PDA

View Full Version : To Ryanair Pilots: What is wrong with the landings?


RYRnick
25th Jul 2008, 17:06
Hi,

I am flying on a Ryanair flight to Seville from Stansted next week, and I have flown with Ryanair for many many many years and not really had bad landings until now...

In April, I did the same flight - Stansted to Seville. The flight was good, but the landing scared the daylights out of me!

It seemed to me like it was really fast, and afterwards my Dad said "I thought that was way to fast" I agree with him.

We came down, and suddenly BANG!!! I never heard to many people shout S*** and gasp! I was so scared about the landing gear collapsing.

Why was the landing so hard? I have never ever had such a bad landing in my life, and I have flown so many times. Virgin (once) Iberia (several) BA (millions) and same with Ryanair (millions)

I am not going to insult anyone, but the crew were quite young? Was it due to a lack of experience?

On the return, it was better! I was sitting about 6 rows behind the over-wing exits so I geussed I would hit before the people in the front. I needed to overcome my fear.

The lockers rattled, but there wasn't such a loud bang, it was certainly better. The captain was a considerably older.

My fear is that do Ryanair pilots have to land the plane as quickly as possible due to the quick turnarounds? Or is it due to bad pilots?

I really like flying with Ryanair, I have had some excellent landings with Ryanair. But there are MILLIONS of videos that are flimed on a Ryanair landing and they are all kind of hard and bad?

Can anyone help me out, as I am a little scared about the landing I have coming up?

Thank you for reading, and I will apreiciate your replies greatly!

Thank you!

Nick.

alex111
26th Jul 2008, 02:11
Hey Nick...
to clarify your concerns, what passengers often refer to "bad landings" or "hard landings" are not very pleasent, but 100% safe.

Firstly, the boeing 737-800's landing gear was designed to withstand landings with no flare at all... hence there is no structural problem to worry about, and if a landing does go over a certain limit in terms of "hardness" (measured in terms of number of g's) it is reported by the crew and at the same time registered in what is called OFDM which is basically an on board parameter reader... the aircraft needs to then be inspected by an engineer.
Secondly, boeing reccomends "positive" landings for a variety of reason ie. the spoilers deploy faster, the aircraft is firmly on the ground and braking action occurs faster. This is especially important in a situation with a wet or short runway or with tailwind.
The moment you gotta start worrying is when the aircraft you are flying in starts "floating" on a short runway... hence sometimes it's better to do a "bad landing" (ie not pleasent for the paxes) but you've touchdown in the right spot of the runway.

Furthermore, Stansted is a big training base for newly trained first officers, hence when flying to or from stansted there's a possibility that you are flying in a training flight.
Often the new FO will be flying the aeroplane under the supervision of a training captain, and obviously the first landings he will do will be unpleasent. But again, safe.

Flights are usually divided between first officer flying (taking off & landing) and captain flying... obviously the captain will be flying the sectors that are more demanding in terms of weather/performance/runway etc.

All airlines have young pilots. Ryanair is a very big company that is expanding very rapidly, hence they require alot of pilots some of which are new and come directly from flight school and sometimes very young (18,19...).

Hope this clarifies your concerns, hope it wasn't me landing the aeroplane u were on :8.

Alex.

aviatordom
26th Jul 2008, 08:51
Don't they also use this technique to save fuel?

Romeo India Xray
26th Jul 2008, 09:19
I cant comment on FR specific SOPs (Standary Operating Procedures), but I can tell you that I can see no way you could save fuel from varying your landing technique. The set-up for the landing happens way back at the beginning of the approach and the speed/configuration would be roughly the same for any two 737-800s operating into the same runway at the same time with the same weight, no matter who the operator was.

There are a few exceptions to this, but it is unlikely that any of them would be used in normal SOPs so they dont enter into this.

In short, as Alex said, we can "plank" it onto the runway without a flare and everthing will still be OK (apart from you will think the pilot is really bad).

RYRnick
26th Jul 2008, 09:41
Thank you! I have flown BA from Gatwick to Seville, to Madrid, and Heathrow to Seville/Madrid and BA from Gatwick/Heathrow to Faro and the landings were incredibly smooth,this was a year ago, and if there was no noise I would not of felt it.

How come Ryanair do it differently? And over time the amount of hard hits to the landing gear it will break? It will eventually snap off and probably kill 3/4 if not all of the passengers of the plane?

Also, where are the best seats in terms of avoiding the landing?

Thank you.

Nick.

Hokulea
26th Jul 2008, 10:54
How come Ryanair do it differently? And over time the amount of hard hits to the landing gear it will break? It will eventually snap off and probably kill 3/4 if not all of the passengers of the plane?

Also, where are the best seats in terms of avoiding the landing?From several years of experience, I've found that the best seat to avoid landing is the nice one in my own home. So far I've never had to land it.

You have to be joking. Right?

RYRnick
26th Jul 2008, 11:02
My apologies, I did not phrase that correctly. Your sarcastic comment was noted - and ignored.

I meant where is the best seat to not feel it, like the people at the front won't feel it as much as those in the middle or the back?

As if I was sitting under the rear wheels then I would feel it so much more than if I was in the front row?

Where is the best seat?

I did not phrase that correctly, apologies.

Nick.

Rainboe
26th Jul 2008, 11:18
In Ryanair, good landings cost extra. You paid the extra? Either travel and enjoy the experience, or chose not to travel and don't complain about it, but please don't travel extensively and complain! How many passengers has Ryanair killed? Why should they start with you? Are you sure you know what a 'good' landing is? If your yardstick is 'smooth so you don't feel it', then that is not a good landing. A 'hard' landing will drop the oxygen masks. A 'really hard' landing will break things. Learn to grow up a bit and understand you are in 50 tons of aeroplane hitting a rock hard runway at 140 mph with wind blowing. Don't sit there expecting to be unaware of arrival.

Michael SWS
26th Jul 2008, 11:32
alex111]All airlines have young pilots. Ryanair is a very big company that is expanding very rapidly, hence they require alot of pilots some of which are new and come directly from flight school and sometimes very young (18,19...).
Inexperienced teenage pilots, cabin crew who cannot speak English...

It would be fascinating to see what happens in a true emergency on a Ryanair flight. And whether the airline survived the fallout.

Romeo India Xray
26th Jul 2008, 12:24
I am no fan of RYR as they now manopolise routes between my base and my former home (where my relatives still live) - no ID tickets and often expensive.

However

I have to support their crews and training programmes. There is a counter argument that RYR pilots are safer due to the large number of flights they do .... i.e. they get lots of practice.

Those beautiful landings you speak of could actually be very dangerous on a wet runway. Notwithstanding, Boeing themselves instruct you to land the damn thing firmly. You can play around on Flight Sim all you like, trying to get a greaser, but try that in the real thing and you are just inviting trouble.

RIX

NWSRG
26th Jul 2008, 13:05
First up, I'm not a professional pilot (just a PPL), but I am a professional engineer...

And I do understand that there may be times when you want to make a 'firm' landing, given weather conditions etc. But surely any professional pilot would like to demonstrate his ability to control the aircraft smoothly and comfortably for the passengers where practical. Not to mention the maintenance benefits of mechanically smooth landings...

I have flown FR, BMI, EZY, EI, VS and CO in the last year...CO and EI were comfortably ahead of the rest in terms of 'comfort' on landing. FR were far and away at the bottom end of the scale...BMI, EZY and VS were all much the same, though closer to CO/EI than FR!

Obviously I have a small sample to go on, but it seems a lot of people are finding the same with FR...

alex111
26th Jul 2008, 14:15
BA just like Ryanair just like easyjet just like any other airline has teenage pilots (and cabin crew) to a certain extent.
In a company like ryanair there are many because the company is expanding very quickly together with other reasons.
In a company say like alitalia the youngest FO is probably 40yrs old with thousands of hours (an exageration but get my point) not because the company doesn't wanna hire inexperienced pilots but simply because the company doesn't need to hire anyone!

Regarding the emergencies, in ryanair there have been some serious ones, some minor ones, some well handled, some less well handled... like in any other company there have been investigations and solutions to negative trends. And so far there hasnt been any evidence that these negative trends can be directly blamed to inexperienced FOs apart hard landings when strong corss winds prevailed. The company looked into it and decided to apply a crosswind limitation to two-stripe FOs and more emphasis on the subject during line training (ie less then a year experience online).

The statement that no flare is a tecnique to save fuel is complete bollocks.

This is my last post because I can see the conversation is degenarating into the usual ryanair is sshit ect, too bad I was quite happy to clarify concerns/questions that I once had when I flew has a passenger with ryan.

Alex. :yuk:

ryansf
26th Jul 2008, 15:50
For it's it's just 737-800s in general, rather than just Ryanairs. XL, ATA, Thomson (just to name a few) have all provided me with shocking landings over the past year. I have only ever had two smooth landings (on the -800), which were given to me in Pisa by Ryanair, and again on the return. Must be the Italian crews!

G SXTY
26th Jul 2008, 16:21
RYRnick

With all due respect, most passengers don't have a clue what constitutes a 'good' landing. Large aircraft travel very quickly and have lots of inertia. As a result, the safest landing technique is to achieve a stable approach in terms of airspeed and rate of descent, and to fly the aircraft onto the runway in the right place and at the right speed. A silky smooth touchdown is not the aim of the game - in fact it can sometimes be positively unsafe.

Sat in the back, you cannot assess the crosswind or airspeed, let alone whether or not an approach is stable, and you certainly can't see the touchdown zone markings. You don't know the traffic conditions, how close the aircraft behind is, or whether there is one to roll in the gap. You don't know if ATC have imposed a speed control on us. You don't know the landing distance available, or the location and type of runway exits. All you have to go on is the touchdown itself. I have known passengers thank the pilots for "a lovely smooth landing" after a high speed approach that was borderline unstable. Or be impressed by a smooth touchdown after an excessively long float that resulted in the aircraft using virtually all of the (fairly short) runway. But a positive arrival at the correct speed in the touchdown zone, and there will be at least one expert in the back who thinks that the pilots don't know what they are doing. I have known one passenger complain to the cabin crew after a perfectly executed wing-down landing, because "the pilot landed at the wrong angle."

I am fairly new to flying airliners (on a type, incidentally, which is even trickier than the 738 to land smoothly) but I have enough experience to know that landing them is more of a black art than an exact science. And that captains with 20,000hrs experience are just as capable of 'planting it' as 250hr pilots in line training.

I've had quite a few sectors in the back of Ryanair aircraft (although not the millions that you have), and in my opinion as a professional pilot, the average RYR landing is no better or worse than any other airline flying comparable aircraft on comparable runways.

RYRnick
26th Jul 2008, 16:32
I am sorry if I am causing some hard feelings, I will never ever fly BA ever again mainly due to poor service and very high prices. For short-haul I'll always fly Ryanair.

I just want to know how can landing the plane harder than usual be good for the aircraft, give a good impression about the airline, and overall attract the passengers to fly again with them?

On all the BA flights to Seville the landings were not hard, there was no massive bang. It seems normal to me, how can landing it hard and planting it down be normal? I am no expert! And I am no pilot, so I can't question the landing or his/hers skills. But what I can do is look from my experience from flying.

So a good landing is a firm one? And the best seats must be at the front right?

G SXTY
26th Jul 2008, 18:02
how can landing the plane harder than usual be good for the aircraft

Define 'usual'. And stop comparing a RYR 738 with a BA Airbus - they are different aircraft. A Dash 8 lands differently to a 146. A 747 lands differently to an MD11. Do all cars handle the same and have identical suspensions? Note also that identical aircraft may land differently according to circumstances. Give me a two mile long runway, 10kts of wind straight down it and no other traffic, and I might deliver what you think is a good landing. Give me a shortish runway, and/or other traffic waiting to depart or land behind me (i.e. 9 times out of 10 for most of us) and you will get a positive arrival, possibly firm - you might think it hard - but it will be safe. That is usual.

It seems normal to me, how can landing it hard and planting it down be normal?

Your idea of a 'hard landing' and mine are very different. You are basing your opinion on limited knowledge of the situation. As I have already explained, what you as a passenger may regard as a 'good' landing may be regarded by the pilots as a poor one.

I am no expert!

Well quite. You have, however, had the benefit of several professional pilots telling you the same thing, that landing a large and very fast moving aeroplane is a complex task that involves an awful lot of variables, and that with the best will in the world, you as passenger are not best placed to judge what constitutes a good landing. I apologise if I'm starting to sound tetchy, but while most of us on Pprune are happy to answer passengers' and enthusiasts' questions, it gets a little wearing when people appear unwilling to accept our explanations.

If you really want to appreciate what's involved, book yourself an hour in a 737 simulator. There's a very nice one down at Bournemouth - it's a -200 series rather than an -800, but it will serve the purpose. Practice landing it. In the unlikely event that you find it easy, get the instructor to dial in some crosswind or turbulence. You might find it a bit of an eye-opener.

Abusing_the_sky
26th Jul 2008, 18:16
Inexperienced teenage pilots, cabin crew who cannot speak English...

It would be fascinating to see what happens in a true emergency on a Ryanair flight.

Michael SWS, that is ever so rude and offensive. Do you actually think that ALL the Aviation Authorities out there would allow the above mentioned by you crew to operate if they didn't meet the AAs requirements?? I can assure you that training is hard and intensive and whoever fails well, they're not good for the job, end of!
Want to hear about what you call "a true emergency"? Myself and my JU's saved someone's life in flight. The pax had a heart attack and acting on cold feet and using the SEP (and all training), we saved someone's life. A life in danger IS a true emergency. And since you attack the cabin crew who "cannot speak English": I'll have you know that the only ENGLISH crew on board was the CP. FO was if i remember correctly Portuguese and the Cabin Crew were all different nationalities but English. Both of F/D very young, the CP 27yo.

Could all your spiteful comments have to do with you being rejected by Ryanair recently?;)


RYRnick, i know you addressed the question to the f/d crew however please allow me to share my own opinion.
We call a good landing ANY landing that gets one safe and sound off the aircraft. Could be several reasons for the "very bad one": bad weather, strange runway (i.e. Limoges APT has a banana shaped runway- very tricky to land it like a feather-, ATC instructions, the autopilot, anything really). I am not saying that it's not the pilot's fault, but rarely it is. It's not like they do it on purpose and just slam the tin can on the ground without giving a monkey, several factors come in unexpectedly during the approach and landing.
I personally find it "less bumpier" if you like when i sit in the front. But then again i always sit there so i guess i am used to it.

Rgds,
ATS

RYRnick
26th Jul 2008, 19:36
I was comparing two different aircraft, and that was wrong. Sorry.

I was just unsure about what happens in landings, and what are the variables. I see that the 737-800NG needs to be landed firmly to get the auto brakes working on the touchdown moment. I will tell this to my family, who are going to be a little scared on the Ryanair flight on Wednesday.

I will continue however to use Ryanair as I think they're a excellent airline!

I never guessed landing softly, and on the back wheels then slowly coming down to the nose wheels represented the chance of over skidding the runway. Depending on length however.

Do pilots know if the landing was hard/bad-ish/not the norm as they are right at the front? Do they hear the same bang?

How much force can the gear take before it snaps and collapses?

Would the pilot know if the landing might be hard due to slightly fast, and the nose slightly lower?

I will post what the landing was like, but then again I don't know what it was like as I didn't land it!

I have however had smooth landings to Seville with Ryanair, so maybe I was just unlucky.

Also, the overhead lockers slightly rattling is that normal on landing?

Sorry, but I nervous now.

Thank you though for your replies!

Rainboe
26th Jul 2008, 19:51
Look, fun over, I'll tell you what it's about. The 737-700/800/900 is the NG model (Next Generation). Fancy electronics. And a very hard, unyielding oleo on the main undercarriage legs. I don't know why Boeing did that, but I have flown 737-200 and -400 for 8 years0 you can land them smoothly, and the -700 for 2 years- disaster area. It's frankly a bugger to land smoothly. I could never do it consistently smoothly, even on a good calm day, ....thump. When I went passenger with my colleagues flying.....thump. It's like landing without any suspension. Now a B747-400, you can kiss the ground, land it without anybody realising because the oleos are not only soft, they are also feather-bedded. That is why even old experienced ace pilots, with dashing good looks (like me) can't land the thing without you losing fillings. Every landing is an arrival!

RYRnick
26th Jul 2008, 19:59
So you are telling me that the 737-800NG is something that will always be landed firmly/hardly? Why would they do that, as 160+ people all said S*IT when we landed!!!

Rainboe
26th Jul 2008, 22:14
It can land as smoothly as anything else. The unforgiving suspension just makes it feel like an incredible jolt- you didn't understand what I was sayng. The landing gear oleos should be absorbing the shock. They don't- hardly any give, so the jolt goes through the aeroplane. Even a gentle touchdown feels 'hard'. That is the secret. I think Boeing designed the undercarriage for a far heavier 737, and for the lighter 700 and 800 models, it ends up being too hard and unyielding.

Topslide6
26th Jul 2008, 22:24
For what it's worth, I stopped giving a toss about what people thought of my landings a long time ago. I don't fly for Ryanair but do fly the 737 and I'll be judged by my peers and my training department on my line checks who know what they're talking about. Smooth touchdown's, unless in the 1% of landings when you fluke it under the following criteria are not safe. The aircraft is to be landed in the right place and at the right speed, end of story. How 'hard' the touchdown is is irrelevent. The 737-800 is a very slippery aircraft with a very real risk of tail strikes. It's no coincidence that pilots of this type all land it the same way.

Be grateful these pilots are doing EXACTLY what they should be doing and stop thinking you know better, because you don't

Rainboe
26th Jul 2008, 22:34
Good answer! Says it like it is. Stop namby pamby-ing RYRNick and be a man! Get hairs on your chest and relish the moment of touchdown- you have survived another one! Smoothies are for wimps! It's like bleeding that you thought your ferry ride wasn't safe because it used to bump into the jetty! You've arrived....ALIVE!

neplusultra
27th Jul 2008, 08:24
Leaving aside the prickly responses from those employed to pilot aircraft on the advantages of a hard landing, does anyone know the answer to the main element of the original question?

I was killing time on the tarmac a few weeks ago, and observed a Ryanair 73 on finals. I was obviously only aware of the approach speed in the last seconds of flight, but it was noticably fast.

If this is not a rare event for Ryanair operation, is it policy?

G SXTY
27th Jul 2008, 08:54
Oh FFS! OK, you win, it's all a big conspiracy and you've rumbled us. We thump aeroplanes in for a laugh, and RYR pilots fly much faster than everyone else to save money / time / fuel. The rest of us get out of their way to give them a clear run in. Happy now?

You're really not listening are you? I've tried to explain in detail how airliners are landed, and why the subjective 'quality' of landing passengers feel in the back is pretty much irrelevant to the objective - which is safety. Topslide6 has spelt it out much more succinctly. Rainboe - with unusual restraint - has very patiently explained that the 737-800 has much less forgiving landing gear than earlier designs.

And still you won't have it.

I was obviously only aware of the approach speed in the last seconds of flight, but it was noticably fast.

And I say again, you haven't got a clue. I can't judge approach speeds unless I've got an airspeed indicator in front of me, and I fly for a living.

RYRnick
27th Jul 2008, 10:26
Thank you for all your replies, very interesting. I will be seating near the front on the flight I have on Wednesday.

Once again, thank you for your help.

Nick

Contacttower
27th Jul 2008, 14:46
Is it true that the winglets often added to the NG models make the landing even harder?

neplusultra
27th Jul 2008, 16:21
G SXTY, the tone of your post seems a little unjustified.

RYRnick asked about some fast landings he had experienced when flying RyanAir, and his experience on contact. As you note, a number of contributers have explained that the measure of a pilot's capability is not solely dependent on the passenger experience in the cabin, and that some types have more forgiving undercarriages than others.

I highlighted the element of his question relating only to approach speed, having recently seen an isolated example.

To a) resort to sarcasm with regard to the actual question I asked, b) rudely suggest I am not listening and then deafly reiterate previous postings with regard to firm landings as if they somehow answer the question relating to approach speed, and c) make dismissive assumptions relating to my knowledge and experience (on what basis?) seems a little unfair to my first post in this thread.

With regard to b), and your comments "You're really not listening are you?" and "And still you won't have it" please note that my question related only to approach speed, and that neither of the contributers you mention dealt with this aspect of the question. I am quite familiar with the matter as ably outlined by those contributers; the invective you deploy is misplaced.

With regard to c) I would suggest that a blind assumption that every contribution is posted by an individual less experienced than oneself is unwise in a forum on any subject.

I would be surprised to learn that it was explicit company policy to shave time off on approach, but when I spotted this thread I was simply interested to fnd out what contributers knew. I cannot see it deserved such a frustrated reply.

RYRnick
27th Jul 2008, 17:01
I don't like the sound of that. NG models having harder suspension, no reason for that. And now the winglets causing the landing to be even harder? Why on earth to airlines buy the 737NG then?

The A320 seems to be fine!

easy1
27th Jul 2008, 17:14
Are you having a :mad:ing laugh??

G-BPED
27th Jul 2008, 17:18
I don't like the sound of that. NG models having harder suspension, no reason for that. And now the winglets causing the landing to be even harder? Why on earth to airlines buy the 737NG then?

The A320 seems to be fine!


RYRnick, a number of professionals have come along and given you (in my opinion) good sound advice about landings with various aircraft types.

You still seem to be either unhappy with their information or, deliberately trying to wind them up!!

I am sure that Boeing would not have been allowed to add winglets to the 737NG if it would cause landing problems.

Also, as has been pointed out to you previously the B737NG and the Airbus A320 are 2 completely different aircraft when it comes to landing characteristics.

Regards,

G-BPED

Contacttower
27th Jul 2008, 17:24
I am sure that Boeing would not have been allowed to add winglets to the 737NG if it would cause landing problems.

I just remember reading *somewhere* that they made the aircraft slightly less forgiving in the flare....but perhaps I was mistaken.

G-BPED
27th Jul 2008, 17:32
I just remember reading *somewhere* that they made the aircraft slightly less forgiving in the flare....but perhaps I was mistaken.


The main gripe of the starter of this thread was hard landings on a 737NG.

It has been pointed out that the landing gear oleos do not "give" much on touchdown hence you feel the landing more (Rainboe's post #21).

If there is any further infomation about the "winglets" I am sure a pilot will come along and let us know.

Regards,

G-BPED

SXB
27th Jul 2008, 18:36
Clearly, RYRNick and Neplusultra are wind up merchants. Several professional pilots have given quite detailed explanations about how passenger jets land dependent on type, weather and runway. To then continue to argue with them is laughable, how the hell can you tell if a jet is approaching the runway at 180mph and not a 150mph ? Answer = you can't. Also, by indulging in such muppetry you make it less likely that a pilot will answer a reasonable question posed by a passenger - such as the one posed by the gentleman concerning winglets.

Rainboe
27th Jul 2008, 18:48
Our 737s sprouted 2 metre winglets half way through my 2 years on them. They make absolutely no detectable difference whatsoever. Anybody who says anything about their handling qualities is bullorduring. Their chief advantage is....they look good! Make a Boeing look really sexy, and the Gulfstream IV incredible. Someone said they save a bit of fuel too. As for judging high speed, even the world's most experienced pilot can't tell unless he has an airspeed indicator in front of him!
I have never worked for Ryanair, but I fly them a lot. I have no qualms whatsoever. I like the free seating- if some brat starts piping up near you, you can move with no nonsense about 'this isn't your seat!'. They keep to schedule, they don't lose your baggage, the stewardesses are all called 'Ludmila' and look knackered, the aeroplanes are all new. True the seats don't recline, and you pay for everything, but all I want is to get there...quick. I am an airline 37 year veteran now. They don't land the 737 harder than the rest (or me), they don't fly superfast approaches. But they do have more garbage sprouted about them than anybody else!

RYRnick
27th Jul 2008, 19:20
I also found a few posts quite arrogant and rude, at the end of the day - if your a crap pilot you shouldn't be flying the plane.

I understand clearly what the pilots have said, but some have blamed the wheels etc. I see now that the 800 series has a completely different landing to a 400.

Like with the A320.

I only wanted to know why suddenly Ryanair have been landing harder than other 800 operators. Seems to be a colourful answer.

I also like flying Ryanair, and I cancelled my gold card with BA recently. Now for a person to do that then they must really like Ryanair!!! Otherwise I would still be flying BA!!!

I never wanted to appear rude, not listening, or "winding up".

But if Boeing did make the 800 series landing gear different, why didn't they make it softer? As newer stuff generally is better right?

Back to my other question, generally where are the best seats? Front or Back?

I understand that several different factors can change a smooth arrival into a firm one! I think I have moved on from that question.

Nick.

IRRenewal
27th Jul 2008, 19:58
I never wanted to appear rude, not listening, or "winding up".

I also found a few posts quite arrogant and rude, at the end of the day - if your[sic] a crap pilot you shouldn't be flying the plane.

Back to my other question, generally where are the best seats? Front or Back?

Ever heard of an aircraft reversing into a mountain? Sit in the back, it's safer.

SXB
27th Jul 2008, 20:39
I also found a few posts quite arrogant and rude, at the end of the day - if your a crap pilot you shouldn't be flying the plane. Yes, you're absolutely right. Only yesterday I witnessed a RYR pilot land his plane at 300knts and then perform a handbrake turn so he could access the taxiway closest to the terminal and thus ensure a quick turnaround. He also stood on his horn when some BA pilot wasn't going fast enough for him on the taxiway, I believe he also gave him the finger....He didn't have time to fill up with fuel for the next sector but he knows they always put in a bit extra....

Contacttower
27th Jul 2008, 21:00
Our 737s sprouted 2 metre winglets half way through my 2 years on them. They make absolutely no detectable difference whatsoever. Anybody who says anything about their handling qualities is bullorduring. Their chief advantage is....they look good! Make a Boeing look really sexy, and the Gulfstream IV incredible. Someone said they save a bit of fuel too. As for judging high speed, even the world's most experienced pilot can't tell unless he has an airspeed indicator in front of him!Thanks for the answer Rainboe :ok:....although I'm going to have to respectfully disagree over the aesthetic qualities of the winglets; I think they look silly on Boeings. :p

I like the Airbus style winglets which extend above and below the edge of the wing, they make the A320 look a very pretty aeroplane. The 737 and 757 though with the large ones just look like the wing has been bent upwards and the ones retrofitted to the 727 just look odd.

As for the landings themselves I've only flown Ryanair a few times and didn't notice the landing particularly. My last BA flight felt like a 'greaser' at Gatwick. I remember one AA flight into LAX on a 777....braked very hard and one could hear glass smashing in the galley!

Anyway who I am to comment...I often struggle to land my plane nicely....and it only weighs about one tonne, let alone 70! :O

Michael SWS
27th Jul 2008, 22:02
I also like flying Ryanair, and I cancelled my gold card with BA recently. Now for a person to do that then they must really like Ryanair!!! Otherwise I would still be flying BA!!!
Even if it were likely that a BA Gold Card holder would suddenly discover a preference for Ryanair, why would you cancel the hard-won Gold Card?

Do you really intend to use Ryanair for every one of the frequent journeys that you must make in order to have attained Gold Card status in the first place? You didn't think you might hang onto the card just in case you had cause to use BA again in the next year or so? How many BA Miles did you lose by cancelling the card?

Topslide6
28th Jul 2008, 01:19
Just to be clear.....aircraft don't have 'suspension'. Rainboe is referring in laymen's terms (to be applauded of course! :D) to the oleo's.

I can't say for certain as I don't work for them but a mate who does has said that Ryanair are very hot on aircraft being landed in the right place and speed. They fly to some very un-yielding runways where floating is simply not an option and thus the mentality is right place, right speed every time. I would imagine this has been re-inforced recently as they've had a couple of 'excursions from the paved surface'. Rightly so. I'm sure if that's incorrect a Ryanair pilot will correct me.

All these people [email protected] on about touchdowns ought to be allowed to sit on a 737 flightdeck when heavy and landing into somewhere like Jersey. No doubt, having just changed your undercrackers, you'd pretty much shut up.

Well done to those passengers (my assumption) who posted here and employed a bit of common sense. :ok:

Final 3 Greens
28th Jul 2008, 06:56
Don't feed the troll :=

Topslide6
28th Jul 2008, 12:14
...in English please? :ok:

RYRnick
28th Jul 2008, 13:00
I have lost several BA miles and I don't care. I had a awful experience with BA recently on a flight to Madrid. I am going to sue them for the damages to my hand luggage (which had my laptop computer, BlackBerry, and my work!)

I started to like Ryanair for the really low fares for pleasure, and now when I travel for work. I go Ryanair, they fly to most of the bases I go to. And I don't mind the bases which are not bang in the city - as on the bus to the city I can either finish work, or relax.



I now understand and know that the landings that I thought were good, are really dangerous! To get a safe touchdown the rear wheels must be landed firmly to get the autobrake on? And that Boeing does recommend that the plane is landed firmly?

And that the 737-800 is different to the 737-400 and the Airbus A320, which means different landings.

Anything else I forgot?

grumpysnail
28th Jul 2008, 13:44
Thanks to those pilots with the patience to explain what was going on. I'll refrain in future from cursing (silently) those pilots that seem to want to loosen my fillings.

Interesting about the 747-400. More than once I've been woken by CC, "Sir, we're at the gate, will you be leaving us?" though that might have more to do with pure exhaustion than a smooth landing.

Topslide6
28th Jul 2008, 14:57
I'm shooting in the dark a bit here as i've flown an aircraft with two or more sets of main wheels (as in 757 upwards) but I believe they are a bit easier to land smoothly as the rear set of wheels touch first, spin up and the main force of the landing then comes down on the second set. As I said, that could easily be wide of the mark on that one.

RYRnick, it's not that landings are not good etc. As for the 737, the idea is plant the main wheels on the runway which spins the wheels up, deploys the spoilers and gets the retardation going. Any float stops this from happening until further down the runway. You may find on a smoother touchdown if a float is evident that the subsequent braking and thrust reverse usage is more harsh. This is obviously bad as it cooks the brakes, uses more fuel (very bad)and makes a hell of a racket. Most of the time it's not an issue as many runways are more than long enough when they're dry. When they are wet or contaminated it's a whole different ball game, particularly the latter.

As I said, landing a heavy 737 into somewhere like Jersey is not easy. There isn't really enough runway to be getting it wrong, and by that I mean floating and trying to touchdown smoothly. The fact at the end of the day, however, is that if Ryanair wish their pilots to land the aircraft firmly then that's what the majority of them will do.

Anyway, now I know what feeding the troll means I shall now stop.

The Real Slim Shady
28th Jul 2008, 15:01
The winglet reduces the crosswind component acceptable for landing: hardly surprising given that it is close on 8ft high !

The take off field length is also reduced for a comparable non W airframe.

It also allows the W NG to climb to a higher cruising level than the non W NG at the same weight: this reduces the margin to the buffet - noticeable in turns.

The cruise fuel flow is reduced by up to 4% by the winglet.

According to Boeing the benefits are:

Performance

 Four to five percent cruise drag reduction
 No change to initial buffet boundary
 No change to stall speeds
 No pilot-perceived buffet before stick shaker
 Flaps-down lift increase
 Significant drag reduction for takeoff flaps

Handling qualities

 Improved Mach tuck
 Improved directional stability
 Improved longitudinal and lateral trim stability
 Increased pitch stability
 No degradation of stall characteristics and stall identification
 Unchanged rudder crossover speed
 Unchanged Dutch roll damping
 Unchanged manual reversion roll characteristics

Final 3 Greens
28th Jul 2008, 15:26
To those pax who complain about firm landings, let me suggest the following.

Go and take a few lessons in a light aircraft weighing less than a ton.

Learn how to make an approach to landing at 65 knots (70mph) and land on a runway where it is important not to float due to length issues.

You will then understand that landing in the right place is more important that landing smoothly and so long as you arrive within the parameters, you will have done a good job.

Imagine trying to do the same in an airliner weighing over 50 tons, at double the speed or more.

Then have a little respect for the professionals who put the bird in, the right place, in all weather conditions, every landing and keep us pax safe by ensuring the aircraft gives book performance.

As a PPL who has made many hundreds of landings in light aircraft, I have immense respect for their performance.

TightSlot
28th Jul 2008, 15:28
A big thank you to those who have taken the time (and patience) to answer the various questions raised by the non-flyers on this thread.

I'm happy that the subject has now been answered comprehensively for those who may choose to stop asking silly questions and actually think about the answers given, so we'll put this one to bed.