Ryan Air poor landings at STN

[too_much]

I had the privallage of going up to the VCR at STN the other day, a great experience and ATS do a great job.

One thing I noticed was the poor quality of some of the landings from Ryan Air....

Conditions where good but 9/10 of the Ryan 73,s looked to bounce or a lot of smoke & dust from hard landing.

EZY A319's seemed to be touching down in a much more controlled manor

Given the 737 is fairly easy to perform a nice smothe landing if correct techniqe applied.

Would be interested to hear from FR pilots on the technique you are being thought especially from STN base.

Please don't take offence, this was just an observation & if like myself you aspire to make the perfect landing for your pax lets talk it out on here and see what comes out the other end...

[JeroenC]

Dunno for the bounce. But for the hard ldg, did u noticec a difference between the exit vacated at between EZ and RYR?

[compressor stall]

Were the "harder" landings on the touchdown markings or after a long float down the runway?

Always amazes me how people judge a landing by how smooth it is, completely ignoring where it is down the runway.

In general, a "firmer" landing on the touchdown markings is much safer than a greaser 300m further in.

[pudoc]

Maybe a lot of guys are trying to vacate at the first RET because of landing traffic behind or to save time.

737s are heavier than A319s so to vacate asap it's best to touch down firmly rather than hold the aircraft off to make a soft touchdown. I'm not an Airbus pilot but my understanding is that they also fly the approach a lot slower than a 737. Again reducing the runway required.

I know runway 22 is classed as a hard landing hot spot as well.

Also it's called Ryanair, not Ryan Air. Pet peeve of mine.

[fireflybob]

Ironically smoke from tyres on touchdown is more indicative of a smooth touchdown, I think.

Given the 737 is fairly easy to perform a nice smothe landing if correct techniqe applied.

Really? Have you flown the 737-800?

[too_much]

Ironically smoke from tyres on touchdown is more indicative of a smooth touchdown, I think.

Ok I never heard of this before.

I have only flown classics

Look the landings looked hard, if this was done on purpose to exit quicker that explains it, as 9/10 were bounced, hard looking touch downs.

[west lakes]

It's been discussed before (surprise), this post gives the answer

http://www.pprune.org/7959983-post21.html

The opinion of someone who has clearly not read the Boeing 737 Flight Crew Training Manual, not flown the 737NG, and I'll wager has generally had the luxury of flying into major airports where landing distances are not limiting.

The 738 is not the easiest of airliners to landed smoothly.
The manufacture states that that the aircraft should be landed positively and not greased on.
Runways used by Ryanair are often fairly limiting and therefore calculation of landing distances is critical. If you don't then land at the aiming point and get the weight on the wheels straight away your calculations are worthless.
Floating halfway down the runway to achieve a gentle landing aint much good if you then miss your turnoff incurring 10 minutes extra taxy time, or you go off the end of the runway at 50 kts, or you go off the side at 130kts because the it's covered in wet snow, there's a howling crosswind and you're trying to be a little fairy and pussyfooting around.
What the average passenger thinks is a hard landing, isn't actually a hard landing.
Poor old Ryanair pilot's can't win: if they do a Boeing textbook landing they get threads written about hard landings. If they do a greaser they get hassle for not doing a Boeing landing.

[Piltdown Man]

One of the byproducts of being worked like a slave us that you get plenty of practice. And some of the busiest pilots in the UK are those employed by RYR. And whilst I despise their CEO, I do admire the ability of his pilots. So Too_much, unless you are an accredited expert, an ATPL holder and 737 rated I'd suggest that what you saw were standard landings performed by competent, experienced pilots.

[too_much]

Piltdown man - I get a feeling your post was more an implication of shut up I don't know what I'm talking about....

Thing is mate in aviation it's full of opinions, you come on this forum it's full of opinions and if you can't take the heat baby you need to get out of the kitchen.

Seems that constructive critism has no place for RYR pilots..

I saw what I saw, I'm an ATP, 737/727 rated 4,500 hrs worked all over the world & I'm telling you, these landings where not good, they were bounced some 2-3 times and the threshold covered in dust & smoke....

Just to add I have nothing against RYR, I just simply observed this as a professional pilot & I was surprised, so much so that I brought it up on here.

[fireflybob]

Those landings might have been performed by cadet pilots just joined and doing their line training perhaps?

(Note this is no criticism of cadet pilots as I was once one many decades ago)

[Amadis of Gaul]

I agree, too much, aviation is full of opinions. Furthermore, everyone is an expert and everyone knows more than everyone else.

Out of curiosity, what is it that you WANT to hear, what answer are you actually after? Are you waiting for someone to agree with you that Ryanair pilots can't land? What's your actual point?

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

too_much So why don't you mention that you are a pilot in your profile?

[Jwscud]

The 737 often looks like it bounces on touch down when in fact it is just settling down on the oleos. I don't for one second believe that you saw multiple genuinely bounced landings. I have performed some abominations in my time on the 737 and (touch wood) have yet to bounce it despite some real arrivals.

I hove often sat at the hold at various airports and enjoyed watching colleagues land. I am yet to spot a trend for any particular airline.

[too_much]

Ok end of topic.

I was not trying to get at anyone, I just happened to be there on a particular day and saw a trend on these 737's

In terms of what I was hopping to get out of the topic is a better understanding of how RYR are doing things at STN.

If something doesn't seem right, speak up right???

Don't get me me wrong I have also watched other airfields with 737-800 operators in the US,OZ & Middle East but these were different to the ones I saw at STN

[too_much]

Heathrowdirector - I haven't put any information on my profile because I don't really care too much for it, I have never looked at other peoples credentials on that bit of the site, further more there is no clarification process by the prune, so any joe blogs could write there an A380 Captain when they may never have flown in there life! I feel it's flawed so leave it blank.
If pprune start actually checking people's licenses before allowing members to state there experience then that is the day I will post my credentials

[Wirbelsturm]

I just 'plonked' a 777 at MLW on due to a limiting runway, 1.4g on the meter. The brief was that if any float occured (which is a natural tendency, we do like to 'grease it on' if possible) it would be an automatic Go-Around. Failure to do so would have potentially seen a runway excursion.

What anybody else thinks of the landing is, to me, irrelevant as the two of us in the front are the only ones who know and are dealing with the myriad of variables used in each landing.

If you like the touchdown, great, if you don't, great. :ok:

10000hrs + :E

[too_much]

Sure even for myself if it's wet or runway length is a factor just get it down as early as possible....

But this is STN runway is hardly short there...

Personally I think they are flaring too high and too slow which is cause for the bounce and vast smoke.

But agreed there are some situations where a hard landing is warranted

I remember a flight I did once, where the only turn off was sort of in the middle of the runway, most of the guys would have to go to the end and back track, but I undershot safely and put it down harder than normal to save A- time & B- fuel

[fireflybob]

but I undershot safely

An oxymoron if I ever heard one

[highflyer40]

is have to say that is the most moronic post I've seen in a long time in here, and there is a lot to choose from

[too_much]

Ok children, RYR pilots are the greatest pilots in the world & there landings are faultless, will this make you happy and cheerful now?

And to the chap that quoted the undershoot comment, you perhaps are not experienced enough yet to realize that you can deviate from the book if conditions allow, but don't worry it's probably just the way they teach these days, do exactly what the book says and DONT take initiative or think outside the box if conditions allow....from that comment I would guess your a 180 at the end & back track kind of guy, and there's nothing wrong with that, I'm just always thinking one step ahead of the rest....

Good night much love

[TC-DCA]

Sir John, now you can tell him what is a hard landing officially. :)
An FO friend said me, that a "rule" issued by airlines (here Pegasus) tell that that landings should not exceed 1.65G, (1.65x the aircraft weight which acted on aircraft tyres at the instant of touchdown) or it can be considered as a hard landing (high sink rate generally) and the aircraft can be grounded for inspection.

And for Sir John who like to talk officially, Boeing say that the aircraft can safely handle up to 2.5G landings, but the limit due to rule is 1.65. (Called VAC).

[too_much]

Personally I don't think that you have a clue what you're talking about.

Is that so...these landings where far from what's written in the FCTM & everyone who's ever flown a Boeing aircraft knows the FCTM is the lowest authority of all manuals I doubt RYR refer to this as there main training article...

[too_much]

Regardless of limitations if conditions do not dictate an early touch down, we should all IMO be trying to make as smooth a landing as possible, do you guys not take great pleasure in a smooth touch down? Or have I missed something over the last 10 years?

A smooth landing goes a long way with your pax & crew, trust me...

In 737 or A320 etc there is no excuses for a bad landing if conditions are good
In a TP like an F50 you should not even feel the wheels hit the ground!
Given in bigger stuff like the 74 it takes a bit more skill to make for a smooth landing & you certainly most always feel it...

[Amadis of Gaul]

Glad we got that settled. Henceforth no more plunking a 73 or an A320 lest one risk incurring too much's ire.

[Piltdown Man]

I think a proper landing is on the centre-line, in the touchdown zone, upwind main gear first (or both together), wings level or banked into wind, appropriate pitch, idle thrust and speed reducing to VRef. I haven't mentioned smooth, because that's just a bonus. We don't want "heavy" (and I question the validity of TC-DCAs numbers); "gentle" and "firm" are the adjectives I like to describe my landings and if I bounce a little bit, then so be it.

But returning to the OP, there could be a reason for EasyJet's style of landing. I'm thinking of their FDM programme and their tea & biscuit sessions when they cause an event. I bet one of their FDM traps is a decceleration rate. Brake too hard and the next call you receive on your mobile is the office.

[glendalegoon]

BOYS, now think about it.

IF TOO_MUCH had taken video and posted it of the landings we might agree with him.

He says he has a type rating on the 737 and I believe him.


so, he saw some plunkers. I've seen a 737 bounce from cockpit and when the copilot didn't do something about the bounce, I did. I mean it was a BOUNCE.


I've seen the word MORONIC used a bit too much here on pprune.

So, a bunch of planes made puffs of smoke. Maybe the airbus guy just got lucky (I've seen plenty of bus landings that should have sent the tower guys running to punch the crash button).

Maybe that day, every weight and balance was wrong enough to throw off Vref by 5 knots due to some computer problem at the airline in question.

I know of one case that the weights were off so much as to change vref on a certain plane by 20 knots. OOOPS, gear punched through the wings on landing.


I've never been to this airfield. Wondering if there are visual miscues like a runway that goes up hill, or down hill or what the slope is.

As far as ducking the glideslope. Well, most places you shouldn't do it. BUT then there are places like midway and adjusting your aim point to a safe, but different than ILS GS touchdown point may make sense.

In fact, Boston has a nice long runway. But at one time (before 14/32) you were allowed to land on the displaced threshold or prior to it IF THERE WERE NO TALL SHIPS IN THE HARBOR and it was well prior to the ILS GS Touchdown point. It was printed right on the apch plate. JUDGEMENT

So, lets stop the MORONIC use and just say something like: I've been around but have yet to learn that.

Smile boys, all the planes that day could be used again without major overhaul! ;-)

[framer]

I remember a flight I did once, where the only turn off was sort of in the middle of the runway, most of the guys would have to go to the end and back track, but I undershot safely and put it down harder than normal to save A- time & B- fuel .


Ha ha that's classic. Either you're a pretender or you let your ego slide right on into the flight deck beside you and probably shouldn;t be flying 737's with paying pax onboard.
Do you honestly believe that you're better than "most of the guys" with your whopping 4500 hours? Wait til you've got that much time in the bunk and then revisit your post. (hint....you'll be embarrassed)

[glendalegoon]

4500 hours in the bunk? ha

how about 4500 hours in the flare? ;-)

think about it. fly 1000 hours a year in transoceanic flying. 2 minutes on takeoff , 3 minutes on landing you might hand fly. Cut everything in half as you have to share the total year with your copilot , so maybe the typical transoceanic pilot has 250 hand flying minutes a year.

4 hours plus 10mins.

yeah. I think most pilots should just log: interested observer time.

[framer]

how about 4500 hours in the flare? ;-)
That's nothing, I've got 4500hrs in the bounce:eek:

[italian stallion]

my philosophy is that landing a plane is like parallel parking a car...sometimes you hit the pavement...:D

[Wirbelsturm]

I occasionally have to add plus one to my carrier deck landings total. I have known an airfield or two to suddenly pitch a degree or two in the flare!!! :{

:}

[Sop_Monkey]

It is a well known fact that flying skills have been eroded to an alarming degree over recent times. Pilots going through the sausage factory these days are not a lot more than system operators (God give me strength). What flying skills that remain, are well down the list of priorities for an "airline". In my day if anyone had any finesse whatsoever, they would be able to put a kite down where they wanted it with low g landing to boot.