Ryanair Nosegear Collapse

[Locked door]

Morning all,

Im surprised there isn’t a discussion running about this yet?

https://avherald.com/h?article=50796916&opt=0

[ETOPS]

Caught on camera..

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3RagfdOy3yc

[Locked door]

I love the way they try to vacate. They probably didn’t want to get yelled at by ATC………..

[munster]

I bet they still played that bloody fanfare on arrival.🤣🤣🤣

[FUMR]

Most probably charged the pax for the bus to the terminal :E

[hec7or]

I love the way they try to vacate. They probably didn’t want to get yelled at by ATC………..
assuming of course that they still had steering authority from the damaged nosewheel assembly

[Confusious]

Why can they never resist distorting the truth?​​​​​

Ryanair said in a statement that the plane experienced "a minor technical issue" with its nose landing gear upon landing.

[WB627]

What worries me is the time it took for the fire services to arrive :uhoh:

[HOVIS]

Morning all,

Im surprised there isn’t a discussion running about this yet?

https://avherald.com/h?article=50796916&opt=0
Why does the title say nose gear collapse?

[amsm01]

Lol, no reversers

[oceancrosser]

No reverse thrust and at least in the latter part of the roll, looking from behind no ground spoilers either…

[Confusious]

What worries me is the time it took for the fire services to arrive :uhoh:
They arrived eventually, albeit after the runway excursion:
https://youtu.be/yHcRQm1fkuY

No reverse thrust and at least in the latter part of the roll, looking from behind no ground spoilers either…
Exactly what I thought, which would suggest motor memory overload actions.

[stevfire2]

The response time, depending on exactly when ATC were aware of the situation and hit the crash alarm, to the first RFFS truck being in position was about 2 minutes. That is an acceptable time (3 minutes is the maximum permisibble) from an unprepared standing start, in 30 ton trucks from a station likely over a mile away.

[Bksmithca]

Why can they never resist distorting the truth?​​​​​ Ryanair said in a statement that the plane experienced "a minor technical issue" with its nose landing gear upon landing.Not defending Ryanair. But there doesn't appear to be any damage to the airframe, just the nose gear. No passengers or crew injured, and a nose gear change is 8 to 10 hours assuming they have a spare versus writing off the airframe. That would qualify as minor in my books

[CHfour]

No reverse thrust and at least in the latter part of the roll, looking from behind no ground spoilers either…
That is the correct config for a partial gear landing (no reverse or ground spoilers unless landing distance critical, which it wouldn't be at Dublin).

[oxenos]

That is the correct config for a partial gear landing
That implies that the crew were aware of the problem prior to landing. If that were the case, the crash vehicles would have been alerted and would have been there a lot quicker.
What does not seem to have emerged is:-
Did the crew know they had a problem and notify ATC, or did they suddenly have a gear failure when they lowered the nosewheel onto the runway?

[DaveReidUK]

They arrived eventually, albeit after the runway excursion:

The ADS-B track would suggest that all three gears remained (only just) on the paved surface.


There is a slight discontinuity in the altitude plots which may be an artifact or may indicate a bounce. Have there been any reports about whether/where the missing lower half of the NLG has been found?

[22/04]

Not defending Ryanair.. why not - flew with them recently and they were great. On time friendly crew, ops looked good.

Just measure your bag before you go and buy what you need.

Looks like everything here was correctly handled. And yes minor. People need reassurance when flying sometimes.

[WideScreen]

The ADS-B track would suggest that all three gears remained (only just) on the paved surface.


There is a slight discontinuity in the altitude plots which may be an artifact or may indicate a bounce. Have there been any reports about whether/where the missing lower half of the NLG has been found?
There is another Ryanair landing at DUB on YT, where things get pretty hairy bouncing around with nearly a wing strike (probably more a pod strike, given the B737). Though, I am not sure, whether this is the same airplane at the same landing. Though, it might explain the Nose wheel structure failure.

[CHfour]

That implies that the crew were aware of the problem prior to landing. If that were the case, the crash vehicles would have been alerted and would have been there a lot quicker.
What does not seem to have emerged is:-
Did the crew know they had a problem and notify ATC, or did they suddenly have a gear failure when they lowered the nosewheel onto the runway?
Good point. I was originally under the impression it was a precautionary landing but it appears to have been an issue during a routine landing.

[DaveReidUK]

There is another Ryanair landing at DUB on YT, where things get pretty hairy bouncing around with nearly a wing strike (probably more a pod strike, given the B737). Though, I am not sure, whether this is the same airplane at the same landing. Though, it might explain the Nose wheel structure failure.

I can't see anything on YouTube that claims to show the touchdown(s), only the rollout with sparks already flying.

Avherald maintains that the aircraft left the runway, but that doesn't appear to be supported by the ADS-B track, so I don't know what Simon's analysis is based on.

[Una Due Tfc]

There was no excursion afaik. Plenty of photos of what remains of the nose gear strut on tarmac available in final resting position. Some people put far too much faith in ADSB accuracy, especially on the ground where amateur antennas likely have no line of sight of the airfame.

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/759x500/db3d8ef0_e81a_4be6_8692_44fac190907a_f478c6d7389cec01e5c53be d48e1bac0570ff26c.jpeg

[Confusious]

. why not - flew with them recently and they were great. On time friendly crew, ops looked good.

Just measure your bag before you go and buy what you need.

Looks like everything here was correctly handled. And yes minor. People need reassurance when flying sometimes.
So, if you were a passenger on that flight who subsequently read that it was a 'minor technical issue' would you become concerned about flying in the future?

[FUMR]

So, if you were a passenger on that flight who subsequently read that it was a 'minor technical issue' would you become concerned about flying in the future?

Although I'm not a fan of Ryanair and don't fly with them, I would certainly not question their safety record. But, to answer your question: no, I would not become concerned about flying in the future after a burst tyre incident.

[Equivocal]

The response time, depending on exactly when ATC were aware of the situation and hit the crash alarm, to the first RFFS truck being in position was about 2 minutes. That is an acceptable time (3 minutes is the maximum permisibble) from an unprepared standing start, in 30 ton trucks from a station likely over a mile away.
The two and three minute times are a certification requirement and have little relevance to a response to an actual incident. FWIW, those timings are also for more than simply getting to an aircraft with a problem.

[BasilFawlty]

That implies that the crew were aware of the problem prior to landing. If that were the case, the crash vehicles would have been alerted and would have been there a lot quicker.
What does not seem to have emerged is:-
Did the crew know they had a problem and notify ATC, or did they suddenly have a gear failure when they lowered the nosewheel onto the runway?
Not necessarily. The moment of touchdown and a good few seconds after that moment are missing from the video, plenty of time to stow the reversers again if the issue occured during touchdown.

[DaveReidUK]

Although I'm not a fan of Ryanair and don't fly with them, I would certainly not question their safety record. But, to answer your question: no, I would not become concerned about flying in the future after a burst tyre incident.

I would imagine that the noise and vibration created by half a NLG leg attempting to scribe a groove in the runway would strike most regular travellers as being somewhat out-of-the-ordinary.

[9 lives]

I would imagine that the noise and vibration created by half a NLG leg attempting to scribe a groove in the runway would strike most regular travellers as being somewhat out-of-the-ordinary.

'Guess it depends upon what the average Ryan Air passenger considers an "ordinary" landing.....

[jolihokistix]

The headline on the first video says "Huge Sparks", but I could only see normal ones. I guess Ryan Air will be checking their tyre treads more rigorously from now on.

[hunbet]

There was no excursion afaik. Plenty of photos of what remains of the nose gear strut on tarmac available in final resting position. Some people put far too much faith in ADSB accuracy, especially on the ground where amateur antennas likely have no line of sight of the airfame.

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/759x500/db3d8ef0_e81a_4be6_8692_44fac190907a_f478c6d7389cec01e5c53be d48e1bac0570ff26c.jpeg
It looks like the left axle broke and departed along with the wheel and tire. The right tire got scrubbed off of the rim and the rim got ground down.

[WideScreen]

I can't see anything on YouTube that claims to show the touchdown(s), only the rollout with sparks already flying.

Avherald maintains that the aircraft left the runway, but that doesn't appear to be supported by the ADS-B track, so I don't know what Simon's analysis is based on.

I did have another look on YT, this is the one I saw, but that's 4 months ago, so probably not relevant for OT tarmac encounter:
4TtucOQr34Q

Though it certainly shows, things can be rough at DUB, with these tailwind landings.

[V_2]

Though it certainly shows, things can be rough at DUB, with these tailwind landings.

im not sure it’s so much to do with a tailwind landing, more to do with DUB now has 3 runways none of which face the predominant wind direction. And sure that’s not unique (eg LHR) but in my experience the wind in DUB tends to be more severe for more of the time.

that Ryanair landing looks more like they forget to continue to fly the wing after touchdown.

[oxenos]

Did the crew know they had a problem and notify ATC, or did they suddenly have a gear failure when they lowered the nosewheel onto the runway?

I asked this back in post 16, and no-one has come up with the answer.

[FUMR]

I would imagine that the noise and vibration created by half a NLG leg attempting to scribe a groove in the runway would strike most regular travellers as being somewhat out-of-the-ordinary.

My answer remains the same!

[DaveReidUK]

I asked this back in post 16, and no-one has come up with the answer.

YouTube has a recording of the ATC comms that makes it clear there was no prior warning of the event.

[bean]

I asked this back in post 16, and no-one has come up with the answer.
They didn''t know
https://youtu.be/ETAd9ucCI-A

[oxenos]

David reid UK
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by oxenos View Post (https://www.pprune.org/accidents-close-calls/652275-ryanair-nosegear-collapse.html#post11418817)
I asked this back in post 16, and no-one has come up with the answer.
YouTube has a recording of the ATC comms that makes it clear there was no prior warning of the event.
Thank you . An answer, instead of a lot of puerile sniping

[Confusious]

A question for someone current on the 737:

If the nose gear collapses unexpectedly during the landing roll, should the ground spoilers be retracted and the thrust reversers be stowed as memory items?

I remember that is the correct configuration for a planned event.

[pilotmike]

that Ryanair landing looks more like they forget to continue to fly the wing after touchdown.
Which wing?

From the video it appears they forgot to keep the starboard wing flying, which would explain why it fell.

[DaveReidUK]

From the video it appears they forgot to keep the starboard wing flying, which would explain why it fell.

Not to mention the company 737 shown going around at 2:10 in the animation, which appears to be flying at about 30 kts ... :O

[WideScreen]

im not sure it’s so much to do with a tailwind landing, more to do with DUB now has 3 runways none of which face the predominant wind direction. And sure that’s not unique (eg LHR) but in my experience the wind in DUB tends to be more severe for more of the time.

that Ryanair landing looks more like they forget to continue to fly the wing after touchdown.
Not sure, how to do that, other than they attempted aileron input to raise a stalled wing.

On touch-down, the spoilers extent, and gone is your lift. Though, the resolution is somewhat low to be able to see the spoilers extended and/or the aileron input.

[WideScreen]

Which wing?

From the video it appears they forgot to keep the starboard wing flying, which would explain why it fell.
I'd say, running out of lift, just a little too high above the runway, trying to level the wings and creating a wing drop due to the aileron input (and subsequently the other wing also stalls, letting the airplane bounce, etc).

[172_driver]

A stall? No way...
More like a gust creating some uneven lift not corrected for.

[WideScreen]

A stall? No way...
More like a gust creating some uneven lift not corrected for.
Regarding uneven gusts: Maybe.

The windsock at the very start of the recording seems to show a straight sock, without fluttering.

Running the YT again on a wide screen, looking at the details, some 10 m above the runway, the airplane rapidly starts to sink, arrested some 3 m above the runway with significant pitch-up, with wobbling wings (indication of a near stall), subsequently seemingly a heavy touch down on first the left main gear. And then banking to the right, seemingly due to the heavy touch down with bouncing on the left main gear, with limited lift available from the wings. Maybe, the spoilers saved the day, destroying the lift on both wings, giving the airplane the opportunity to settle.

With such an amount of wind, the vertical shearing (expressed in speed units, not percentage wise) might be significant, too.

[DaveReidUK]

Interesting though it is to debate that 2022 incident, is there any chance we could get back on topic ?

[blind pew]

from Avherald

So the aircraft is in the hangar since the morning after the incident, the two engines are off it and both are being replaced due to the amount of debris/FOD that was ingested into them. There's a nice dent in the fuselage below the Capt side and also a nice big hole too. The inboard flaps on Engine one side have been removed too due to damage.
So the word so far is, now take this with a pinch of salt, that the flare was too early, the aircraft bounced, in reaction to it the PF pushed the nose down, the nose gear impacted the runway burst the tires, the aircraft veered left, was brought back onto the centerline and she grinded the rest of the way to a stop.

my first solo I bounced, pushed the stick forward and got into a PIO becausn I had never been taught what to do. My last flight with the owner of a pa28 lookalike but better ended up with the nose gear pushed back into the fuselage blocking the rudder..he had more than 1’000 hours on type..never taught what to do with a bounce. My hands were on my knees and I wasn’t quick enough to stop him although I did manage to stop two successive attempts at killing us.
Too many pilots are not taught what to do with demonstrations…probably because of the fear or incompetence of the instructor..from experience.

[Confusious]

from Avherald

So the aircraft is in the hangar since the morning after the incident, the two engines are off it and both are being replaced due to the amount of debris/FOD that was ingested into them. There's a nice dent in the fuselage below the Capt side and also a nice big hole too. The inboard flaps on Engine one side have been removed too due to damage.
So the word so far is, now take this with a pinch of salt, that the flare was too early, the aircraft bounced, in reaction to it the PF pushed the nose down, the nose gear impacted the runway burst the tires, the aircraft veered left, was brought back onto the centerline and she grinded the rest of the way to a stop.

my first solo I bounced, pushed the stick forward and got into a PIO becausn I had never been taught what to do. My last flight with the owner of a pa28 lookalike but better ended up with the nose gear pushed back into the fuselage blocking the rudder..he had more than 1’000 hours on type..never taught what to do with a bounce. My hands were on my knees and I wasn’t quick enough to stop him although I did manage to stop two successive attempts at killing us.
Too many pilots are not taught what to do with demonstrations…probably because of the fear or incompetence of the instructor..from experience.
First paragraph: Thats an unofficial source and nobody knows who 'Boeingdriver40' is.

Second paragraph: Every pilot from student pre first solo to PPL and commercial airline captain should know what causes and how to recover from a PIO. Anyone who doesn't has been exposed to substandard flight training.

[Consol]

from Avherald

So the aircraft is in the hangar since the morning after the incident, the two engines are off it and both are being replaced due to the amount of debris/FOD that was ingested into them. There's a nice dent in the fuselage below the Capt side and also a nice big hole too. The inboard flaps on Engine one side have been removed too due to damage.
So the word so far is, now take this with a pinch of salt, that the flare was too early, the aircraft bounced, in reaction to it the PF pushed the nose down, the nose gear impacted the runway burst the tires, the aircraft veered left, was brought back onto the centerline and she grinded the rest of the way to a stop.

Thanks blind pew for bringing the thread back to the incident and away from some people's concept of landing with a full stall (a 737 is not a C152, Widescreen) from a completely different flight last year.
If the early flare theory is correct then that could well be a result of the strong, quartering tailwind. This has been previously refered to with reference to DUB's operating preference due taxi way constraints.
Higher rate of descent plus changed perspective and differing body angle led to a misjudgement. Hopefully the crew involved can get some refresher training to erase the ghosts and Dublin airport can get it's act together? Or I am being terribly naive?

[Confusious]

Thanks blind pew for bringing the thread back to the incident and away from some people's concept of landing with a full stall (a 737 is not a C152, Widescreen) from a completely different flight last year.
If the early flare theory is correct then that could well be a result of the strong, quartering tailwind. This has been previously refered to with reference to DUB's operating preference due taxi way constraints.
Higher rate of descent plus changed perspective and differing body angle led to a misjudgement. Hopefully the crew involved can get some refresher training to erase the ghosts and Dublin airport can get it's act together? Or I am being terribly naive?
I'm sorry but I have to disagree with all of that. Pilots are trained thoroughly to cope with tailwind and crosswind landings at the aircraft limits. DUB ATC/OPS have no blame in this whatsoever - The option to refuse a clearance of any description or execute a go-around rests solely with the pilots. IF inexperience ('misjudgement') was a contributing factor then perhaps Ryanair should make a conscious effort not to roster its pool of very inexperienced F/Os with their inexperienced low hour Captains.

[Consol]

I'm sorry but I have to disagree with all of that. Pilots are trained thoroughly to cope with tailwind and crosswind landings at the aircraft limits. DUB ATC/OPS have no blame in this whatsoever - The option to refuse a clearance of any description or execute a go-around rests solely with the pilots. IF inexperience ('misjudgement') was a contributing factor then perhaps Ryanair should make a conscious effort not to roster its pool of very inexperienced F/Os with their inexperienced low hour Captains.
DUB policy is to maintain tailwind ops until two go arounds occour so no, the pilot doesn't really have a choice.

[blind pew]

Don't know what planet you are on but the only deliberate training up to crosswind limits was with VC10 command courses flying up to keflavic..I certainly never was trained in landing at max crosswind nor tailwind.
My first real crosswind landing after training was onto the cross runway into Dublin when I stuffed in a boot full of rudder but was behind with my aileron inputs which nearly led to two wing tip dings before sir grabbed it.
The only approach and landing in 22 years I witnessed was into Paris with the chopper training captain on the fleet..
We were given the wind over our limit thrice..After the last report, not only did I state that's its over our limit but I said over the legal limit..he took it (below 700ft) and then he took off some of the drift..which ended with me trying to get him back on the centre line..we arrived..twit.

[Confusious]

DUB policy is to maintain tailwind ops until two go arounds occour so no, the pilot doesn't really have a choice.
A dangerous example of the tail wagging the dog. So, if you are hypothetically number one or number two of their required two go around criteria, would you continue an unstable approach or misjudged round-out/flare situation?

Don't know what planet you are on but the only deliberate training up to crosswind limits was with VC10 command courses flying up to keflavic..I certainly never was trained in landing at max crosswind nor tailwind.
My first real crosswind landing after training was onto the cross runway into Dublin when I stuffed in a boot full of rudder but was behind with my aileron inputs which nearly led to two wing tip dings before sir grabbed it.
The only approach and landing in 22 years I witnessed was into Paris with the chopper training captain on the fleet..
We were given the wind over our limit thrice..After the last report, not only did I state that's its over our limit but I said over the legal limit..he took it (below 700ft) and then he took off some of the drift..which ended with me trying to get him back on the centre line..we arrived..twit.
I live on a planet reality where modern simulators are highly sophisticated and replicate scenarios such as wind limits with a very high degree of accuracy. There lies the basis of my statement which I stand by. Airline pilots are trained in such simulators to all the wind limits and must show competence to pass the type rating course. I say this with the utmost respect sir, but advances in training and technology have moved on considerably since your days on the VC10.

[blind pew]

Simulators are only as good as the programming often on what investigators think happen.
I nearly ended up in the black forest in a new md81 after a max take off on rwy 34 zrh after we hit a massive temperature inversion with a negative windshear of 23 knots reported by a mate on a 310 who had just taken off on 28. The skipper went for the recent procedure for downdraft of pitch and full power which didn't work as we had lost too much speed..I overrode the stick to descend and accelerate.
I was taught to forecast world meteorology in 1970..I've flown most civil types including paragliding off slieve binnian today..one of the guys crashed into the slope. The atmosphere is unpredictable..if your employer if it is the DAA,.was serious then they should invest in a geo stationary drone which would give soundings between the surface and say 1500ft. I've tried to get a cheap small one for safety for paragliding.
I once hit wake turbulence on short finals on 28L lhr with a light headwind from a 747 a long way in front..I guessed that there was a tailwind but sea breeze at low level ..I decided to land long but the skipper overruled and we went around..same thing on next approach..this time he allowed me to set up a normal 3 degree approach with an aiming point further in. Whilst highly trained our company had a common sense approach to anomalies that happen.At that stage I had 12 years plus rhs jets.. one can't expect young pilots having been taught on machines using binary codes to understand the real world.
Simulation has its place.but...

[ZFT]

Bounced landings is an area which is poorly simulated in just about every data pack despite the FAA requiring this area to be addressed on MD11 and ATRs especially many years ago.

[WideScreen]

Thanks blind pew for bringing the thread back to the incident and away from some people's concept of landing with a full stall (a 737 is not a C152, Widescreen) from a completely different flight last year.
Thanks for your correction, though I am not aware, I did ever write (or suggest) what you imply on me.

Effectively, what blind pew quotes from AVHerald (be it correct or not) is, in my opinion, exactly what I wrote about. Running out of lift, when having some significant height above the runway (not wanting to discuss landing technics), which is, whatever airplane you fly, not such a healthy situation. Either a hard/bounced landing, or PIO with a high risk of an initial terra firma nose-wheel touchdown, something in development, but in the end avoided, in the YT example, I gave.

....
Higher rate of descent plus changed perspective and differing body angle led to a misjudgement. Hopefully the crew involved can get some refresher training to erase the ghosts and Dublin airport can get it's act together? Or I am being terribly naive?
Not to say, I think, this is what I wrote, with a reference to the earlier example, published on YT. The nose wheel grinding, with this incident, did go just a step further.

First paragraph: Thats an unofficial source and nobody knows who 'Boeingdriver40' is.

Second paragraph: Every pilot from student pre first solo to PPL and commercial airline captain should know what causes and how to recover from a PIO. Anyone who doesn't has been exposed to substandard flight training.
That training might be nice, though really, the PPL/LAPL are 100% focused on "drilling" the becoming pilot into specific behavior, without any more attention to "emergencies" than what is laid out in the training airplane manual around things like OEI :bored: , fire, etc.

Regarding the "unofficial" source: Yep, unofficial, though the amount of detail provided suggests, it's probably no fantasy, but reality. Not to say, it does match with the Ryanair policy to not screw around with questionable decisions around the safety of its hardware: Do it properly (Ryanair fully understands the business impact of a crash, due to sloppy Ryanair work).

[Lake1952]

First paragraph: Thats an unofficial source and nobody knows who 'Boeingdriver40' is.

Second paragraph: Every pilot from student pre first solo to PPL and commercial airline captain should know what causes and how to recover from a PIO. Anyone who doesn't has been exposed to substandard flight training.

I pranged my NG on my second solo back in the 1970s in a Cessna 150. Popped back up, lowered the nose and pranged it again. I had no prior instruction or experience with these PIOs. No damage to the plane whatsoever but I still remember it vividly almost 50 years later.

[Confusious]

From the grapevine: Crew taken offline and awaiting sim training before returning to duties.