgate a year or so ago - I wonder whether similar issues apply to Limoges?

[ray cosmic]

from the statement on the FR site:
Ryanair confirmed this afternoon (21st March 2008) that its flight FR1216 from Brussels Charleroi to Limoges in Western France, which landed on schedule at 16.00 (local), skidded after landing and the aircraft came to a stop approx. 10 metres off the end of the runway in a grass run-off area.Priceless.:p

Btw, I am always sad to see an aircraft incapacitated like this, no matter what airline. All the best wishes to the crew involved, hope you'll get through this ordeal in one piece.

[wiggy]

No, don't think it's a BA/Ryanair thing. More likely it's not reported as "Breaking News" in the UK because it happened in France and probably had mainly, if not exclusively, French pax. However most, most importantly BBC/SKY can't get lots of juicy TV footage from their helicopters.
I'm increasingly of the opinion that, especially with Sky News, news doesn't happen until they have pictures of it.

Edited to add: Just looked through a few of the French websites - seems their jurno's don't care much about the story either.

[wanchman]

feel sorry for those guys regardless, would be interesting to see where they were in their roster pattern and the duties they performed leading up to the incident. no doubt they ll be close on the 900hr 12 month limit but hey, april 1st is only around the corner and they ll be back to zero hours again, so no problems there then!!!!! :eek:

[smith]

Was interesting to note that the ryanair website provided a link to a photo of the stricken plane. Usually when something like this occurs the first thing that happens is the company logo is blanked out.

[TheOddOne]

Nice one. Did you notice the bit alongside about how RYR have posted record profits complete with a mugshot of MOL? I wonder if they paid for that alongside specially!

Also posted was the fact that the pax were mostly BELGIAN, as Charleroi is in BELGIUM. Like poor old Hercule Poirot, eternally mistaken for a Frenchman.

TOO

[Otto Nove Due]

METAR at 1500Z

LFBL 211500Z 33018G34KT 300V010 4000 R21/1400VP1500 R03/1100VP1500 RA SCT003 BKN006 05/04 Q0995 NOSIG=

Was it on 21 or 03? Could have been a strong tailwind if 21

[schoolkid]

Was it on 21 or 03?

Interesting you should say that Otto.
If you compare the released image on various media websites to Limoges Airport on Google Earth, the buildings in the background ,fitted with air ducts on the roof, would indeed suggest a 21 arrival to my untrained eye at least

[eidah]

http://62.134.190.240/site/notices/images/image002.jpg

I bet the crew arent thorwn into the media spotilight with a prepared statement

[Doors to Automatic]

Definitely a 21 arrival - you can see the taxiway on the photo (no taxiway at the end of 03).

[Captain Planet]

Right Engine said

Prediction - Nothing will be reported on the UK news channels.

I would love to know why (as a BA pilot). Whenever such a mishap occurs with a BA aircraft it will be BREAKING NEWS - BA CRASH IN XYZ.

Perhaps someone from the BBC/ITN/SKY could explain this anomoly....


Maybe because FR is an Irish airline??????

CP.

[hetfield]

@wo ping

:D:D:D:D:D:D

Good one

[Bigmouth]

Whenever such a mishap occurs with a BA aircraft it will be BREAKING NEWS - BA CRASH IN XYZ.
Right Engine - same goes for any major airline.

And Skydrol Leak: anomoly is spelled anamoly No, it's not. It's "anomaly".

[fly737]

Only the fact guys.

LFBL 21/03 LDA 2440m (beyond the glide 2170m)

LCTR ILS 21 (RVR min

Landing at 1600 LT (1500Z)

LIG SA 211500z 33018G34KT 300V010 4000 R21/1400VP1500
R03/1100VP1500 RA SCT003 BKN006 05/04
Q0995 NOSIG


330/18 X-WINC tailwind 8KTS Crosswind 16KTS
330/18G34 worse case (34) tailwind 15kts Crosswind 31KTS


Weather marginal to do the RNAV 03 (MIN 2000M).....would have been beter to hold or to take your ALT guys......

TEA AND BISCUITS i guess for the pilots????

[Otto Nove Due]

Don't forget though if they were only landing at 15Z then they would have been using the 1430Z METAR, which was much more benign

LFBL 211430Z 28016KT 4000 -RA SCT003 BKN006 08/07 Q0994 NOSIG=

Would be interesting to hear the last windcheck given by the tower

[FlyLowCost]

The aircraft involved is EI-CSV

[Visual Calls]

Yet another ryanair aircraft off the tarmac in a fortnight. And the incidents keep coming...
It's definitely 21 in that picture. The wind at the time is a minimum 9 knots tail with up to 16 knots in the gust. Nice call...
I hope the French do an investigation (unlike an IAA whitewash) that might actually ask why the crew felt the need to make the approach in outside limit conditions. Was it time pressure? Poor training? Incompetence? Lack of experience? Or is ryanair bashing to ask such questions? :ugh:

[Hudson Bay]

I would class this as another serious incident. As a matter of interest how many serious incidents has this company had in the last twelve months?

I can think of another one in Nock about 6 months ago. That makes 2. Anybody else?

[RMC]

Tea and biscuits interview...don't think so...bread and water (not Volvic).

[Leo Hairy-Camel]

Was it time pressure? Poor training? Incompetence? Lack of experience?
No, certainly not, highly unlikely, not possible.

I think the more compelling question is whether your grade school rhetoric reflects journalism of the most slovenly kind, especially since investigations have hardly even begun.
From Sky News:
Jean-Pierre Limousin, chairman of the chamber of commerce that manages Limoges airport, said: "A build-up of rain water on the runway seems to have caused the aircraft to slide on the slick tarmac."
Though possibly looking for a new job after the Easter break, M. Limousin joins me, Visual Calls, in urging you to take a rest from beating your little tom-tom and recall the physics of hydroplaning.

[A4]

....you to take a rest from beating your little tom-tom and recall the physics of hydroplaning.

So it's been proved that it hydroplaned already - nothing else?

Soaking wet, tailwind, limiting runway, low viz precluding favoured approach...... looks like all the holes lined up in this bit of cheese. Glad the only injuries are to peoples pride.

A4

[Visual Calls]

So Leo comes back to play? Ryanair must be getting worried about aircraft regularly falling off the black stuff if mick rolls out his tame poodle.

recall the physics of hydroplaning.

So let me get this right Leo, it was ok to land in a steady wind just on the limits, with gusts putting them outside? But oops, too bad they hydroplaned, well if they hadn't we could have overlooked the decision to land in gusty on-, and out of-, limit tailwind conditions. Perhaps Leo, you (and the pilots on the day) need to review your hydroplaning physics. Pay particular attention to the effect on groundspeed of landing in a max-limit and out of limit tailwind. :rolleyes:

[Leo Hairy-Camel]

Were you there, Visual Calls? Didn't think so. Stating presumption as fact, though sadly reminiscent of the majority of your posts, amounts to nothing more than fluff and coloured bubbles.

Lets wait for the investigation, shall we, and try to keep the offensiveness to a bare minimum in the meantime?

[RFusmoke]

One Q.??? Were you there?( you mentioned aquaplaning)

V C ..I think you hit a raw nerve !!!!!!!!!!!!

Typical Ryan Head ......don t you dare been offensive to them but its ok the other way around.
At least they landed on schedule so they will be only getting bashed for the overrun and not being late. (I m not assuming it was an overrun am I??????)

[the_hawk]

Leo, I thought the consensus was that on PPRuNe we don't wait for the investigation (while keeping the offensiveness to a bare minimum, of course). No need to chew it through, again.

28016KT is no tailwind and 892 is right that the latest windchecks from TWR will be interesting, but maybe we have the effect of a strong crosswind from the right with gusts veering even more to the right again, not so long after Hamburg...

[Otto Nove Due]

fly737, the wind was varying to 010 so it's possible that the tailwind was around 30kts if the 34kt gust was from 010

[speedrestriction]

Leo, your two comments are a bit at odds:

recall the physics of hydroplaning
then
Lets wait for the investigation



For some clear advice, click here (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=306748) to view the runway overrun thread in the Safetey, CRM and QA forum.

sr

[Fluffy flyer]

Just my 2 Cents/Pence worth.

I landed in LIG about 6 months back similar situation, except wind on my nose down the rwy, no gusty crosswinds.

Landed 21 very wet runway, thunderstorm had just passed through, aircraft skidded on the rwyway after touch down very difficult braking aquaplaned for some distance before I got controlled braking back.

LIG appears prone to this problem.

[BEagle]

Jean-Pierre Limousin, chairman of the chamber of commerce that manages Limoges airport, said: "A build-up of rain water on the runway seems to have caused the aircraft to slide on the slick tarmac."


Which does rather begin to sound as though the runway is technically 'slippery when wet' - and it was wet at the time.

If this fact has not been made known to the airport's users and they applied 'wet' rather than 'icy' LDR criteria, it is hardly surprising that the aircraft may have encountered an occasion when LDA < LDR......

A possible hazard of using these 'minor' airports is that their runway surface friction characteristics are not as well documented as those of major airports. And the cost of runway resurfacing will be a bigger chunk out of the airport owners' profits than it would be for one of the majors.

[Rananim]

Never land with a sizeable tailwind on a wet/contaminated runway..if its wet you can accept five knots but if contaminated,accept nothing but a headwind.Crosswind is 25 knots wet reducing to 5 for braking action poor.

Low cost carriers are particularly vulnerable in this risk-assessment..Captains carry min fuel because they live in fear of being hauled before the hypocritical and gutless management who publicly say"Safety is number one" but privately think"woe betide the pilot who screws up our schedule".
Short tunrarounds and high a/c utilization rates leave little room for holding and diversion.The airline is not unionized and the CEO a well-known totalitarian who neither knows or cares about anything but the bottom line.The pilot has to resist the temptation to dance to his tune and think only of the safety of his crew and passengers.
Carry the extra fuel,divert,put the schedule back 3 hours and fight the SOB in court.The regs are on your side.You will win.Has this unethical twit ever won in court?By playing his game and sliding off the end of the runway you only give him more ammunition to denounce pilots as overpaid fools.

If unsure about wet vs contaminated,apply this simple rule.
RERA=wet; RA/RA+= contaminated

[BEagle]

Perhaps that's going a bit far.

There are several factors here:

1. The runway condition. How accurate/up to date are the airport operator's coefficient values?
2. The surface wind. How accurate was the reported W/V?
3. Approach aids. Were all RWs available at the time?

If the only RW available due to cloud/vis/aids would require a downwind landing, that might have been acceptable on a bare, dry RW or one which was damp. Probably even wet unless it was, in reality, 'slippery when wet'.

The holes begin to line up. Given plenty of planning time and potential LDA reductions cross-checked by an experienced colleague, the likelihood of a diversion could have been assessed. Reasonable management would surely support extra fuel being carried to hold before diverting if conditions looked 50/50.

But if there really is a corporate culture which encourages aircraft commanders to push the limits in such circumstances, then the result is inevitable.

Fortunately no-one was hurt on this occasion.

[Leo Hairy-Camel]

But if there really is a corporate culture which encourages aircraft commanders to push the limits in such circumstances
There isn't.

Not in any circumstances.

[Right Engine]

I was right about the news void. My post is not about whether Ryanair or BA or any other company is 'safer' than others. I cannot understand why an incident like this would be headline news if it was BA, yet for Ryanair it is ignored by the press.

I was wrong about my spelling of anomaly.

:confused:

[virginpilot1087]

probably not a big media hit here because its an Irish airline not English, in happened in France and they got mud on the tyres, they did not destroy a 777! or 737! and no one had broken legs!

you cant even try to compair it to the BA crash, it was a bit slippy, they did not crash before the runway in a big ass Jet at one of our Major airports.

[GGV]

There isn't.

Not in any circumstances. Leo I have no wish to rehash what has been argued about for a long long time and will not be settled here. Nor do I wish to turn this into a needless slagging match.

HOWEVER you cannot ignore the fact that numerous FR pilots have indeed been of the opinion that corporate culture is "non-optimal" as a direct result of management behaviour. So your "There isn't" is an opinion to which you are welcome, but the "Not in any circumstances" assertion is a bit of a stretch (at a minimum how could you know?). What matters is NOT what you think, but the fact that there are FR pilots who believe that this is an issue. Your saying that it is 'not so' is as meaningless (and useless) as would my asserting it to be a fact.

But there is smoke. The question is "is there fire behind the smoke?". Too many people who were perceived by management to not be "on side" have "fallen by the wayside" to make such issues merely a matter of having a "bad press". Corporate culture involves perceptions of such events. Demoting pilots who declare themselves to be fatigued, or after incidents, etc. can be presented as 'strong no bull-**** safety management' - or in alternative ways.

Just saying 'it ain't so' does not respond effectively to those who claim to the contrary.

[Doors to Automatic]

I wonder if the Chief Pilot at FR has a couple of vending machines in his office, one for drinks and the other for biscuits in readiness for these sorts of situations? :p

[hetfield]

Must be vending machines, at FR tea and biscuits are not for free.

[RFusmoke]

Ryanairs OPs Man Part A doe s not say "Push the limit".However the management style from the top piles pressure on their crews to get the job done no matter what.Now how this is communicated is the question.
How much fuel you carry and land with for example !!!
Why did you divert and not try to land on poor BA?

Why were you late off blocks?

Why were you sick/Fatigued ????

Why did you burn so much fuel?

When a crew are under pressure of all of the above then decisions are made which can contribute to an accident.
NO,Not possible,UNDER Any Circumstances....FR Arrogance personified.....

(

[atmosphere]

I was right about the news void. My post is not about whether Ryanair or BA or any other company is 'safer' than others. I cannot understand why an incident like this would be headline news if it was BA, yet for Ryanair it is ignored by the press.

That's because the last BA aircraft involved in an incident fell out the sky, This Ryanair Aircraft simply fell off the runway.

[slip and turn]

No it was dropped out of the sky with so much inertia that it took a mile and a half plus 40m of grass to stop.

[Bearcat]

Leo....keep those updates going on your web site....no bluff and bluster, just as it is and we move on.

[george wardell]

I'm retired in France and no longer travel frequently by air but when I do it's with Ryanair, usually from Bergerac but I've travelled from Limoges. You guys must know this better than I do but my view is that this accident was something that has been waiting to happen and it's fortunate that no one was hurt. My gripe is the violence of Ryanair take-offs and landings. On my last trip to England, I switched from Ryanair to Easyjet airbus for an onward flight and I astonished by the smoothness of the way the latter got off the ground and back on. That's generally been my experience with airline travel. I tell myself that logically, Ryanair crews can't be suicidal but for the first time in travelling by air in 40 years, Ryanair (and only Ryanair) make me nervous.

[fmgc]

George, smoothness of TOs and landings is completely irrelevant.

Leo, how can you speculate that it is hydroplaning and then berate everybody else for not waiting for the investigation.

You really are either an amazing wind up or quite possibly one of the most eloquent at showing off your stupidity!

[preduk]

George,

As FMGC has stated, T-Os and Landings have really little to do with the quality of the airline. I have been in many BA aircraft that have landed fairly rough.

The main point of this thread isn't to point out the faults with the pilots, or how they lack skill. It's the amount of pressure management put on their pilots which may result in a serious accident when something is rushed in order to meet a target.

[michaelknight]

Wet runways, etc, the question is where did the aircraft touchdown? The runway in LFBL is in excess of 8,000 feet, plenty for the B737-800.

It's a good job they didn't overrun 03, or they would have been looking up at those funny looking approach lights!

MK

[RFusmoke]

LEO HAIRY CAMEL= MOL(or one of his muppet managers DOB EW etc)

[SpaceBetweenThoughts]

I suppose another question to ask ourselves though is given the level of equipment on board most aircraft of this type (RNAV/VNAV capability) why is it necessary to conduct an ILS with a tailwind onto a wet runway when it is far safer to conduct a VNAV approach to the reciprocal runway?

There are obviously certification issues involved but from a systems point of view a VNAV approach onto the other runway would probably have offered a much higher level of safety.

Obviously we will have to wait for the findings of the investigation but one comment I would make on previous comments about carriage of extra fuel etc - how do you know this was not a "tankering" sector?

I wish the crew and all involved well including Ryanair. Whatever axes we have to grind I wouldn't want to see any of my fellow aviators in any company involved in any sort of incident of this nature.

[Admiral346]

Well, A VNAV Approach might be fairly safe nowadays, however it only is considered a NON precision approach with the minima accordingly. With your normal CAT I ILS being 200' ceiling and between 800 and 550 m RVR, the nonprecision deals with minima around 450 to 800 ' ceiling and around 1,5 km visiblity. It always depends on the particular approach published. And given the weather, it simply might not have been an option. I don't know, I wasn't in that plane...

Nic

[bermudatriangle]

limoges airport is still closed.....suspect problems with runway surfacing/braking action...aircraft being diverted elsewhere..perhaps an indication of problems with the surface as opposed to airmanship.

[737tx]

Facilities And Services
-----------------------
lfbl Ad Closed
Flight Level From Sfc To Unl
Valid From 1605 21-mar-2008 To 2359 23-mar-2008: (b1834/08)

Lfbl Ad Reserved For Commercial Scheduled Flights And Sanitary Flights
2100-0500
Flight Level From Sfc To Unl
Valid From 1343 14-mar-2008 To 0500 29-mar-2008: (b1620/08)

[NARVAL]

My friendly thoughts to the Ryanair crew, and I hope they will face the following events with a professional attitude. I was well acquainted with Limoges, and the runway used (ILS approach, unavoidable with a low ceiling) is not flat, to say the least, with large puddles when the rain is strong, and at the end a very worrying declivity which if you overrun the end of that runway (to the south west) will certainly break the airplane definitely. Probably the crew knowing the airport chosed to veer into the grass with all passengers staying safe rather than to try and stop the plane in the very last centimeters of the overrun at the risk of going down the slope...Conjecture of course, but we have had such unusual bad weather with downpours every thirty minutes that it is quite possible that the runway was usable for the olympic swimming events.With some tailwind and gusts...the perfect trap.

[Nick NOTOC]

Hi Leo Hairy Cammel,

It's been so long I was getting worried for you.

First off all let's try not to jump to any conclusions, how much we like to, we can't blame FR for every incident that happens.
We should however note that over the past few weeks there have been a number of issues with FR incidents. This is someting that worries many people. (and should worry you as well)
There are several things to consider here:
1 FR has P***ed of so many people that the spotlight is on FR
2 FR has an unusual hing number of incidents
3 Any combination of the above.

Altough FR is commercially a good company, fact is that the working conditions are not as good as the commercial succes of the company.

IMHO we should let the investigation team do their work and react to that.

[fc101]

FMGC: George, smoothness of TOs and landings is completely irrelevant.

Maybe, but it does say something about how the aircraft are trated and flown. As SLF I can honestly say that Ryanair seems to have the attitude of "get them up, get them down, as fast as possible." I've not had a good landing with Ryanair.
However, I've not had a good landing in a 737-800 ... (w/KLM)

I've spoken to Ryanair crew (both cc and pilots) and I get the impression that they're under a lot and evne too much pressure from management. Sometimes the relationship between management and crews reminds me so much of Korean's CRM style a few yeasr ago.

Pressure, inexperience and a general feer in the compnay is not a good combinations. We in my little commuter airline have had incidents and proactively dealt with them. Ryanair "seem" to be happy allowing lots of minor incidents with the occasional pilot sacking.

IN my day job, I was told that "as captain (eventually!) the buck stops with you, however so may do 200 peoples lives, the companys reputation, your families and yours."

fc101
E145 driver

[sispanys ria]

Narval, the slope is on the other QFU. They used the R21.

[checkcheck]

There is NO undue pressure in Ryanair to make schedule/land when you should not etc.Every A/C is fitted with monitoring equipment which relays to the an outside agency,of any exceedence.Noone will intentionally breaks a limit, for it is career suicide,as it is in any Airline.
If a Capt feels under undue pressure,he should remove himself,or be removed from the seat.
For those Legacy carriers who think they are better than everyone else...
With regard to the BA accident,why was the AP left in for just a mad snatch at the controls at the last minute?If the Pilots were sitting there watching it,why no 'brace,brace','Mayday',or Pax evacuation?A disgrace.All will out.:bored:

[checkcheck]

I agree,let's stick to facts.That is,what actually happened.

[mrjet]

Can we please keep all posters calling themselves SLFs out of this discussion. You add nothing constructive. Read, but please don't post without any knowledge. A good landing is one that is in the touchdown zone, firm touchdown when needed. A pilots skill or an airlines management SHALL not and cannot be judged on the smoothness of his landings or takeoffs.

However, I agree 100% with flight international. It's time we start taking runway excursions seriously. They are not uncommom.

In the UK they don't even report braking action anymore. The crew is left completely on it's own. A notam stating the runway may be slippery when wet is nothing but ass covering by the authorities. All this leaves the pilots in a very tricky situation.

Time for some constructive action against runway excursions. ACTION FROM ALL PARTS INVOLVED.

[lgw_warrior]

George,

Please leave your crazy comments about bad take off's (???) and landings somewhere else,its the most ridiculous thing i have ever heard in my life,as proffesional pilots do you think we smack it into the rwy on purpose,for the craic? eg,i dont like this lot down the back,so lets not flare and bash it into the rwy.i dont think so,we all try and pull of a greaser,unless the situation dictates ie wet/contaminated rwy,where the Boeing FCOM recommends 'positive' contact,which means wheels on the ground and no messing around.

Again,we dont know all the facts in this case,it could have been pilot error,it could have been incorrectly reported wind,bad rwy surface or a combination.until the official report comes out,this website is Proffesional Pilots RumoUr NEtwork,where QUALIFIED proffesionals can exchange ideas,info and theories as to what happened,not a website where some SLF who had a dodgy landing once with FR can come up with the answer!

and George,fyi,

RWY = Runway,long bit of road we can land on
FLARE = the bit when we pull up just above the 'long road thing'(see above)
FCOM = instruction book for big aeroplane
WET/CONTAMINATED = means its a bit more slippy then when its dry
DRY = errr,thats obvious.

oh,and SLF = thats you george,Self Loading Freight.:rolleyes:

[NARVAL]

Syspanis ria,Thank you for reading me, but the runway at Limoges, unless there has been a recent earthquake, has both thresholds at the same altitude (21 and 03) but when you land on the 21, you first go UP (from 1275 ft to 1300 ft) than DOWN (to 1273 ft) but after the end of the runway (to the south west) there is a steep gradient, probably acceptable due to one of our famous french "dérogations". Sorry if my first remark was not clear (struggling with your beautiful language)
Check by choosing Limoges at
http://www.sia.aviation-civile.gouv.fr/html/frameset_aip_fr.htm

[birdonthewire]

Skavsta? Ciampino? Cork? Knock? East Mids recently? Now Limoges....?!
Not knocking the crews - it's a hard job and FR's training seems pretty thorough, but the company culture is just primed for an accident. They've had enough close calls, must be the luck of the Irish. Hope this one makes O'Leary think twice.

[Magplug]

Can I just say that from my perspective of being a 737 Captain of some years......

That it takes quite some misjudgement and/or mishandling to run serviceable '73 off the far end of a 2440m LDA runway... even with a plucky tailwind on a wet surface.

Another Ryanair rushed approach perhaps ? It won't be long... they will kill someone soon. It won't be anyone of my family however.

[Cloud Bunny]

lgw warrior - what a nasty posting!

Not so much nasty as just the frustration I'm sure we all feel time to time when reading this site and people with no idea chip in with useless information that has no relevance or constructive input. There could be any number of factors involved in this incident that have not yet been put into the public domain so to immediately question the Pilots is just so infuriating it makes me boil.
Just because this guy (George) has had a bad landing or two - so what! He's just had the misfortune and this bears absolutely no relevamce to this discussion or indeed the ability of Pilots at Ryanair. I have landed in some hideous conditions (most recently in the last couple of weeks) and have sat next to Captains who have pulled off some quite truely stunning landings in said conditions. It just shows the mentality of some SLF towards the Low Cost sector - Low Cost DOES NOT mean Low Standards.
Sure FR is not the most perfect employer in the world but then no-one is and we all have gripes that are aired here but the professionalism of the crews should not be bought into question-we are out there doing the very best job we can to the very best of our ability no matter who we work for every day we turn up for work.
I'm still a young Pilot both in terms of age (24) and hours (1300 or so on 737NG) and so still have a lot to learn but I am totally fed up to the back teeth with my professionalism and ability being bought into question just because I work for Ryanair by people who don't have the slightest clue of what is involved in getting them from A-B safely and assume that just because the odd landing is firm it must mean that the whole airline is staffed by muppets who should not be in possession of a Licence.
Rant over.......back to the discussion, I think it's obvious - I blame the Pilots! :E

[Otto Nove Due]

Just a note on the recent FR excursions - with this airline having so many more flights per day than a lot of airlines, many of these to smaller airports, it's statistically more likely that they have a couple more incidents, so this needs to be kept in mind when bashing them. I fly FR a lot and although I despise them for their greed when it comes to charging their passengers (then again aren't most airlines!), I have yet to have a bad experience, including hard landing, with them.

[merlinxx]

Cor blimey must mean I've got to back to school! I like the definitions, I've had to use same in my 1st half of my 40+ yr history with certain 'bucket&spaders' specialists.


To all you negative posters:

DGCA will give us all the reasons, lets wait and no 'BS' the situation as you all seem to think is appropriate.

Nope I'm not part of FR, nor would I choose to use them, but let the folks answer to the DGCA.

[08KaQAjQ]

Just my experience with Limoges.

I have land at LFBL 10s of times in different 737s incl 737-800. When that rwy is wet it is VERY slippery.

Next to investigation into the flight details, I do think there should be an thorough investigation into the runway at LFBL.
I would not be surprised if the slippery runway is THE mayor cause of this incident.

Good nobody got hurt!

[ayroplain]

Have trained in fr for many years. Here is my theory and speculation: Crew had inadequate knowledge of runway surface conditions, did not calculate last TWC as they were short finals. Pushed on, possibly with wrong vfly, boy I've seen that a million times, touched down fast due to incorrect technique, boy I've seen that a million times, fast and flat chopping the power at 10 ft. Throw in a little water on the runway, slow selection of reverse and voila! Whose to blame? Pilots probably. Sorry guys, but this one has been coming a long time.

Pomposity definition:
Lack of elegance as a consequence of being pompous and puffed up with vanity

[Cloud Bunny]

Cloud bunny what a beautiful man you are,and that name so sweet like winegums. Im heard the plane never crashed,its all bollox

Okay, maybe I've had one glass of wine too many with my meal this evening but I really do not understand what you are saying here.
I'm not saying there wasn't an incident and that Ryanair is amazing and we are all infallible and all perfect, my gripe is with pointless, unconstructive posts based on no or very little knowledge.
Yeah, maybe the pilots screwed it up and if they did then we all learn from it - isn't that what should happen with all incidents/accidents?
Please can you clarify what you are getting at?

[Basil]

I think she fancies you ;):):}

[BEagle]

08KaQAjQ wrote:

Just my experience with Limoges.

I have land at LFBL 10s of times in different 737s incl 737-800. When that rwy is wet it is VERY slippery.

Whilst I will never fly Ryanair, this incident seems to have very little to do with the airline, but everything to do with the runway friction characteristics.

The only siginificant fact regarding Ryanair is that, by using these minor airports whose runway friction characteristics are less well known than those of major airport runways, they are ipso facto more at risk from the unknown when operating into these minor airports in poor weather.

[Cloud Bunny]

I think she fancies you

Yeah, I get that a lot!:}

[slip and turn]

Damn those extra glasses of wine and hot cross buns :} ... there must be a hundred fingers poised over the button ... but whats the correct call? .... QDM or QDR :p

[Bearcat]

what drivel in previous posts

FR...reporting aircraft on ramp being readied for service .

FR...on their web site reporting factually as it is...well done. Leo's takin the cue.

[VONKLUFFEN]

Not to much rocket science. To many incidents lately is the combination of fear of management ( unstable approaches, no go around when needed etc) probably not enough support on info to new airports, low experience time in the cockpits etc you name it, all typical of a low cost and fast growing airlines where money talks and not safety culture. Pilots are always the last line of defence. Nothing to do with pilots capacity or age to perform.

[Pilot Pete]

Crew possibly land with >15kts tailwind knowing nothing until at the earliest the flare and depending on experience levels maybe not properly recognising the symptoms at all. Wild, ridiculous speculation I would say. Even if they realised in the flare they had the option to go around.did not calculate last TWC as they were short finals. Most trainers would know that Progress Page 2 has the component you mention. No need to try to calculate anything on short final......of course it is recommended for the PM to have Progress Page 2 displayed during approach in RYR isn't it?

PP

[top9un]

I would think most trainers would also know that aircraft generated spot winds are up to 40 seconds out of date and may bear no relation to the actual surface wind.

[richarjm]

Hey Pete,
It is Ryanair policy that the performance page figures are not to be used as a reason to go around, only winds from the tower.

[vector3]

All PR is good PR says MOL. Guess he's happy now :)

[Aerostar600A]

Why did they need to 'evacuate' using slides? rather than a less urgent pre-cautionary disembarkation using the front air stair.

[fireflybob]

It is Ryanair policy that the performance page figures are not to be used as a reason to go around, only winds from the tower.

Not quite I think. Tower reported winds must be used for calculation of LDR so for example you are not allowed to justify landing because Progress 2 shows a 5 kt tailwind (say) although the tower are giving a 10 kt tailwind.

On the other hand if you have planned for a 10 kt tailwind (as thats what the tower are reporting) but the ACTUAL wind as displayed in Progress 2 is more than 10kt tail you should not be landing! (Surely thats common sense?)

[A4]

.....most trainers would also know that aircraft generated spot winds are up to 40 seconds out of date and may bear no relation to the actual surface wind.

Really? Are you talking about the PROG 2 Page TWC (sadly lacking on Airbus - but TAS minus GS gives a pretty instant TWC) or the wind arrow/readout on the Nav Display (I assume B738 has this). Why on earth would it be 40 seconds delayed? That's about as much use as a chocolate teapot.

It's correct to say that the readout can become "corrupted" in the flare/ground effect but tower winds + the ND readout/arrow should give a pretty good indication as to what i's likely to be on the runway. If the surface wind is straight across but you've got 20 knots+ TWC at 100' RA how ae you going to lose the extra groundspeed. Simply saying "well the tower wind was only 5 knots straight across" doesn't exempt you fom judgement/airmanship! Especially if the runway looks like a mirror cos it's so wet!

A4

[Aerostar600A]

fireflybob,

Dont forget to consider the fact that IRS can and do drift, even with GPS updating! When you suspect an IRS drift, wind data should be treated with caution. Tower reported winds always have priority.

[Bearcat]

firebob, in the stewards equiry your progress page wind is not worth a knats. Say you have drifting IR's, this wind can be off a fair few knots. If the tower is giving a 10 knot tail wind and your box is showing 12 you are totally legal to land and this is where you earn the extra bucks as a capt using ones experience whether to continue or throw it away.

[Fluffy flyer]

08aQAjQ .....number 84 post


I have landed many times on rwy 21 and I have to agree with your post number 84 this rwy is very slippy when its wet.

I agree this rwy needs to be investigated in light of this incident.

[fireflybob]

It's correct to say that the readout can become "corrupted" in the flare/ground effect but tower winds + the ND readout/arrow should give a pretty good indication as to what i's likely to be on the runway. If the surface wind is straight across but you've got 20 knots+ TWC at 100' RA how ae you going to lose the extra groundspeed. Simply saying "well the tower wind was only 5 knots straight across" doesn't exempt you fom judgement/airmanship! Especially if the runway looks like a mirror cos it's so wet!

A4, agree 100% -

Dont forget to consider the fact that IRS can and do drift, even with GPS updating! When you suspect an IRS drift, wind data should be treated with caution. Tower reported winds always have priority.
Today 10:35

Aerostar600A, I am not sure your comment is technically correct. Yes IRS can and does drift but with GPS update is this really going to significantly affect the wind readout? Anecdotally my experience tells me that the wind data on Progress 2 is accurate. But surely the point is that all factors should be taken into account. If you have planned for a 10 kt tail and the wind machine shows a lot more tail at 100 ft I would be carefully evaluating my options!!

[Aerostar600A]

Firefly,

Wind limitations, whether its x-wind, autoland limits etc are all based on tower reported winds only. FMS generated winds are nice to have, but they are not the holy grail....Why are you planning on landing in 10kts tailwinds anyhow??

[fireflybob]

Wind limitations, whether its x-wind, autoland limits etc are all based on tower reported winds only. FMS generated winds are nice to have, but they are not the holy grail....Why are you planning on landing in 10kts tailwinds anyhow??

Yes dear boy, I know that!!

Operators may have to land with tailwind on certain runways because there is no instrument approach on the reciprocal runway and/or the weather (cloud and/or vis) is such that a circling approach is not possible. With certain operations 15 kt tailwinds are permissable for landing.

On a further point, nothwithstanding what an individual company's operations manual may state and the rigours of Performance A, I would suggest that aircraft commanders should take into account ALL available information (including FMC winds) when deciding whether it is safe or not to land (by the way, this comment is NOT referring to this incident since we do not have all the facts) - I am sure the lawyers would have a field day witht this one in the event of a serious accident in this situation.

Hope this helps.

[Aerostar600A]

Thanks old man.....

Happy tailwind landings.

[Pilot Pete]

Maybe I should clarify. If I get a tower reported wind in limits and the FMC tells me (via my F/O calling it) in the last hundred feet that I have a tailwind out of limits I will be going around.....

top9unI would think most trainers would also know that aircraft generated spot winds are up to 40 seconds out of date and may bear no relation to the actual surface wind.

Could you post the link to the reference in your B737-800 manual that says that please? Mine says, with a picture of Progress Page 2, and I quote HEADWIND or TAILWIND
Displays the present headwind or tailwind component. Note the word 'present', which I interpret as meaning 'at that instant'. There is no mention of any limitations or errors.

PP

[Bearcat]

i landed on a 13000ft rwy recently with a twr reported 10kt tail wind ....fmc was telling us it was 15kts......on gate there was significent drift on IR's.

Now Pilot Pete, should I hand in my commanders ticket?

Wood and trees comes to mind......

[despegue]

Be aware that the wind information by tower is also not always accurate, especially in more southern countries...

A good commander will take-in all possible weather/wind info, add it to the reported runway condition and length and decide accordingly to land or to fly-away from it.
That said, this is always easier said than done, and to the Pprune-inquisition: go play somewhere else with your flightsim. Professional flight-crew know to hold their judgement untill all facts are known. Basic airmanship it's called.

[A4]

Be aware that the wind information by tower is also not always accurate, especially in more southern countries...

Without wishing to initiate thread creep, I agree with the above. IMO the biggest culprit is IBZ. "Calm" often in reality means 10 tail. I've heard of an aircraft refusing to accept the excessive tailwind on the approach/surface (others were landing....) requesting 06 instead but in effect being told to "get lost" and ended up diverting to PMI.

This is exactly the sort of scenario which starts to increase the pressure on crews and judgement can become compromised. If ATC try to cajole you - remember it's for their benefit not yours. Stick to your guns - don't allow your judgement to be compromised!


A4

[fireflybob]

IMO the biggest culprit is IBZ. "Calm" often in reality means 10 tail. I've heard of an aircraft refusing to accept the excessive tailwind on the approach/surface (others were landing....) requesting 06 instead but in effect being told to "get lost" and ended up diverting to PMI.

I wonder if ATC really understood what the problem was?

Reminds me of a fatal windshear accident to a B727 landing at JFK (I think) in the late 1960s or early 1970s. The previous a/c after landing told ATC in fairly strong terms that they needed to change the runway. ATC replied "Where I am sitting it's 15 kts down the runway". The a/c replied by saying I don't care where you are sitting I still think you should change the runway to RW XX. The next a/c on the approach was advised but crashed half a mile short of the runway.

In the report it transpired that the controllers on duty did not understand what windshear was and that this could be a problem even if the wind was 15kts down the runway. This was not there fault - they had not received any training concerning windshear. One of the recommendations of the report was that windshear was covered in any ATCOs training.

[kick the tires]

Fireflybob,

I've never ever ever heard of 15 kts TWC limitations.

care to elaborate?

[fireflybob]

I've never ever ever heard of 15 kts TWC limitations.

Have flown for several companies where 15kt tailwind ops have been approved. So long as the data is available (ie the AFM information shows up to 15kts tail) then this is permitted subject to the usual caveats.

As an aside when Brittania Airways were the first UK operator to put the B737-200 on the UK register they asked Boeing to provide AFM data for 15kts tailwind component for take off and landing since the graphs only went up to 10kts. I believe they had to pay for this but it was money well spent.

As regards the take off situation we had an instruction that it was preferable to take off downwind rather than into wind where an emergency turn was involved in the event of engine failure after V1. Casein point was Malaga - better to take off downwind towards the sea with a tailwind rather than into wind towards all the high terrain.

Hope this helps.

[Funnel Cloud]

In my company we also do 15kts tailwind landings on certain 'approved' airfields, otherwise it's 10kts. These are the airports that have long runways and normally only an instrument approach in one direction.

With regards to tower reported winds: It's all so nice.....in theory. But I also remember a topic here on PPRuNe not so long ago, about tower reported winds at Spanish airports. They always say 'calm' when it's in their interest, i.e. then there's no need to change the runway. In reality you can definately expect a reasonable tailwind.

After operating to these kind of places we generally know at what airports you can rely on ATC reports and at what places you can't. This definately happens in Spain but I would also not rely on the smaller French airfields (like the ones Ryanair flies to) too much. Don't believe the TWR reported winds are holy and the FMC is not to be used!

[brownstar]

just thought i'd add some.
No one seems to have mentioned how much of a 'dog' the -800 is to land with the winglets on. All you need is some gusting winds, some fantasy wind report from the tower, too smooth a landing on a wet runway then your margins are reduced. Throw in the winglets and your casting the dice!

[Fredairstair]

P Pete,

Next time you do a crosswind landing, ask your mate (PM) to have a look at the wind arrow or value on PP2 when you squeeze a bit of rudder in. It's interesting how the values change.

Regards,

Fred

[despegue]

Sad sad sad Morning Glory. A bit jealous of the ex-Sabenien skills maybe?!
These ex Sabena guys ARE aces my friend, and you can learn a hell of a lot of them. And indeed, if you can't fly (not simply following a magenta cross on the PFD), then they would let you know, and try to improve your basic skills. I almost never use F/D if in VMC, why on earth would I ?!
CRM nightmare?! Au contraire mon ami.

[top9un]

all indicated data is subject to a damping cycle to prevent distortions caused by changes in instantaneous inputs from the sensors. according to the manufacturers ( Smiths GEC ) this could be up to 40s but could also be less.

Next time you taxi off stand, get the PM to let you know when the GS readout starts. you'll get some idea how long the cycle is for that phase of flight (taxi). Might only be 5s but it won't be instantaneous.

If you want to talk about company manuals, try finding the tyre pressures in the part B!! Tyre pressure is an important factor with wet runways, but it's not in the part B, since it isn't a need to know value, so you might not find it.

If that isn't in the technical manual then why do you suppose fmgc update rates will be?

Also, a quick study of JAROPS reveals that the wind componant to be used is the reported wind.

Prog page 2 is useful, but on touchdown I'd rather not be using the 1000' spot wind.

[rogerg]

I think that some of the previous posters forget that their job is to provide a safe, comfordable flight for the people that pay the wages, and not to provide a demonstration of their exceedingly great skills. If the two coincide that is a bonus.

[schoolkid]

Lets just say, well I think they thought they were top guns, never used autopilot or FD's and thought every FO was incapable of flying the plane. CRM nightmare. Bet my last dollar it was one of these guys in the LHS.

Have to disagree with you Morning glory.
While RYR have their faults, these do not lie with their flight deck crew.Any RYR crew that I have ever come across have been as professional and personable as any other operator.

[MorningGlory]

:ouch:
Your opinion schoolkid. I have come across both excellent and dross in both seats in FR.

As far as the Sabena guys go. Yep I think I may have been a bit harsh in my judgement, and did not intend to insult anyone, I will therefore edit my previous post. They were undoubtedly very good handlers, I agree.

Just found some of them, sometimes, a bit too willing to unnecessarily prove to the other pilot how great they were when conditions and work load didn't really call for it.

Snam you do make me laugh. Don't be naive and ridiculous. Do you have any command experience? quite funny though I must say...:ok:

[schoolkid]

Your opinion schoolkid. I have come across both excellent and dross in both seats in FR.

MG,
I think it is fair to say that this would be applicable to just about any Operator out there.Even going on just some of the posts you see on these forums from time to time, from apparently CPL holders. RYR would not be alone in having the odd rebel in the organisation.

[Three Yellows]

What's happening today at Limoges?

According to the airport's own website Af seem to have cancelled their eight flights today, but FR still seem to be operating their two flights.

[Bearcat]

schoolkid
Quote:
Your opinion schoolkid. I have come across both excellent and dross in both seats in FR.
MG,
I think it is fair to say that this would be applicable to just about any Operator out there.Even going on just some of the posts you see on this forums from time to time, from apparently CPL holders, RYR would not be alone in having the odd rebel in the organisation.

Ditto

[CIPO]

I have flown with a lot of ex Sabena Capts who are now with FR. They are extremely competent & are very good handling pilots. They do indulge in the raw data stuff which is great, do it myself when the time is right.
However i always got the impression their opinion was that Sabena training was second to none. We are a cut above the rest kinda thing going on..... They didn't seem to trust the guy/girl in the right seat so much.

Not with all of them but the vast majority...........
Didn't like that much..........:hmm:

[LIMpass]

Travelled on this flight - EI DAF 'City of Nykoping'
Conditions - low cloud, rain and crosswind on a bumpy approach.
Landed HARD and FAST and kept on going, straight.
Left wheel smoked.
Ran out of runway.
Emergency evac into atrocious weather, gusting rain from right of runway.
RH engine almost in the mud.
Lucky to be alive.

IMO - we landed too far down a very wet runway in marginal conditions. Flights are nomally landed/taxi-ing when level with terminal/tower, look at the distance on google earth from there to the end of the runway! But what do I know, you tell me?

By the way, RYR "incident" pr contains at least one absolute factual lie.

[LIMpass]

One other query - how fast does it suggest the plane was travelling when it left the runway in order for the windows to be covered in mud forward of the wheels?

[Rizzio]

Interesting to hear from someone who was actually on this flight, Limpass. What was the lie on the RYR press release?

(Am myself a regular RYRer at Limoges)...

[OyYou]

What's happening today at Limoges?

According to the airport's own website Af seem to have cancelled their eight flights today, but FR still seem to be operating their two flights.Errr.. Air France quote on their website that cancellations are due to ' a labor dispute'

regards

[Greek God]

The photo shows fwd & aft doors open and slides delpoyed but o/wing exits closed were they used during the evac & how was that side of the event handled?

[LIMpass]

Over wing emergency exits were not used. I was forward of them so do not know if any attempt was made to use them. Passengers did not remove shoes - as is suggested by emergency leaflet - just as well in the circs.
RH chutes were unstable in the wind, ie did not remain on the ground and could have been a real danger to a light passenger or child using them on their own.

[maybepilot]

LIMpass,

how was the evacuation handled by the crew?
Was it initiated by the cockpit as you can recall?
What did the crew do/say just after stopping?What happened inside the aircraft?

[lederhosen]

As ever some interesting questions are raised by this incident.

Obviously with hindsight they should never have attempted the approach or more realistically at some point they should have gone around.

Any discussion about Ryanair always brings out a colourful range of emotions from the usual parties. Fact is the weather was unfavourable and the runway slippery. If we assume flaps 40, medium braking action and autobrake 3 my performance figures (for the 737-700) indicate a landing distance just under 2300 metres for a ten knot tailwind.

I Know you can argue the other way using max manual braking, perfect test pilot technique etc. But with a tailwind component a bit higher than expected, then the conditions were at best marginal. Reversers a bit late and you have a very similar situation to Southwest in Chicago or Air France in Toronto.

Our job is to use all the information at our disposal. Whilst accepting the caveats about progress page 2 wind information I certainly would not ignore it, particularly if the runway is wet! If in doubt go-around. Easier said than done, but echoing the thoughts of a poster on another thread we need to be more go-around minded.

With tailwind our manual clearly states Vref +5. If the tower reports a gusting crosswind varying between 260 and 310 for runway 21 I would be interested to know what Ryanair or other companies recommend adding to Vref.

I look forward to the official report but in the mean time hope we can all learn from this.

Happy landings!

[LIMpass]

I just wrote a long and detailed reply to maybepilot but I'm afraid the forum logged me out and lost it, unless the moderator can find it.

[Doors to Automatic]

LIMpass - do you know how far in you touched down?

[captplaystation]

LIMpass, if you find the time perhaps you could try again, I think we would all appreciate.It will make an "interesting" comparison with the "official" version.
However I assume the mods would NOT have a problem with your posting, they can occasionaly be a bit sensitive to any posting which may show RYR up in a poor light. This could be due to A - the possibility of legal action B- advertising revenue gratefully received for those lovely informative little banner ads you see above C- a bit of both.
As far as I am aware the PIC was a recently appointed IRE / TRE, so forget the inexperience scenario. Of course this also means he could (probably was ) be line-training which opens up a few other avenues of discussion. Just to reassure the Sabena lovers (or haters) he wasn't a Belge, but you are fairly close ( Geography wise).

[limagolf]

Captplaystation

You don't need experience to be IRE/TRE in Ryanair.:)

[captplaystation]

I wish that WAS only a joke.
Can't entirely contradict that remark.

[LIMpass]

"LIMpass - do you know how far in you touched down?"

I cannot say for definite. However, having seen another flght land there in normal conditions I surmise that we landed further in than it did. It seems unlikely we were in contact with the runway all the way from that point to where the plane finally ended up. But then speed has to be taken into account and we were really travelling.

[in my last airline]

Pilots in general carry too touch speed into the landing. Vfly plus some for wife and kids. I would say that maybe 1 in 10 ryr pilots touch down at ref. (next time u fly check ). This is mostly due to incorrect technique. The 8 and 900 both have an extra 5 kts built in for tail strike protection so there is no room for extra speed, tail wind, wet runway, long landing and in correct technique. I will bet a months wages that incorrect technique is a factor as was the Emirates tail strike in SA 3 years ago.

[Catabolic IBS]

"Pilots in general carry too touch speed into the landing. Vfly plus some for wife and kids. I would say that maybe 1 in 10 ryr pilots touch down at ref. (next time u fly check ). This is mostly due to incorrect technique. The 8 and 900 both have an extra 5 kts built in for tail strike protection so there is no room for extra speed, tail wind, wet runway, long landing and in correct technique. I will bet a months wages that incorrect technique is a factor as was the Emirates tail strike in SA 3 years ago."

The FCTM states that the Gust factor Should not be bled off on touchdown so it does appear that this rule is not hard and fast.

Re selecting Reverse thrust quickly/immediatly on touchdown also has its pitfalls. Once reverser selected you cannot do a Go-Around/Balked landing so in effect you are commiting yourself to the landing roll....is that always wise?? Perhaps get a second or two feel of the runway state and then get the reversers out....just a thought.

FCTM page 1.13

"The minimum command speed setting with Autothrottle disconnected is VREF+5 knots. The gust correction should be maintained to touchdown while the steady headwind correction should be bled off as the airplane approaches touchdown"

[fireflybob]

Re selecting Reverse thrust quickly/immediatly on touchdown also has its pitfalls. Once reverser selected you cannot do a Go-Around/Balked landing so in effect you are commiting yourself to the landing roll....is that always wise?? Perhaps get a second or two feel of the runway state and then get the reversers out....just a thought.


Catabolic IBS, I hear what you are saying but cannot go along with that. If I am landing on a wet runway I would want to get reverse in ASAP. If you are going to wait a second or two you are using up lots of runway! (If you have doubts about the runway state then you should not be there in the first place).
Also if by any chance the speedbrake has not been armed (not entirely unheard of) selection of reverse thrust will deploy the speedbrakes which are very necessary to achieve the scheduled landing distance.

Also whilst we are talking about reverse thrust maintain at least reverse idle until you are sure you can stop of the runway. If you cancel reverse it takes time to get the engine back in reverse config again - could make all the difference.

[TolTol]

Just a note about the autobrake and reverse thrust relationship on the 737NG. Selecting reverse thrust when using autobrakes does not increase the deceleration rate. Autobrake pressure is reduced to maintain a fixed deceleration rate.

[sleeper]

quote: Just a note about the autobrake and reverse thrust relationship on the 737NG. Selecting reverse thrust when using autobrakes does not increase the deceleration rate. Autobrake pressure is reduced to maintain a fixed deceleration rate. Unquote

True for the lower settings. But what about brakes max?

[Jack's a dull boy]

Not quite correct in this example TolTol.

The a/c will indeed reduce wheel auto braking upon selection of reverse, if and only if it knows there is plenty of runway ahead of you, (based on IRS position).

If you are in a situation where an over-run is likely, selecting reverse will improve deceleration. Wheel auto-braking will remain at a continuous rate (or even increase above its selected setting, although I'm not sure about that one)

[Dit]

Where does that info come from? My 737NG FCOM only says

"Four levels of deceleration can be selected for landing. However, on dry runways, the maximum autobrake deceleration rate in the landing mode is less than that produced by full pedal braking.

After landing, autobrake application begins when:
• both forward thrust levers are retarded to IDLE
• the main wheels spin–up.

Note: Landing autobrake settings may be selected after touchdown prior to
decelerating through 60 kts of ground speed. Braking initiates immediately
if the above conditions are met.

To maintain the selected landing deceleration rate, autobrake pressure is reduced as other controls, such as thrust reversers and spoilers, contribute to total deceleration. The deceleration level can be changed (without disarming the system) by rotating the selector. The autobrake system brings the airplane to a complete stop unless the braking is terminated by the pilot."

[sleeper]

????The a/c will indeed reduce wheel auto braking upon selection of reverse, if and only if it knows there is plenty of runway ahead of you, (based on IRS position).???

This is a new one for me. When did that modification appear? I dare state it is not the case.

[despegue]

Jack's a Dull boy,

A bit early for an April fools day joke no?

IRS'es measuring how much distance left?! maybe on A380, not on B737.

[Mr Good Cat]

And since IRS posn (not GPS) is not often very effin' accurate at the end of a sector, you have to ask the question who would dream up such a modification!

I stand to be corrected, but methinks this guy is tellin' porkies ;-):8

[captplaystation]

If you have Autobrake 1, 2, 3 or Max selected, and you are aquaplaning, selecting Reverse thrust WILL sure as hell increase the deceleration.
You can select any deceleration level you like, but if the wheels are skidding along on top of the water you better start using CFM.
I'm with you on that one Firefly Bob, R/W is used at an alarming rate even in reverse idle,never mind forward idle, and too many of our guys do not do what Boeing recommends already ( hence why I give away shortish R/W landings only to bods I know and trust from previous experience)
Correct technique is. . . . . Mainwheel Touchdown - Unlock Reversers
Smoothly lower nose gear ( not Air Algerie method) whilst applying reverse thrust to 1st or 2nd ( or perhaps I should say 2nd or 3rd detent) as required to avoid messing up the blue and yellow with brown. . . . inside and outside the cockpit.
If you do any different, I don't want to be in the back the day you land in Blackpool/ Lubeck / Derry/ Altenburg / Bournemouth / Bristol or even Limoges I guess.

[Pilot Pete]

Just to echo the above comments, from the FCTM;
Immediate initiation of reverse thrust at main gear touchdown and full reverse thrust allow the autobrake system to reduce brake pressure to the minimum level.

Since the autobrake system senses deceleration and modulates brake pressure
accordingly, the proper application of reverse thrust results in reduced braking for a large portion of the landing roll. The importance of establishing the desired reverse thrust level as soon as possible after touchdown cannot be overemphasized. This minimizes brake temperatures and tire and brake wear and reduces stopping distance on very slippery runways.

Reverse Thrust Operation
After touchdown, with the thrust levers at idle, rapidly raise the reverse thrust levers up and aft to the interlock position, then to the number 2 reverse thrust detent. Conditions permitting, limit reverse thrust to the number 2 detent. The PM should monitor engine operating limits and call out any engine operational limits being approached or exceeded, any thrust reverser failure, or any other abnormalities.

Maintain reverse thrust as required, up to maximum, until the airspeed approaches 60 knots. At this point start reducing the reverse thrust so that the reverse thrust levers are moving down at a rate commensurate with the deceleration rate of the airplane. The thrust levers should be positioned to reverse idle by taxi speed, then to full down after the engines have decelerated to idle.

In my experience (not with the airline in question), mistakes in the above procedure are very common. These include delaying reverse application until all the wheels are on the ground, delaying deployment to detent 2 once reverse idle has been applied (if they have briefed this as their 'plan') and stowing the reversers completely and immediately upon hearing the 60kt call, or stowing them when they hear "I have control" during the landing roll.....

PP

[in my last airline]

You really must not wait to see how braking conditions are before you select reverse thrust because, the engines come out of approach idle 2 seconds after touchdown, then your spool up time to 2nd or 3rd detent takes forever. Get the reverse on asap and make sure you touchdown at ref or ref plus gust. This will definitely save you 100 metres of stopping distance. When i said 1 in 10 pilots at ryr touchdown fast, it would apply to many other operators too. It is such a shame that after pilots come out of training they change their landing technique.

[parsi]

Yestrday's Irish Times (Weekend Section) has an article by a passenger on the flight.

They contradict Rynairs statement that folk were calmly bussed to the terminal and mention that like everyone else they were left hanging around in the rain and then had to walk.

[captplaystation]

So, a "normal end" for a Ryanair flight then at least.

[hetfield]

Yeah,

"on schedule".

[wifeofawannabe]

as someone who works in broadcast news i can tell you this is something we are very much interested in. but we rely on tips from people inside the industry ie you. British Airways always generates more news because it is more prestigious than ryanair, however ryanair are in no way less newsworthy. and as for the person who suggested the news-hacks weren;'t on the ball because it was bank holiday, on the contrary this is the absolute time you can guarantee coverage.. go on, call your friendly newsdesk.. and in case anyone gets the wrong idea, i am a pilot, my husband is a pilot and i want aviation reported properly in the uk..

[RAT 5]

There is another braking technique; recommended when required. Apply reverse thrust as stated before. If the a/c is not slowing as required, in conjunction with A/B's, apply left & right feet to upper part of rudder pedals and push, while keeping reverse thrust at max. Reduce reverse thrust to idle by taxi speed, to stop engines exploding, but keep said pressure on brakes until a/c stops. Then you should get the combined effort of brakes & reverse thrust.
Let's keep it simple folks.

[A4]

Hear, hear RAT!

One of the findings of the QF "golf course" accident at Bangkok was a lack of awareness amoungst crews regarding retardation when experiencing aquaplaneing. QF had adopted a policy of Reverse idle, reduced flap and an intermediate autobrake setting to save money. Less engine wear,less fuel, less noise.... and it worked, they saved several million dollars in the 2-3 years before the accident.

However, this SOP of rev idle/autobrake became so ingrained that some pilots stated they had never done a landing at more than rev idle since they had been in the company. So does it become just a motor program? When you suddenly find yourself aquaplaneing, will you have the capacity to actually take full reverse........ because that is the ONLY thing that is going to slow you down.....and DON'T DELAY in selecting it.

Ironically, my son is watching "Aircrash Investigation" about the Air France A340 at Toronto as I type. A 17 second delay in selection of reverse on a saturated runway....... If it's WET, WET, WET be prepared to take FULL reverse!

Fly safe,

A4

[PPRuNe Radar]

Some more pics here of the Ryanair plough

http://www.francoflyers.org/2008/03/limoges-airport.html

[janus627]

wow. will the crew have to clean it up themselve?

[Roy Bouchier]

I was very relieved to read Rat 5's post. I really thought that, reading all the erudite theories of how to stop an airplane on the runway, in the years since my retirement, the mechanics of the matter had changed.
I think not. I recall writing an ops manual wherein I stated that "On balance, the company would prefer that you make a firm arrival in preference to greasing it on and floating gracefully off the end of the runway."
Rat 5's technique would still work pretty well I fancy.

[captplaystation]

Seeing how wet the ground was, makes me think the speed at the end of the R/W may have been fairly substantial , as I imagine that goo was fairly effective as a retardation device. Kinda bad news we don't have shoes as part of our "uniform allowance". . . Ha Ha , although wellies might have been more appropriate.
I resisted the temptation when lining up behind it the other day to say " cleared to line up behind the company tractor", but only just.

[puddle-jumper2]

Rat 5

apply left & right feet to upper part of rudder pedals and push, while keeping reverse thrust at max. Reduce reverse thrust to idle by taxi speed, to stop engines exploding, but keep said pressure on brakes until a/c stops

A good simplistic view, but if I thought there was even a slim chance of 'going off the end' I would keep full reverse on right down to just before the end. There is a small chance of fod damage but I doubt if the engines would explode and the end result might be less embarrassing.:O

[slip and turn]

So what quantity of stones, sand and general crud thrown up from the nosewheel furrow went through the engines on this occasion?

And what unmeasured forces were applied via the undercarriage to the airframe?

And where are the engines and airframe now, please ... anyone?

[top jock]

Its back flying so look up and you may see it

[claremanlondon]

I also saw it on one of the remote stands at Stansted last Saturday (29/03/08)

[stator vane]

wow--i never knew they would do that if we didn't take them out of reverse??? amazing--

and i've been flying the 737 for a bit over 11,000 hours!!!!

i wonder what other loopholes are in my experience!!

[captplaystation]

You also didn't know that the engines run indefinitely without putting fuel in them, hence you are always carrying too much. . . . allegedly.
Edited to say, which time zone is PPRune in, I posted this @ 1733Z and it says 1033 Duh ?

[Routair]

I see the aircraft on the 70's at Stansted the other day too. New U/C i think? Or was it just extra clean?

Didnt know it was back in service tho, thats quick.

[zeltus]

Skydrol, you're the one who needs a dictionary!

It's spelt ANOMALY for chrissakes! :)

And anyway, does it really matter so long as we all know what was meant? As for Limoges, the little Robin I flew there was so floaty, I was able to touch'n'go 3 times along the long, long runway before I saw the green bit at the end...

Mind yew, there is a tiny difference between a Robin and a 737, I s'pose!

What happened to the autobrakes then? I understood they were the Professional Pilots' favouritest invention of recent years....

[Wing Commander Fowler]

He's a BA pilot for goodness sake......... Probably couldn't even spell BA until he brushed up for the interview hehe! :D

[LIMpass]

@Captplaystation, "makes me think the speed at the end of the R/W may have been fairly substantial , as I imagine that goo was fairly effective as a retardation device."

Spot on about the speed, and the goo was fully waterlogged and ankle deep when standing on it. Thankfully.

A query, when are the overwing exits used, always in an emergency evac or just when the C reckons they're needed?

[captplaystation]

Our evacuation PA is ( should have been anyway. . . )
" evacuate the aircraft using all available exits" ( rolls nice and easily off the tongue eh ? particularly in it's full form and for non native English speakers. . . Duh )
So whether overwings were used would normally depend on who was sitting at them, unless you remember a PA to the contrary. If the situation was felt to be serious enough to warrant an evacuation I can't from this distance see an obvious reason why they wouldn't have been used. Captain's call on the day, which of course he will have to justify.
If you find the time, I am sure we would still be interested to hear your version of events.

[xetroV]

A query, when are the overwing exits used, always in an emergency evac or just when the C reckons they're needed?
The passengers sitting next to those exits (should) get a pre-flight briefing on how to open them during an evacuation. Perhaps the people sitting next to those exits forgot the briefing, hadn't been briefed at all, or were instructed otherways. In any case, Ryanair and the accident/incident investigators would be well advised to question all passengers about their experiences during the evacuation and treat this mishap as a learning opportunity.

[Roy Bouchier]

I fly Ryanair frequently and always take the exit row. Not once have I been briefed on the procedures.

[mike l]

I don't think I've ever been briefed on how to operate the overwing exit, either on Ryanair or anyone else, however most US airlines draw attention to the fact that you must be willing and physically able to open the door if you sit by the overwing exit

[TooFast]

Air Europa gives a briefing (well, actually asks you f you are ok being responsible for the door opening , and asks you to read the card in the back of the seat)

[stator vane]

"if you wish to use the escape slide, that will be 10 euros! overwing exit is only 5"

[Seat62K]

I remember years ago on a US Airways 737 flight between Philadelphia and Montreal a request for English speakers to change seats with French speaking passengers who were occupying emergency exit seats. At the time I did wonder how many other airlines take into consideration language problems in emergencies.
(On a related matter, has anyone any experience of cabin/flight deck crew who are non-native English speakers working for airlines based in the English-speaking world and how they responded during emergency situations (specifically in relation to language, of course)? I'd be interested to hear from you.)

[Roy Bouchier]

I flew for a US carrier and not only did the cabin staff make a point of briefing the pax in exit rows, but would also demonstrate exactly how it should be done i.e. how to grasp the handles etc.
The value of this was always apparent during training when we simulated emergency evacuation with a full aircraft. Unless the passenger seated by the exit knew EXACTLY how to do it, the results were disastrous.
Hence, on Ryanair, I always occupy the exit row. Perhaps one day I'll be asked if I know how to open it!

[Seat62K]

I can only imagine that the US and Irish regulatory authorities simply have different rules. I think that this must be the reason why the last row on Ryanair's 737s is designated as an emergency exit row even though there is no actual overwing exit (the logic being that passengers in this row might have to open the rear doors). I assume Aer Lingus and other Irish airlines have an identical arrangement.

[eastern wiseguy]

I don't think I've ever been briefed on how to operate the overwing exit, either on Ryanair or anyone else, however most US airlines draw attention to the fact that you must be willing and physically able to open the door if you sit by the overwing exit

Aer Lingus/Flybe/Easyjet/BMi have ALL briefed my lot over the emergency exits.

If you do any different, I don't want to be in the back the day you land in Blackpool/ Lubeck / Derry/ Altenburg / Bournemouth / Bristol or even Limoges I guess.


Could BHD be on that list as well?

[janus627]

I have never been briefed on the emergency exits. Even not on Lufthansa, Air Berlin, Ryanair, Easyjet, AA or Canadian.

Ryanair was the only carrier, I have been asked if I can speak english on these rows and I watched that children or old people have been removed from those seats.

[testpanel]

I have never been briefed on the emergency exits. Even not on Lufthansa, Air Berlin, Ryanair, Easyjet, AA or Canadian

So, fly KLM (i´m getting annoyed being briefed all the time...)

[PJ2]

Rat 5;

Fully concur with your comments. In fact using maximum reverse thrust until the aircraft is stopped is permitted and even recommended in some SOPs, along with, or course, maximum pedal deflection (into the kitchen). Good reminder that autosystems, while superb, don't relieve the crew of their primary duty - to control the aircraft under all circumstances - auto-systems are only a "how", not a "what".

A4;

One of the findings of the QF "golf course" accident at Bangkok was a lack of awareness amoungst crews regarding retardation when experiencing aquaplaneing. QF had adopted a policy of Reverse idle, reduced flap and an intermediate autobrake setting to save money. Less engine wear,less fuel, less noise.... and it worked, they saved several million dollars in the 2-3 years before the accident.

A link to the complete report:
http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/1999/AAIR/pdf/aair199904538_001.pdf

and to ATSB comments:
http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/editorials/e00012.aspx

and to other commentary:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0UBT/is_/ai_74294022

The point of providing these links once again is not to criticize a fine airline nor even to point to the fact that accidents can happen anywhere to any airline but to note that effective and engaged use of their data-monitoring program could have provided sufficient information regarding operations on contaminated runways to prevent the accident. This fact was observed in the ATSB report in the sense that QAR data was not routinely employed by their flight operations department for risk assessment including changes in SOPs. The reduced flap setting/reduced brake settings which you observe were available in the data at the time but not employed.

I know Ryanair routinely employs FDM and analyses the data including the use of crew calls where indicated. The question then might be, were there indications in the data regarding the risk of overrrun or was this a once-of?

PJ2

[LIMpass]

"If you find the time, I am sure we would still be interested to hear your version of events."

Two weeks after the event I have to wonder if any passengers are being asked for an account of what transpired on our flight, either by the relevant authorities or by the airline. Who is undertaking the investigation? Is there an investigation?

Is it coincidental that there was tension on the plane from before we took off in wet and buffeting conditions from CharIeroi. Where had the flight arrived at Charleroi from? What was that landing like, the conditions were not too disimilar to those we met later at Limoges.

It is our belief that there are serious lessons to be learned from this incident. There are serious implications for cabin crew training. There are serious implications for organisation culture in RYR. And there are significant broader implications for safety at, and the regulatory governance of European regional airports.

It would be all too easy to blame the pilot, or to blame the airport (or both) for what happened during our landing at Limoges. However, it was ultimately corporate interests above all others which determined that our flight land on time in very dodgy conditions at an airport that is in no way whatsoever equipped for a bad accident.

How long would it have taken a fleet of ambulances and medics to get to the airport? How long altogether to get injured passengers transferred to hospital? These are the thoughts that cross your mind when you have a lucky escape, as we had at Limoges.

[RYR-738-JOCKEY]

Briefing the pax on how use the emerg exits will only be done during an emergency where an evacuation may or will be required. No1 will receive a NITS drill from the Captain indicating weither or not he/she should do the SOS-drill which basically is a procedure to prepare the pax for impact and an evacuation. Pax in emergency rows need to be Able Bodied Passengers (ABP). They must be min 18 years old, english speaking and generally fit.
During the SOS-drill, the ABP's are briefed on how to open the door/window.

Limoges has a crap G/S signal (09, is it?). Between 300-100 feet, if memory serves..it goes up and down like a yo-yo. If the autopilot is in, the aircraft will really start pitching up/dn.

What I would like to know is some info on the topic, instead of all these comments on previous posts. Don't you all agree? I mean clicking on this thread...then I would like to know the cause. Too many comment without having anything to add/contribute to the case. :hmm: Pprune...
Not talking about the above post.

[PJ2]

RYR-738-JOCKEY;
What I would like to know is some info on the topic, instead of all these comments on previous posts. Don't you all agree? I mean clicking on this thread...then I would like to know the cause. Too many comment without having anything to add/contribute to the case.

Precisely. That is the reason for my comments, links and question regarding Ryanair's FDM Program in my post above. So far, no response.

[Roy Bouchier]

RYR-738-JOCKEY; did the FA's know that the aircraft was going to depart the runway? I suppose the captain did it slowly in order to give them time to brief the passengers and run through their SOS drill!

[atse]

PJ2 Ryanair have a very public policy about using their FDM analysis for punitive purposes (demotion or firing of pilots). Information about this has been provided in public statements and was defended at a recent conference by the Ryanair Chief Pilot. Apparently their goal is to demonstrate a "no bull-****" approach to safety. This policy is approved by Ryanair safety gurus and the airline's Board. This approach is at some variance to what the rest of the aviation industry does. (I do hope that somebody notices my "masterful understatement"!).

On the other hand I am not aware of Ryanair ever producing a safety initiative on the basis of FDM analysis, though I do stand to be corrected. On the other hand we do know from a newsletter that Ryanair did identify an interesting trend from FDM in the past. While they said at the time that they would do something, nothing was ever done. I am referring to the interesting spike in "high speed" or "high energy" approaches which seems to have occurred in most Ryanair bases around 6 months after the introduction of the B737-800.

In this case nothing was done. No training initiative followed the public identification (in a Newsletter) of this operational problem. What actually happened is that action was only taken after the B737-800 was introduced at the final base when, following two separate incidents punitive action was taken against the Dublin based crews.

So, in summary, it might be worth paying attentions to "FDM reality" and "FDM Public Relations". In Ryanair's case there seems to be a difference.

[HundredPercentPlease]

RYR-738-JOCKEY

Briefing the pax on how use the emerg exits will only be done during an emergency where an evacuation may or will be required.

Are you serious? Is this legal with the IAA? Is this really the SOP, or have you just made this up as a troll?

If so, then in any "unplanned" emergency (typically a landing accident), then all the pax by the emergency exits are unbriefed and clueless, leading to another potential Manchester scenario.

Lethal.

[Nicholas49]

"Briefing the pax on how use the emerg exits will only be done during an emergency where an evacuation may or will be required."

Really?! You brief DURING the emergency? Why not do the safety demonstration then too?

[fireflybob]

Are passengers not asked during the brief to read the safety instructions card which includes directions on how to operate all exits, including the overwings?

[HundredPercentPlease]

They are also asked to read the terms and conditions before buying their ticket, but how many do? That is why all other airlines brief the pax.

[fireflybob]

That is why all other airlines brief the pax.

Really? Well that's news to me - I have travelled with quite a few different airlines and sat at the overwing exits and can never recall getting a specific briefing on how to operate the overwing exits nor have I seen any other pax receiving such a briefing. Am not saying it wouldn't make sense to do so but that's another matter.

[Capvermell]

"If you do any different, I don't want to be in the back the day you land in":-

Blackpool - 6001 ft
Derry - 6076 ft
Altenburg - 2235 ft
Bournemouth - 7450 ft
Bristol - 6598 ft
Limoges - 8202 ft

Interesting selection of runways. You do realise that Limoges is longer than Luton (7087 ft)! I don't hear many pilots complaining about runway length for normal narrow bodied aircraft at Luton.

And Altenburg is in altogether different territory and not able to be served by any regular commercial jet.

Scary in a 738 would surely be Skiathos (5281 feet), especially on those rare occasions when the runway is wet for landing.

[G-BHZO]

I was flying back from BHX to GLA last week with BE (Q400) and the two pax in row 2 (front row on the RHS of that particular aircraft) were briefed on the operation of the emergency exit in some detail.

As my last few trips have seen me sat nearer the back (I am sadly just regular SLF and not an occupant of the coveted Row 0 :{), I could not say if this was the norm... perhaps somebody from BE could confirm or refute this.

I do also recall the cabin crew on EZY pointing out to pax sat on the exit rows that they were indeed sat at exit rows and would be required to assist in an emergency, but I am fairly certain that they were directed to read the safety card for the actual operation of the exit.

Just thought I would...
a) share what feels like a relevant experience and
b) post instead of just lurking!

Cheers,
G-BHZO.

[PJ2]

On the other hand I am not aware of Ryanair ever producing a safety initiative on the basis of FDM analysis, though I do stand to be corrected. On the other hand we do know from a newsletter that Ryanair did identify an interesting trend from FDM in the past. While they said at the time that they would do something, nothing was ever done.

atse, very much appreciate your candidness - re not using the data, sounds like another airline I know.

Do you suppose they're afraid of what's in the data? Do you think perhaps they see data as a liability (but they still collect it anyway)?

Perhaps the question is redundant given all, - I knew some Asian carriers did this, but how could real "safety" people at Ryanair actually get their head around using FDM as a tool for punishment? Wow. Anyway, thanks again.

[MorningGlory]

So are the pilots heads on sticks yet in dublin?

[LIMpass]

"...then in any "unplanned" emergency (typically a landing accident), then all the pax by the emergency exits are unbriefed and clueless..."

This is precisely my concern as a passenger on the flight. An emergency evacuation, by definition, must mean getting all the passengers off the plane as fast as possible using all available emergency exits. There is NO time for briefing in an emergency. Four overwing exits were not used at Limoges. Why? Some passengers brought bags and hard flight cases down the slides with them, which could have damaged the slides, but nobdy prevented them. Nobody removed their shoes, as is suggested on the safety 'cards' stuck to the seat backs.

If our landing and evacuation at Limoges were staged as a safety excercise it would have to be counted as a completely shocking failure.

Factor in even a small fire or physical damage to the cabin and the consequences would have been horrendous.

[janus627]

Blackpool - 6001 ft
Derry - 6076 ft
Altenburg - 2235 ft
Bournemouth - 7450 ft
Bristol - 6598 ft
Limoges - 8202 ft

Interesting selection of runways. You do realise that Limoges is longer than Luton (7087 ft)! I don't hear many pilots complaining about runway length for normal narrow bodied aircraft at Luton.

And Altenburg is in altogether different territory and not able to be served by any regular commercial jet.


Your Altenburg lenght is 2.235m, not ft. ...
will be about 7333 ft...

[atse]

Do you suppose they're afraid of what's in the data? Nope. The culture starts at the top. The decisions are made at the top. There is no fear to be found there.

[Capvermell]

Your Altenburg lenght is 2.235m, not ft. ...
will be about 7333 ft...

There seems to be an error at www.world-airport-codes.com/Germany/altenburg-nobitz-7904.html (http://www.world-airport-codes.com/Germany/altenburg-nobitz-7904.html)

Correct elsewhere:-

eg www.azworldairports.com/airports/a1600aoc.cfm (http://www.azworldairports.com/airports/a1600aoc.cfm)

[Centaurus]

An emergency evacuation, by definition, must mean getting all the passengers off the plane as fast as possible using all available emergency exits

Dead right - which makes it all the more puzzling that Boeing now have the Evacuation checklist as a non-urgent read and do checklist policy, rather than by Recall which is much faster.

[xetroV]

So, fly KLM (i´m getting annoyed being briefed all the time...)
Annoying, perhaps, but apparantly for good reason: during this unplanned emergency evacuation (http://www.airliners.net/photo/KLM---Royal/Boeing-737-406/0721949/L/) all four overwing exits were used.

The related accident investigation report (http://www.fomento.es/NR/rdonlyres/0E5E853B-DE65-4617-B614-A1F76847DC92/28916/2004_070_A_ENG1.pdf) includes some interesting analysis of the evacuation process. Regarding the pre-flight safety briefings, see pages 98 and 99.

[captplaystation]

Capvermell, the relevant distances which make me quote Limoges and Bournemouth are the distances with respect to Glide Path, 2170m at Limoge, and not quite so long particularly on Easterly, at BOH where the threshold is well displaced. And it seems we can take as read that Limoges is slippery when wet.
Length (as they say) isn't everything, and some places we operate to, which are fine on paper, have combinations of surface/local topography/slope/expected up or down drafts etc which mark them out as places not to p@ss around. We have a fair few of these in RYR, "flap 30 My @rse" is my favourite response to those who say. . . "but it is the standard flap setting", Yeah and stopping on the paved surface is the standard way to complete a flight m'boy.
Altenburg is sure as hell in Metres not feet, we are sometimes landing on limiting runways, but we are not that clever to operate a 738 onto 2200ish feet. . . Yet.
As regards safety briefings, I don't recall in the last 30 years when flying in the back from time to time ever being instructed how to operate an exit, merely being informed that I was next to one, asked if I was willing / able to operate it if required, and being directed to familiarise myself with the safety card. I believe, rightly or wrongly, this is the industry norm and I have never flown with a carrier that went one stage further. Don't dispute that in an ideal world it wouldn't be a sound idea though.

[Doors to Automatic]

Is Flap 30 standard procedure for FR landings? That gives a VREF of about 148kts at typical weight, right?

[fireflybob]

I think the psychologists will tell you that part of the challenge with operation of exits in an emergency is that when passengers enter the cabin with the intention of flight they expect to be told what to do. When it comes to an emergency (even if they have been told to get out on the PA) they have change from being passive to active. If you don't quite get this watch people when then get in or out of a lift (elevator) - you need someone to take charge of the selection of the floors!

Even if the pax at the overwings are "able-bodied" they may not be mentally prepared to operate the exits when required unless there is a urgent reason to get out (fire in the cabin?). Obviously airline technical staff (aircrew or cabin crew) would I suggest have little hesitation in operating the exits if this was clearly required.

So in summary it is all very well briefing pax as to HOW to operate the exits but that does not mean they are necessarily capable of making a "command decision" to open the exits.

[captplaystation]

Doors to Automatic
They like us to use 30,except when R/W is less than ???ft or contaminated, (need to read that page again) as less drag = less power on final =less noise and less fuel. . . but, I think common sense is a great leveller, and I have IMHO also seen more people tie themselves in knots on gusty x/ wind landings with 30 than 40 . The flare with 30 is less pronounced and therefore more critical, and a lot of times I have seen flare /balloon/ float/ drift /oops with 30, at least with 40 it is down and probably staying down, but that is just my personal preference based on my own "highly refined" handling skills, and what I have seen from others. If in doubt use 40 is my preference, I save 30 for the really long ones (not many in RYR) and try for that elusive non-Boeing greaser.
fireflybob, totally agree. When the flames are licking your ass, even the dumbest knumbskull is gonna suss it out, but when you have just come to a soggy muddy stop I can imagine many punters looking out and thinking " I ain't going out there, think I'll just wait for the slide". Oh, and may as well take that laptop with me too and wi-fi to PPRuNe.

[quickturnaround]

Dear Capvermell,

Skiathos with 1600m is a bit ''challenging'' for a -800. If you would check the dispatch performance wet rwy, you would see that landing on a wet runway at Skiathos is basically a NO NO.
I would not even recommend to attempt it. If you over run that runway you will end up at the Northern Beach (rwy 02) or in the Harbor (rwy20), so in both cases in water.....
There are only 2 ambulances on the island...........

Fly safe, greetz

QTA.

[captplaystation]

Think I went there once in a 737, but maybe should have skipped that last glass of wine. No, sure I've been there, wasn't raining mind you. Are we becoming namby-pambys I ask myself, I'm sure it was legal on paper, and I'm still here.
Or was that in the days when I was a "bold pilot" prior to becoming an "old pilot" ?

[biminiflyer]

been into skiathos many times in the 320 and 321 and it is interesting to say the least so would think the 800 could do it no prob? if its wet it is a complete no no :=

bf

[Funnel Cloud]

Flaps 30 is indeed standard in Ryanair for landing,

EXCEPT:

Flaps 40 has to be used when the runway is shorter than 7500ft, or the runway is WET, or there is any TAILWIND, and some other specs....

Basically, this Limoges landing (wet & tailwind) should definately have a Flaps 40 landing by Ryanair SOPs...

[lorel]

Hi funnel cloud, I think you're mixing up the flap policy with the autobrake policy.
The only time you must use flaps 40 is with autolands or when performance requires this.
The little list you're referring to are the criteria for the minimum autobrake setting of 2.

Cheers Lorel

[Funnel Cloud]

My apologies Lorel, you are right indeed. I always thought that those items were valid for autobrake AND flaps. But after reading the FCOM 1 chapter again, I realise that this was an incorrect assumption.

Thanks!

FC

[Seat62K]

"LIMPass", I think you're wrong to claim that "There is NO time for briefing in an emergency" (post 207). I remember being a passenger on a Northwest DC9-30 almost nine years ago which was preparing for a suspected undercarriage collapse on landing at Detroit. We had plenty of time to prepare as the flight deck crew spoke to their company's engineers etc. This added at least an hour to the normal flight time. I would agree that sometimes there may be no time.

[LIMpass]

@seat62k
I was a passenger on the flight, there WAS NO TIME for a briefing about an imminent emergency evacuation ON THIS FLIGHT.

Calculate it for me someone. We hit the runway hard and fast in very wet conditions with a gusting crosswind... we are travelling at ?mph/?knots... the flight crew realise when? that the plane is not stopping on the runway... we leave the runway and plough into the field. The plane finally stops. It's measurable in seconds from touchdown.

[JOE MAXY]

Just a quick note to this F40/F30 arguement. IF encountering strong xwinds the standard flap setting(F30) is more prudent as it "provides better crosswind and gust handling".ref normal procedure flap policy....The issue of what appears for all to see is the aircraft hydroplaned and the discussion on it would be more apt as it is an area very few have much knowledge of or on.(inc myself)

[LIMpass]

@Joe Maxy

I'm not an expert, it may be possible that the plane "hydroplaned". However, would that not prevent the kind of friction which caused wheels to smoke? The plane maintained straight-line direction. Also, isn't lift a factor in hydroplaning?

Lastly, having hydroplaned once in a car, I recall contact with the road surface was lost, speed increased, and direction became volatile.

[A4]

Hello LIMpass,

You mention "smoke" from the tyres. Was this during the landing or after, once the aircraft had come to halt in the mud? There is one type of hydroplaning called "rubber reversion" which can result in steam being generated. In essence, when the tyre makes contact with the runway the heat generated instantly boils the water beneath the tyre and instead of hydroplaning on water the rubber of the tyre starts "melt" or revert and the tyre is riding on super heated water trapped by the melted rubber. This is evidenced on the tyre by a sort of rippled flat spot. It would be interesting to know if the tyres showed any evidence of this.

Whilst hydroplaning does seem a high possibility, the fact the aircraft went off the end, and not the side, indicates that directional control was maintained even in the crosswind conditions. Of course as the speed decays, by use of reverse thrust, the tyre will stop hydroplaning (Hydroplane speed = 9 x √Tyre Pressure (PSI) - I think it's about 70 knots for a minibus) and braking/steering will become available again.

There is now the additional problem of balancing braking and directional control. If the aircraft starts to skid off centreline, then brake application needs to be reduced to increase directional control. In extreme circumstances this may also require cancellation of reverse thrust - which requires real presence of mind/spare capacity to realise what's going on. So the bottom line is, you may have to sacrifice retardation to ensure directional control.

A4

[safetypee]

A4, et al. Re hydroplaning, the more important speed is when a non rotating tyre spins-up and hence can be used for braking and directional control. This is given by speed = 7 x √Tyre Pressure (approx), a lower speed than normally assumed.
Whilst it is possible that hydroplaning occurred, the aircraft might have overrun just due to reduced friction on a wet runway, i.e. not enough runway for the conditions or aircraft handling technique (speed, touchdown distance, spoilers, braking levels, etc).
If the runway was *slippery when wet*, but not published as such, or crews unaware of the definition, then the landing performance might have be incorrectly calculated.

Ref: Factors influencing aircraft ground handling performance. (http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19830019708)

[charliemouse]

I must firstly state I am not a pilot but I am a racing driver - and have plenty of firsthand knowledge of wet weather grip limitations.

How can you use an equation like 7 x root tyre pressure? What about factors like depth of tread (tyre wear) and more importantly depth of water. The latter is exacerbated by the smoothness and friction characteristics of the surface - a smooth surface needs less water to become 'swamped' and present no solid matter to a passing tyre.

Once planing has been achieved the de-planing speed is far lower than you might imagine - and so in wet racing terms we often say of aquaplaning 'proceed straight to the scene of the accident'. As happened here.

I would also like to comment that rubber layed down in the dry (such as the rubber tracks seen at touchdown points) are VERY slippery when wet. Do pilots deliberately land beyond these in the wet (which should offer but better initial grip but obviously less runway...)?

Do I understand from this forum that Limoges is noted as a particulalry slippery track? This is a worry or one such as me who flys in there many times a year... have you seen the number of surrouding lakes - this is one of the rainiest parts of Europe. In addition it sees much sun - and the worst time for grip is fresh rain after hot sun (tyre debris, rubber laid down, dust blown across etc).

Maybe I should drive down...

Frustrated pilot turned down by RAF on eyesight grounds and very bad passenger...

[slip and turn]

charlie, I think that rather simple looking equation is just one of the weird results you sometimes get in boiling down equations in applied science. For as near as makes no difference (on aviation tyres which aren't grooved in any fancy ways anyway) the dynamic hydroplaning speed varies in direct proportion to the square root of the tyre pressure ... nothing else gets a look in.

Obviously in trying to understand the equation, the definition of 'dynamic hydroplaning' has to be accommodated and AFAIK that one requires standing water, i.e. a simply wet and slippery surface is not what is being scoped. The more complicated notion of 'reverted rubber' hydroplaning discussed earlier, and viscous hydroplaning are something else which I understand requires less (or maybe no?) standing water, but may require the introduction of heavy frictional forces (like braking) to create steam under the tyre, or something like a rubber-coated very smooth touchdown area, and like you, I don't suppose the equation is quite so simple for that kind of thing :p.

The reality is that there's almost certainly a potential for a mix of (at least three) types of hydroplaning in a landing roll like this, and as many have said before, maybe it's the third that's gonna getcha :hmm:.


IIRC, another sometimes surprising equation (to many) is that the speed of sound in air is a function of temperature only and not altitude or pressure, for example.

[LIMpass]

@A4 "You mention "smoke" from the tyres. Was this during the landing or after, once the aircraft had come to halt in the mud?"

Smoke was visible from LH wheels during landing. One of the fire tenders was seen to hose those wheels down in the field after we had evacuated the plane.

[I Just Drive]

Hot brakes will smoke. I would imagine if any rain got to them there may be steam too.

[hec7or]

Wasn't there an MD80 or something similar that went off the end of the RWY in gusty and wet conditions a few years ago in the US, because the speedbrake failed to deploy on landing?

I think I saw a documentary about it on the TV. If a similar failure had occurred in this case, then the landing distance required would be much more.

[40&80]

IMHO...You can learn a lot of the best way to manually fly your aircraft by watching the way the autoland does things ie Aileron/flare/pitch attitude/power/landindg touchdown in max crosswinds.
Autoland logic on the L1011 Tristar I was told was based on landing on a wet runway...thus the landing felt very firm on a dry runway...developed by the Trident autoland team.
Autoland logic on the B767 I also found educational and it differs slightly from the L1011.
If manual landing on a wet runway on the B767 I was advised to use auto brakes max and chop the power around 10feet to plant it on...the intention being to get the tires through the water and onto the runway surface...at the aiming point.
As a new F/O with 8 hours on the Dc3 and total time of 500hrs in 1967 I made a lovely smooth landing on a wet runway at Nassau and felt very well pleased with myself.... until very suprised indeed ...I found I could not make the usual turnoff and nearly ground looped the machine attempting too...the Captain was totally unimpressed and from the subsequent lecture... I learned with a few cuffs around the ear holes... to monitor my ground speed before attempting a turn off the runway by observing the speed at which the runway lights were going by....I did this for the next 35years.
Of course no auto brakes on the DC3 or ground speed monitor or groundspeed read outs...which you lucky lads can use if you wish today.
I hope you do not get too many cuffs around your ear holes also because it hurts...but you do remember...discuss.

[LIMpass]

Anyone any idea if there'll be any sort of investigation into this and if there is who would be doing it?

[captjns]

hec70

Wasn't there an MD80 or something similar that went off the end of the RWY in gusty and wet conditions a few years ago in the US, because the speedbrake failed to deploy on landing?

Probably the final link in the chain to be broken. This aircraft was destined to a fatal end well before the auto speed brake was not armed.

http://ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001212X18961&key=1

http://ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20001212X18961&ntsbno=DCA99MA060&akey=1

[hec7or]

thanks cptjns

Yes, I think that's the accident featured in the TV prog. I seem to remember that reverse thrust reduces directional stability with rear engine airplanes but not with wing mounted engines as on the 738.

Not arming the speedbrake in the before landing checks turned out to be the fatal error caused by too high workload on the approach.

Wonder if any lessons could apply here with the human factors side of it, workload management could be a big factor if plans had to be changed at the last minute.

[crab]

Interesting to read that fatigue was considered to be a contributory factor in the MD80 accident.Any lessons to be learnt there?

[lotuselanse]

We flew to Altenburg with FR last week. Left STN late, played catch-up and had a hard, Fast (Bang-bounce) landing, reverse thrust and VERY heavy breaking, noticed windsock indicated a down wind landing (Why??)
Virtually all the passengers in the area I was seated looked startled.
Flight back to STN was fine.
I am a non commercial pilot and had no access to an in cabin ASI(!!) (tho might use my GPS next time!!) - but found the landing worrying.
Incidentally, have flown in to Skiathos on A320 (Airworld) and later TCX A320 and Sabre 737-200, Not to mention countless flights in to LCY, PLH and SOU on F27 / F50, Dash8-300's 146's Arjs, And Barons / DHC-6's on short rough strips in Kenya, DHC-6 and Islanders to the IOS etc.... and never had a landing like this....
Sorry if it has come across as Ryanair bashing...

[in my last airline]

Here's a question; There is no PAPI/VASI at Limoge would you follow the GS to touchdown or eyeball the descent to achieve 50ft over the numbers?

Bear in mind, if you say follow the GS, the AAIB will say, 'thank you very much for helping with our investigation, why were you following GS below minimums?'

[captjns]

Bear in mind, if you say follow the GS, the AAIB will say, 'thank you very much for helping with our investigation, why were you following GS below minimums?'

Because you are allowed to.

[fireflybob]

We flew to Altenburg with FR last week. Left STN late, played catch-up and had a hard, Fast (Bang-bounce) landing, reverse thrust and VERY heavy breaking, noticed windsock indicated a down wind landing (Why??)
Virtually all the passengers in the area I was seated looked startled.

Let's take all of those points in turn:

"Left STN late"....yes sometimes this happens with all airlines.

"played catch-up" presume this means trying to make up time. Why not? Whilst safety is always priority one it is also part of a professional pilots remit to operate economically and wherever possible minimise delays.

"had a hard, Fast (Bang-bounce) landing" - how do you know - did you have a G meter and an airspeed indicator in the cabin with you - did you know was the Vref for the approach was and what wind increments were required for this approach?

"reverse thrust and VERY heavy breaking"....application of reverse thrust is normal after touchdown!....are you refering to the decleration rate? Autobrake is very effective on the B737-800.

"Windsock indicated a downwind landing (Why??)" - Why not? What was the tailwind component? Are you implying that the a/c was not being operated in accordance with Performance A?

"Virtually all the passengers in the area I was seated looked startled" - is this objectively a parameter to decide whether the operation was being conducted safely or not?

Perhaps one of the unfairest part of airline flying is the feel of the landing. There is a difference between a firm touchdown (and even the most experienced aviators can get it wrong sometimes) and a heavy landing.

Hope this helps.

[captplaystation]

I have it on good authority that the Capt involved in Limoge has not been disciplined, therefore I think it is safe to assume that the aircraft was being operated correctly, and that the cause was more to do with runway conditions (or lack of timely/ accurate information) rather than any action taken/or not by the crew.
It was reported to me that the company were unhappy with some aspects of the evacuation ( or perhaps even the decision to do so , as I believe there were no life-threatening factors after the incident. . . apart from catching a cold or messing up your nice shoes) but so far they have not chosen to share the lessons learned with the "great unwashed", so as usual this is all 3rd hand. Surely someone could produce something on this to give us something to read before we print the roster on Friday? otherwise why have a safety Dept ?
Another hopefully accurate snippet was that the company had backed away from their somewhat draconian stance with the Capt in the East Midlands rally-cross demonstration, and a short period in the RHS was over , and he was now back in his rightful place.
And, before some smart-asses question that last statement, as far as I am told he reported the incident, and was given the all-clear by an engineer before departing, his only sin appears to have been to omit or be tardy with paperwork, and to perhaps have been a bit less meek than they wanted in the disciplinary meeting.
I am sure any "real pilot's" will be heartened by this news, and the other armchair tw@ts can keep their opinion to themselves Ta very much.

[Expressflight]

fireflybob

I think you're being rather hard on lotuselance.

I don't see why a frequent flier cannot judge whether a landing is unusually firm or that braking seemed fiercer than normal. If the windsock was noticeably showing a downwind element that would raise my eyebrows a little.

I make no comment on the implications of what he observed, nor wish to score points, but let's not be quite so dismissive.

[deweoon01]

Why any of the overwings exits havent been open ? Did they brief paxs?

[captplaystation]

Try reading the rest of this thread and you will find the answers, although our "passenger" LIMpass has been notably short of time to tell us the "whole story" as requested. . . . Hmmn

[slip and turn]

captplaystation, correct me if I am wrong, but you are indeed a Ryanair pilot, aren't you and have said so numerous times on PPRuNe? And haven't I usually detected you are usually more broadminded than this, or am I reading you wrong?

You said:I have it on good authority that the Capt involved in Limoge has not been disciplined, therefore I think it is safe to assume that the aircraft was being operated correctly, and that the cause was more to do with runway conditions (or lack of timely/ accurate information) rather than any action taken/or not by the crew.
What that boils down to if no-one made a mistake on the flightdeck is "lack of timely/accurate information (about runway conditions)"

I am sure you still agree that it was a disgraceful incident?

It appears that you are saying after things resulted in a disgraceful incident, that Ryanair holds the airport operator responsible just like ultimately Bristol got caned a year or so ago?

Wonderful thing, hindsight. Has Ryanair not landed at Limoges in doubtful conditions previously, with hindsight?

Right ok.

And Ryanair promises to liaise effectively with the airport operator so as not to find yourselves in that position again?

Ok that's good then.

[captplaystation]

I have no idea who Ryanair is holding responsible, merely glad, on a personal and professional level that the crew appear to be not guilty of hanging themselves (never a pretty sight)
Regional airports do seem to be guilty of failing to assess the friction characteristics of their R/W'S until "after the event", whether this is due to lack of legislation to oblige them, or financial considerations, I have no idea.
Of course , prior to RYR most of these places seldom saw anything bigger than an ATR42 so it wasn't of as much interest as it is now.
It has to be said, that many "Trumpton Airports" are a little lacking in the area of reports of braking action etc, and usually it falls on the crew's previous experience/ word of mouth/ notification by the company, to let everyone in on the secret. Over on REPAWEB (which unfortunately you can't acess if you are not "one of us" ) a few guys said they had found Limoges a bit dodgy when wet, but most just thought it was just "one of those things" on the day and didn't file a safety report, so who is to blame there ? . . . .well a bit us, and depending on what would have been done (probably not a lot) a bit them.
As I said, we have been given the "mushroom treatment" so far over this incident, don't know if any lessons have been learned, just hope they share them with us if they have been.
I am merely happy that my colleagues appear not to have screwed up, not defending any possible future attempts by my humble employer to deflect blame from wherever it is due.

[lotuselanse]

Expressflight...
Thank-you for your measured response to my post....
As I posted, this wasn't an attempt to bash-up Ryanair, and having flown for over 30 years this felt the heaviest landing (with the one exception into NBO on a BA747 in the 80's).
I attempted to balance what I was posting with some details of the short-strip exposure I have had in to SOU, BRR, Scillies, LCY, Skiathos, not to mention the 1700+ hours logged as a non-commercial pilot.
Fireflybob.....
I appreciate that we all work in commercial environments and again I will state that this wasn't a "bash up Ryanair" post.
My work involves dynamic risk assesment... I have not suggested that the flight to Altenburg was Unsafe, was outside parameters or anything similar.
As a regular user of Ryanair and Easyjet on the NG737 I have also become familiar with what is normal. This landing was fast, hard, and very heavy on the brakes (seemed to be normal braking then heavy).

[I Just Drive]

Sorry to thread creep, but I agree that you can judge heavy braking and firm touchdown as a passenger but theres no way you can judge speed. It sounds (without knowing) the crew elected for the ils runway and accepted what could only be minimal tailwind (a/c limitations). Its a steeper glide slope onto a downhill runway with a turnoff 2/3 of the way down that you don't want to miss if youre late. On the face of it, totally normal operations bearing in mind everyone can drive it in from time to time. And that wasnt a bad time to do a firm touchdown either. Anyway back to Limoge..................

[LIMpass]

"It was reported to me that the company were unhappy with some aspects of the evacuation ( or perhaps even the decision to do so , as I believe there were no life-threatening factors after the incident. . . apart from catching a cold or messing up your nice shoes) but so far they have not chosen to share the lessons learned with the "great unwashed", so as usual this is all 3rd hand." - Captplaystation

"Try reading the rest of this thread and you will find the answers, although our "passenger" LIMpass has been notably short of time to tell us the "whole story" as requested. . . . Hmmn" - Captplaystation


My last post here, I believe, was an enquiry as to what authorities, if any, would be investigating this incident. Nobody replied to that.
My efforts to find out what, if any authorities in France or Ireland are investigating this incident have met with complete silence from regulatory bodies in both countries.

In my naivete I believed that passengers would have been contacted if only for the purposes of an audit of how well the evacuation was conducted. By the way, if anyone is listening, IT WAS A SHAMBLES. I would force Ryanair to re-train all cabin crew in emergency evacuation procedure. But I'm only a passenger.

Do airlines, Ryanair included, saftety audit airports before they fly their aircraft into them? Or do they just require minimum/no fees and a strip of tarmac long enough to land on in most conditions? Do they have a duty of care to their passengers?

I can only conclude that nobody cares. Not pilots, not cabin crew, not airlines not airports and not regulatory authorities. Maybe this is because, as the saying goes, nobody died. And as long as the buck can be passed around and around then it's nobody's fault. The bigger reality is commerce not safety.

For what it's worth I believe that one day there will be a serious "incident" at one of these European regional airports 30-60mins away from a centre of population and hospitals. Then it will be found that the distance from medical personnel and treatment centres results in unecessary suffering and death.

If an airport like Limoges can only leave able-bodied passengers milling around at the end of a runway, a mile from the terminal, in the rain and hail, then what chance has it of coping with a damaged aircraft and seriously injured passengers at the end of the runway?

And the terminal building, do not forget, will be full - ie impassable - with passengers waiting to depart on the now damaged aircraft.

I have waited to give the "whole story" to the appropriate authorities. Nobody wants to know. Passengers like myself get on planes and we trust that staff, airlines, airports and regulators know what they are doing. Five weeks after the landing of our flight at Limoges I no longer believe that.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Another week... no replies here.

[LIMpass]

Another week... no replies here. Another 'Way, hey, hey, oops... BUMP' landing at another regional airport under my belt.

No need for safety investigations when few "Keep off the grass" tshirts for Ryanair crew should sort things out.

[top jock]

LIMpass,

Apart from here who have you contacted about this?

Contact the IAA and ask them

[SPA83]

OACI Annexe 13
COMPTE RENDU PRÉLIMINAIRE
RESPONSABILITÉ DE L’ÉTAT
QUI MÈNE L’ENQUÊTE
Accidents survenus à des aéronefs de plus de 2 250 kg
7.1 Lorsque l’aéronef accidenté est un aéronef d’une masse
maximale supérieure à 2 250 kg, l’État qui mène l’enquête
enverra le compte rendu préliminaire:
a) à l’État d’immatriculation ou à l’État d’occurrence, selon
le cas;
b) à l’État de l’exploitant;
c) à l’État de conception;
d) à l’État de construction;
e) à tout État qui aura fourni des renseignements pertinents,
des moyens importants ou des experts;
f) à l’Organisation de l’aviation civile internationale.
Envoi
7.4 Le compte rendu préliminaire sera envoyé par
télécopieur, courrier électronique ou poste aérienne dans les
30 jours qui suivent la date de l’accident, à moins que le compte
rendu de données d’accident/incident n’ait été envoyé avant cette
date. Lorsque se posent des questions intéressant directement la
sécurité, ce compte rendu sera envoyé dès que les renseignements
auront été obtenus et par la meilleure et la plus rapide
des voies disponibles.


So, to get the preliminary report contact Paul Louis ARSLANIAN, head of the french BEA at [email protected] ([email protected]) Good luck…

[stator vane]

any chance of an english version?

[doniedarko]

"Keep off the grass T-Shirts":}....excellent

[SPA83]

translation

preliminary report must be released within 30 days by BEA at http://www.bea-fr.org/francais/rapports/rap.htm
or
http://www.bea-fr.org/francais/actualite/actu.htm

[Eagle402]

This is the google language tools translation :

ICAO Annex 13
PRELIMINARY REPORT
LIABILITY OF STATE
WHO LEADS THE INVESTIGATION
Accidents to aircraft with more than 2 250 kg
7.1 When the aircraft is an aircraft with a mass
maximum of more than 2 250 kg, the State conducting the investigation
send the preliminary report:
a) to the State of registration or the state of occurrence, according to
the case;
b) to the State of the operator;
c) to the State of design;
d) the rule of construction;
e) any State which has provided relevant information,
substantial resources or experts;
f) to the International Civil Aviation Organization.
Sending
7.4 The preliminary report will be sent by
fax, mail or air mail in
30 days after the date of the accident, unless the account
Record data accident / incident has been sent before that
date. When questions arise directly relevant
safety, this report will be sent as soon as the information
have been obtained and the best and fastest
channels available.

[slip and turn]

Beat me to it because I was going to tidy it up first, Eagle!

7(d) is obviously State of the (aircraft) manufacturer,for example :p

[Eagle402]

Slip and Turn,

Good point re tidying (I wasn't racing you I promise!) although, for the google translation tool, this was remarkably close. If you've ever used it for German for example, it is about as much use as a pocket in a string vest.

I agree with your suggestion too.

Regards.

[LIMpass]

"Apart from here who have you contacted about this? Contact the IAA and ask them"

Oh yes, I did that. Hear the silence? That's me waiting for their return call.

Incidentally, when I went on the IAA website I noticed the Ryanair plane (there's one for each carrier) illustrating the safety pages has City of Nykoping written on it, as had the one used on our flight into Limoges. http://www.iaa.ie/safe_reg/safety_oversight.asp [4th plane down the page]

I also contacted the BEA. By way of a reply I received some traditional French noble sentiment followed by a "what is your interest?" attitude. Eh, like I said, Madame, I WAS ON THE PLANE!

Straight answers to straight questions (in writing) were not on the menu. However, I will get back onto them and quote the chapter and verse above.

[LIMpass]

Update:
As of this date there is no report into or log of this incident at http://eccairs.bea.aero/login.htm . This may be either because the report is still not closed, or because no report has been conducted.

[altogethernow]

I flew on EI-DCP recently and noticed it was flagged 'City of Nykoping' and instantly started thinking things agricultural ... strange how stuff sticks (like mud :p).

Well, a bit of Googling suggests that EI-DAF which was the original company tractor and plough, at some stage has handed over the 'City of Nykoping' flag to DCP.

Is DAF still flying/all shiney again now?

[horsebadorties]

Photos: Boeing 737-8AS Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net (http://www.airliners.net/photo/Ryanair/Boeing-737-8AS/1542063/L/&sid=933339736e01a2de895b6c433729c7c9)

Check this out

[DFC]

EI-DAF which was the original company tractor and plough


I think that the original Ryanair ploughing machine was a BAC 1-11 which did a nice job of ploughing up the undershoot in Cork many moons ago.

Regards,

DFC