PDA

View Full Version : Ryanair emergency landing Valencia 14th May


Sunnyjohn
1st Jun 2010, 08:35
Hallo - this is my first post although I have followed the forums for some time. I'm an ex-aircraft engineer - BA Heathrow and Gatwick - some time ago now but some things don't seem to change! I'm now an expat living in Spain

Apologies if I've missed this but this morning in our Spanish paper there was a news item regarding the Ministry of the Interior conducting an investigation into an emergency landing on 14th May by a Ryanair flight from Stanstead to El Altet which had to divert to Valencia due to the ash cloud. The emergecny was called at Valencia due to lack of fuel. Has anyone any more information on this?

Thanks

BFGCT
1st Jun 2010, 08:47
Incident: Ryanair B738 at Alicante and Valencia on May 14th 2010, fuel emergency (http://avherald.com/h?article=42bf38c3&opt=0)
Incident: Ryanair B738 at Alicante and Valencia on May 14th 2010, fuel emergency
By Simon Hradecky, created Monday, May 24th 2010 20:49Z, last updated Tuesday, May 25th 2010 09:03ZA Ryanair Boeing 737-800, registration EI-DYX performing flight FR-8384 from London Stansted,EN (UK) to Alicante,SP (Spain), was on approach to Alicante's runway 10 but went around due to weather conditions. The crew subsequently attempted an approach to runway 28 but went around again due to winds and decided to divert to Valencia (72nm north of Alicante) declaring PAN being below the final fuel reserve. While on approach to Valencia the crew declared MAYDAY and performed a safe landing on Valencia's runway 12.

The Spanish CIAIAC reported, that following the landing in Valencia remaining fuel was measured: 440kg of fuel were found in tank 1 (left hand), 470kg in tank 2 (right hand) and 0kg in center tank. The airplane was refueled and continued to Alicante. An investigation has been initiated.

The airplane reached Alicante with a delay of 2:25 hours.

PENKO
1st Jun 2010, 08:47
Well, diverting tends to eat into you reserves. Add to that maybe some other delays due to the ash madness et voila. Don't know what Ryans policy is, but most airlines have a policy of declaring an emergency/urgency if they even suspect that they will land with less than 30 minutes fuel. So it seems like a wise move. It happens more often than you think. I would not loose any sleep over it.

BOAC
1st Jun 2010, 11:12
Well, diverting tends to eat into you reserves. - yes, but it is not SUPPOSED to eat into your final reserve, is it, unless Ryanair have a different fuel policy to everyone else? RT actions quite correct. Company no doubt looking at why they ran short of fuel. Unless they had excessive delays on the div it sounds as if the second ALC approach might not have been a good idea.It happens more often than you think. - I hope not!

PENKO
1st Jun 2010, 11:20
That I agree with BOAC, it will be interesting to see why they thought they could commit to rwy 28. However I must say I did not read the second post, as it was not there when typed in my reply, so I did not have that information. I thought more along the lines of severe disruption with multiple delays due to the ash cloud madness, as aluded to in the first post.

WindSheer
1st Jun 2010, 12:02
What would the typical burn be for a go-around and circuit to land in a -800?

BOAC
1st Jun 2010, 12:08
I'm not sure that would have 'committed' to ALC - that means "I am definitely landing there and nowhere else" so if the wind was questionable that was not an option.

Anyway, all safe, and as I said no doubt OPS will be looking closely while MOL will be happy with the fuel saving :)

Agaricus bisporus
1st Jun 2010, 12:09
Actual diversion fuel may be significantly different from the planned figure if ATC do not allow you to conform to the planned route or optimum altitude.

PENKO
1st Jun 2010, 12:14
BOAC, that's exactly what I mean. Anyway, too much speculation with too little information. They might as well have encountered ATC induced delays.

Checkboard
1st Jun 2010, 12:31
Final reserve (30 minutes at 1500') in an NG is right on the 900kg mark, so they were very close to landing with final reserve intact, after three approaches and a diversion. Missed approach, and quick vectors for a second approach in an NG is about 500 kg, a visual circuit about 250-300kg.

No criticism can be made without knowing the circumstances of the diversion - what route was planned versus what they were able to get on the day, and the planned destination weather vs. what actually was involved.

Frankly it all sounds normal, "efficient" minimum planning for convective weather forecast @ destination. Take 1000ks over plan for the convective weather, arrive & make a missed approach - be offered a second approach to a reciprocal runway (command decision time when you calculate you just have enough fuel to achieve this and still divert) take the second approach, unfortunately make another missed. Two weather missed approaches = mandatory divert in most SOPs.

Then the diversion runs a touch longer than anticipated or planned, resulting in a landing a smidge under fixed reserve - an honest Mayday call required by SOPs when this becomes the case is transmitted (again a good, honest, command decision when some might have remained silent).

Tight fuel planning, unlucky on the day, a couple of difficult decisions reasonably handled (and again unlucky with the second approach), and it all working within 100kg of being OK. Tough day out, I think.

BOAC
1st Jun 2010, 13:05
Not forgetting, of course, that as I recall 'PAN' was barely recognised in Spain in my day, so straight to a MAYDAY for me to get attention. Then no more " what route was planned versus what they were able to get on the day," - I am going direct to VLC!

salsaboy
1st Jun 2010, 13:30
I was operating into LEAL that day and I remember there being a few RYR's before/after us, amongst others... Valencia control cleared us for VLC2N, then Alicante approach 'direct Vilna'... then Polop... then Vilna... then hold at Polop... aircraft before us were going around due to tailwinds on both ends.

It was a bit of a shambles and aircraft were all over the place positioning visually and being vectored to each end and going around... we finally made one approach on R28 with a tailwind down to about 50'. All within limits for us but I can understand some aircraft getting worried about fuel levels. We happened to have an extra 1000kg or so and burnt about 600kg more than expected. They had us descending to 6000' in the hold still being number 8 or so... burning fuel like it was out of fashion!

With fuel getting that low a mayday is obviously the way to go to ensure less delays and get on the ground as swiftly and safely as possible.

Sunnyjohn
1st Jun 2010, 14:12
Thanks for your posts and for the link provided by BFCGT (I hope I got that right!).

It's clear that there were difficulties with tailwinds at LEAL that day. What would be the minimum he had to climb for the short diversion to VLC? He was obviously right on the limit fuel-wise, and I was interested in the comment of a MAYDAY once being necessary to alert the tower. Is this still the case?

Jimmy Hoffa Rocks
5th Jun 2010, 22:50
Ryanair pilots,

Whats the policy for taking extra fuel ?

Do Captains get in trouble for taking extra contingency fuel ?

As the rumour is that you have problems for taking extra fuel more than flight plan ?

Thanks Jimmy

rubik101
6th Jun 2010, 03:19
Jimmy, try doing a search of the forums before you launch into print. Whatever your motives are for trying to renew the discussion, believe me, every aspect of the point you are trying to make has been gone over a thousand times in previous posts. They landed with reserves close to or at the minimum. Any problem with that?

see the search option at the top of the page? Open it and type in 'Ryanair tankering' or some such and your questions will be answered.

BFGCT
6th Jun 2010, 13:43
Where did it say that he has a "motive" for opening the discussion again? That's what we do here, discuss. I'd welcome further discussion as myself and others might learn something that we would've never seen. If the thread bores you, don't read it?

Airbrake
6th Jun 2010, 15:18
Final Reserve in 737-700 is about 1000kgs, a 737-800 will be slightly more . Allowing for a bit of fuel burn on the taxi in and APU burn prior to the fuel readings being taken, the fuel totals mentioned look just about spot on and what you would expect following a diversion on minimums.

A very uncomfatable situation to be in but not necessarily a screw up.

Say Mach Number
6th Jun 2010, 19:41
Fuel policy is: you can take as much as you want however over 300kgs answer requires reason on voyage report.
Compared to some airlines (I believe EZY anything over plog requires explanation) 300kgs is quite generous.
Contrary to popular belief there is no pressure on us Captains to take min fuel etc,etc,etc.

kick the tires
6th Jun 2010, 19:48
an 'explanation' being one word such as wx, forecast, snow, notam.

Jimmy Hoffa Rocks
6th Jun 2010, 20:08
thanks say mach number there does seem to a lot of propaganda out there


rubik 101 did not like the patronizing, we are referring to this incident specifically guess you did not undestand the question and didnt read because you do not work for ryanair. " They landed with reserves close to or at the minimum. Any problem with that? "

Yeah looks there may be a problem and I for one will wait for the investigation to come out.

Learn from the mistakes of others, not that they made a mistake. Dont know ?

The question is, What can I learn from this ?

Hell, it could happen to me !!


The organizational culture does tend to be a factor.

Rubik 101, If you dont understand what the problem is in going below Final Reserve or being at it Then smart #/& you appear to have a learning deficiency with all your time on pprune and 800 posts or you are a wind up artist.


I for one dont have time to be scouring all the ryanair threads and others got better things to do.

rubik101
7th Jun 2010, 02:38
I for one dont have time to be scouring all the ryanair threads and others got better things to do.


But you do have time to ask questions that have already been repeatedly asked and just as repeatedly and very thouroughly answered. If you really are the least bit genuinely interested in the subject then surely reading the detailed responses to your queries would be a sensible first step? Why get those who previoulsy contributed to the discussion to rewrite it all over again? Or maybe you think they have nothing better to do other than respond to your motiveless questions?

btw, who do I work for?

rottenray
7th Jun 2010, 06:11
Where did it say that he has a "motive" for opening the discussion again? That's what we do here, discuss. I'd welcome further discussion as myself and others might learn something that we would've never seen. If the thread bores you, don't read it?BF, if this forum software had the "respected user" capability, I would certainly use it to add you to my RU list.


Rubik -

When you wrote

Jimmy, try doing a search of the forums before you launch into print. Whatever your motives are for trying to renew the discussion, believe me, every aspect of the point you are trying to make has been gone over a thousand times in previous posts. They landed with reserves close to or at the minimum. Any problem with that?you obviously HAD done the search, right?

So why not just list the links to the threads, instead of planking the guy?


BTW - here is Ryanair tankering (http://www.pprune.org/search.php?searchid=6589605)

rubik101
7th Jun 2010, 15:36
I don't know how you did that rottenray but when I search 'ryanair tankering' I get nine 9 threads and twelve 12 posts with those words. So the answer was, yes, I did do the search and I read the posts and threads and I learned a lot.

Jimmy Hoffa Rocks
9th Jun 2010, 09:12
I think this questionaire answers the question of my motive and asks a number of the right questions. ( In reference to Ryanair tankering threads, As we know fuel tankering is different from taking extra contingency fuel. Nothing to do with tankering for economical reasons.Different issue. ) . For example , contigency fuel.ATC in Spain are not giving shortcuts and there are labour issues there.
There is a question of comfort level, and if the Captain wants to assume the extra stress of taking flight plan fuel only or not. That buffer of two or three hundred extra hundred kilos of fuel has saved me more than once from diverting or commiting to my destination.
As the price of fuel goes up again so will the pressure to not take extra fuel.

Here is the IFALPA fuel questionaire and the link

Fuel Questionnaire (http://www.ifalpa.org/forms/fuelq/)

"Question1 Is fuel saving a structured process in your airline?
Question 2 How is fuel price information in your airline published to operating crew?
Question 3 What is the role of the dispatcher in fuel load choices?
Question 4 Are there complaints regarding the fuel policy in your airline?
Question 5 Are you required to fill out mandatory reports of extra fuel carried? Question 6 Do you as a pilot think you should have more or less authority over the amount of fuel loaded?
Question 7 Could you relate one or more fuel related incidents that you have knowledge of?"