Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

RYANAIR pilots breaking 250kIAS limit OCAS

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

RYANAIR pilots breaking 250kIAS limit OCAS

Old 15th Mar 2001, 21:09
  #61 (permalink)  
Posts: n/a


I started this but I won't try to stop it.
I am both pleased to see that some people understand the issue and simultaneously frightened by some of the unprofessional comments.

This topic is about the current situation!

A few points:

1. Between controlled airspace and PIK's ATZ is all class G;

2. Like many airfields in the UK (Biggin Hill, Newcastle etc...) it has an ILS that extends into UK class G airspace, therefore, even at 18NM you are crossing an ILS approach BUT this is not illegal;

3. In UK class G airspace you are NOT required to have either radio or transponder;

4. See and avoid is the required primary method of collision avoidance in UK class G airspace unless a RIS or RAS is being provided to INDIVIDUAL aircraft;

5. Consider this- PIK's Radar is offline for maintenance on occasions. Oh, and it occasionally fails. What then .... cancel all IFR flights. I don't think so. Yet I am aware that these high speed descents have occurred during PROCEEDURAL approaches!

6. Radar is not perfect even when available;

7. Streamline: Did you pass AirLaw or get someone else to sit it for you?

8. JetPipe: I like the humour so here goes- Smooth landings number 1: 90% of a smooth landing is in the approach.
Anyone want to provide number 2?

Laws are usually for a good reason.
Old 15th Mar 2001, 22:25
  #62 (permalink)  
Posts: n/a


I know. I was just avoiding long-windedness.

There is in The Emerald Isle, though.

There was a thread on here not so long ago about Ryans operating into Carlisle - Not even any radar or ILS there. Just an NDB/DME, some very high ground and and electronic warfare range nearby, just to make your ADF even more dodgey! No thanks!!
Old 15th Mar 2001, 23:47
  #63 (permalink)  
smooth approach
Posts: n/a

OK, I'm a wobblyhead imposter so 250kts and 10 000ft is but a dream. But isn't the 250kts "rule" also something to do with noise abatement?
Old 16th Mar 2001, 01:10
  #64 (permalink)  
Posts: n/a

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">Posted by YouNeverStopLearning:

5. Consider this- PIK's Radar is offline for maintenance on occasions. Oh, and it occasionally fails. What then .... cancel all IFR flights. I don't think so.
Are you saying that you can't fly IFR in the UK if there is no radar coverage

That's why you have to remain 1500 meters and 1000 feet clear of clouds when you fly VFR. So that IFR traffic have a chance to see you when breaking through!
Old 16th Mar 2001, 13:03
  #65 (permalink)  
Posts: n/a

Yep 250 below 10 is also law in germany but is always being ignored. I guess sooner or later an authority will make an example of some poor pilot person. But I guess a mid air would hasen that.
See & be Seen.
Old 16th Mar 2001, 14:05
  #66 (permalink)  
Posts: n/a


I will assure you I have got 3 different ATPL, no validation but genuine licences.

But I will tell you and many 10000 hr + pilots will agree that if you approach the profession of an airline pilot with the attitude of a lawyer you never get airborne.

That part you will only start to understand if you recognise not only what is required by law to pass your exam but also that part that is not in the books.

So just start with part one and life will teach you part two.

By the way nice name you got yourself YouNeverStopLearning and very revealing.

Smooth Trimmer
Old 16th Mar 2001, 19:20
  #67 (permalink)  
Posts: n/a

Good point, Streamline. I would add to that...

"If you approach being a professional pilot with the attitude of a cowboy you will never be safe."

There are very good reasons for the speed ban below 10,000. In fact, in aviation there are usually very good reasons for most of the rules. And anyone who chooses to break the rules can expect no sympathy if his negligence causes an incident or worse.

I have seen one or two comments here that imply that the writers think this rule is petty and silly, and that anyone who reports a breach is being petty. I would be worried flying with people who have such a cavalier attitude to flight safety.
Old 16th Mar 2001, 20:22
  #68 (permalink)  
Posts: n/a

It seems that most of us agree that whether you are doing 250kts or 350kts or 100kts it makes diddley squat difference when it comes to actually having the luck and the time to see someone and take avoiding action when solely relying on your eyes, your crewmembers and in a lot of cases some poor fellows eyes in the control tower. So it seems odd saying that the 250kt rule makes sense, when nearly all mid airs occur in the circuit and at far lower speeds. What if I'm doing 251kts? Is that unsafe. Or 230kts? Ok, so it's the law, but the law has been proven countless times to be an ass in many cases. Is it so in this case?
And should gliders and micro lights etc have transponders?
Old 16th Mar 2001, 21:11
  #69 (permalink)  
Posts: n/a


I would imagine that the 250kts limit works well in practice as a number because most jets can fly clean at that speed??

I agree with your view about the inherent dangers of see and be seen - I had a Challenger appear within 1/4 mile out of nowhere at apparently "high speed" in class G over Essex a few years ago and it gave me quite a shock - and its sobering to reflect that it was probably observing the 250Kt limit too.

Can't help but think that having some people in the same area talking to ATC, others to AFIs, yet more to A/G and some not talking at all is not the ideal way for the left and right hands to coordinate.

I prefer a system such as SOCAL approach in LA, where everyone speaks on a common frequency (assuming they speak). I will admit that they also have the benefit of a superb radar service (aka Class C or Flight Following in old money.)

The shrinking of the LARS service is also very unfortunate - it was a significant aid to air safety in my opinion.

As to whether gliders etc should have transponders, I'll leave others to respond.

However, to return to the original point of the thread, if there are pilots out there speeding, they should not. It is illegal.
Old 19th Mar 2001, 02:19
  #70 (permalink)  
Posts: n/a

250 below FL100 is both the law and sensible yet I hear lots of pilots from many operators ignoring it on a regular basis. Why? Is it get-home-itis or what? Better 5 mins late in this life etc!
However the thread brings up many other issues not necessarily related. How can an authority permit IFR flight in uncontrolled airspace?

Or, how can you have an instrument procedure eg ILS to both runways at PIK, established that takes you outside CAS? It's time the CAA woke up to the dangers of this and protected the users, all of them, in this airspace. But, of course, the military wouldnt allow PIK to increase the CAS to protect such approaches - Isn't that so boys!
Old 21st Mar 2001, 03:41
  #71 (permalink)  
Posts: n/a

Greetings Streamline. So you have three ATPLs, well done. I also have an ATPL, two university degrees, and, not forgetting, a 30 cm dick, but I cannot see the relevance of these in a discussion forum.
Feel secure with your point of view. In at least two topics now, you told us about your qualifications, but it really does not add any more weight to your argument. In fact, in some cases, it detracts from it.
You made a very good point about speeds on the approach. And, you are right about the Company stating that it operates only in controlled airspace, but it is worth your looking again at the various airspace classifications, and then looking at the Company (SN) routes, and destinations. These types of operation are normal for all Airlines, but to some regional airports, you would be surprised.
Streamline, will you be applying for a new JAA ATPL? I think I know them, but it would interesting to get your views on the subject.

Old 21st Mar 2001, 04:40
  #72 (permalink)  
Posts: n/a

Ryan Air need to fly at least 300 below FL 100 to make their 20 min.turn arounds.

Old 21st Mar 2001, 18:16
  #73 (permalink)  
Posts: n/a

High speed below ten in a 250 kt restricted area?
May I suggest not on a dark night over the sea, or with terrain around,not on straight in approaches, or at altitude airports.
Anymore excuses why I should not do them?
Well?.. 20000.00 hours as a wanabe safe pilot,and based upon what I saw as a F/O.
convinced me.
Still not convinced?
You could read the AA twin jet crash report and the Gf 072 posts on pprune, also its accident report when released.
Some airline sops were changed regarding "Speeds allowed below ten" after others crashed.
May I suggest, pilots always seriously pre-plan their descent and speed profiles, and always remember and observe when programming that "speed below ten".. is..TEN.. AGL.., into high altitude airports.
Also remain aware of what your "actual" height and speed above the airport is?
Please read BA incidents into African airports.
IMHO the main plot is servival,not to become a fatal statistic,to make it to retirement.
Never forget everything out there is silently trying to kill you, it is the unexpected one you don't see that creeps up and bites you.
I needed the extra thinking time, maybe you do not, however you have been warned, it only takes one mistake at altitude airports and if specially selected Ba and AA crews can do it, anyone can.

We will do the drill according to the amendments to the amendments I er think?
Old 21st Mar 2001, 19:01
  #74 (permalink)  
Posts: n/a

Interesting discussion. Some facts: 250 kts = 422 ft per sec. 300 kts = 506 ft per sec. Thats a difference of 84 ft/sec. If one sec is all I need to miss another aircraft by 84 feet then I can live to talk about it.
Impact forces increase with the square of speed. Just an increase of 10 kts can produce considerable greater damage.
The integrity of windshields, engines & leading edge devices connot be guaranteed above 250 kts below 10,000 ft.
In 1998 a B-727 in Texas climbing out of 6000 ft at 280 kts hit some geese and had about $5,000,000 damage done to the aircraft. Engines 1 & 2 had fan damage.Vibration was so high, comm on the flight deck was almost impossible. The radomewas gone alone with the antenna. LE of both wings damaged. Kruger flap on right wing was punctured as well as the wing. F/O's pitot tube gone - no air speed.
Still want to fly above 250 below 10 ????
Ignorance is not only bliss, it's STUPID !
Old 21st Mar 2001, 22:07
  #75 (permalink)  
Posts: n/a

What progress has Prestwick made in its bid for a class D control zone which would abut the Scottish TMA.

This would resolve the ANO speed limit
Old 9th Apr 2001, 16:49
  #76 (permalink)  
Posts: n/a


You need to check the rules applying to class D airspace. There is still a speed limit in class D.

Check AIS web site:

Old 9th Apr 2001, 19:59
  #77 (permalink)  
Posts: n/a


I may be wrong,but I think that near miss @ EGHH involved FR. when direct from amman was used when they just started the run
Old 10th Apr 2001, 05:23
  #78 (permalink)  
Posts: n/a
Thumbs up

Excelent topic guys, haven't learned this much since I landed that Cessna with 1 gallon of fuel on board
But STREAMLINE, curious: for which airline do you fly???
OPS not allowed in UCAS (there's a rule made up by a CP how never leaves his office), seems you NEVER go to the UK.
And so much for looking out (be honest guys, how many do consistently in airline ops, unless "cleared for the visual"), if uncontrolled IFR is allowed in F and G (yes yes, I k: 2 way com req.)
And practical: It's IMPOSSIBLE to know all the regs etc for all countries we fly into, or to check all airspaces we cross (if the charts would show 'em.
BUT: I think every little effort helps, so I DO try to do my part (eg looking out when being vectored etc).

*you only have to much fuel when you're on fire*
Old 10th Apr 2001, 12:21
  #79 (permalink)  
Posts: n/a


I believe ATC can lift the restriction in Class D airspace also, I agree it seems contradictory but see Yellow AIC 35(Y291)98.

10W and others have confirmed this earlier in the thread.
Old 10th Apr 2001, 15:29
  #80 (permalink)  
ickle black box
Posts: n/a

I don't recon that the CAA could justify insisting on all GA aircraft having a transponder, unless gliders were included. A glider could cause as much damage in a midair as a light GA aircraft, gliders are also allowed in cloud (UK only), where 'see and avoid' is impossible.

Gliders especially don't have the room for a normal transponder, and the aditional battery that would be required. The present 1000 cost is also prohibitive.

If a company like Garmin were to design a low cost, low power useage, Sqwak VFR ONLY (Or new designated code) transponder, it would become a possibility for the CAA to insist all aircraft were fitted with a transponder. However this device doesn't yet exist.


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.