LoCo airlines busting minima in LVP's at STN?
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Egcc
Posts: 1,695
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by wince
Pilot Pete,
EGSS NOTAM:
DUE RESURFACING, RWY CL AND TDZ LIGHTING NOT AVBL. RWY LEAD ON/OFF WHERE AFFECTED WILL BE REPLACED BY BLUE EDGE LIGHTS. 02 APR 05:00 UNTIL 31 OCT 05:00
so this means no CATIII autoland at night right?
EGSS NOTAM:
DUE RESURFACING, RWY CL AND TDZ LIGHTING NOT AVBL. RWY LEAD ON/OFF WHERE AFFECTED WILL BE REPLACED BY BLUE EDGE LIGHTS. 02 APR 05:00 UNTIL 31 OCT 05:00
so this means no CATIII autoland at night right?
CATIII A and B approaches not allowed at night due to no centreline lights.
This would over-ride the increased minima of 300m RVR for night CatIIIB, or 500m for CATIIIA, due to no TDZ lights.
For those not familiar with such things it makes sense because you are getting very close to the ground on a CATIIIA approach (haven't checked Stansted, but 50 feet RA is a usual CATIIIA Decision Height). At this point you are seeking your visual reference, which for CATIIIA is:
"3 consecutive lights: being any combination of:The centre of the Approach or TDZ lights or R/W Centre Line or R/W Edge lights, must be attained and maintained."
Bearing in mind where the aircraft will be at 50' (above the threshold), then you really need the centreline lights to stand a chance of seeing the runway in time.
PP
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Egcc
Posts: 1,695
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by wince
Pilot Pete,
EGSS NOTAM:
DUE RESURFACING, RWY CL AND TDZ LIGHTING NOT AVBL. RWY LEAD ON/OFF WHERE AFFECTED WILL BE REPLACED BY BLUE EDGE LIGHTS. 02 APR 05:00 UNTIL 31 OCT 05:00
so this means no CATIII autoland at night right?
EGSS NOTAM:
DUE RESURFACING, RWY CL AND TDZ LIGHTING NOT AVBL. RWY LEAD ON/OFF WHERE AFFECTED WILL BE REPLACED BY BLUE EDGE LIGHTS. 02 APR 05:00 UNTIL 31 OCT 05:00
so this means no CATIII autoland at night right?
CATIII A and B approaches not allowed at night due to no centreline lights.
This would over-ride the increased minima of 300m RVR for night CatIIIB, or 500m for CATIIIA, due to no TDZ lights.
For those not familiar with such things it makes sense because you are getting very close to the ground on a CATIIIA approach (haven't checked Stansted, but 50 feet RA is a usual CATIIIA Decision Height). At this point you are seeking your visual reference, which for CATIIIA is:
"3 consecutive lights: being any combination of:The centre of the Approach or TDZ lights or R/W Centre Line or R/W Edge lights, must be attained and maintained."
Bearing in mind where the aircraft will be at 50' (above the threshold), then you really need the centreline lights to stand a chance of seeing the runway in time.
PP
aka Capt PPRuNe
Join Date: May 1995
Location: UK
Posts: 4,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This issue has just resurfaced with an interesting article by David Learmount over on the FlightGlobal website:
Probe into Ryanair's April series of possible Stansted fog rule breaches hits buffer as Irish aviation safety agency delays response
By David Learmount
UK CAA awaits response from Irish Aviation Authority
Seven months after full details of alleged breaches of safety regulations by Irish-registered aircraft operating into London Stansted airport were passed to the Irish Aviation Authority (IAA), the agency says it has not yet completed its investigation nor taken any action.
The UK Civil Aviation Authority, which confirms it passed the details of the alleged events to the IAA, says it would normally have expected an outcome by now.
The issue under investigation is regulatory:... Read more of the article
By David Learmount
UK CAA awaits response from Irish Aviation Authority
Seven months after full details of alleged breaches of safety regulations by Irish-registered aircraft operating into London Stansted airport were passed to the Irish Aviation Authority (IAA), the agency says it has not yet completed its investigation nor taken any action.
The UK Civil Aviation Authority, which confirms it passed the details of the alleged events to the IAA, says it would normally have expected an outcome by now.
The issue under investigation is regulatory:... Read more of the article
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: EuroZone
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whats the problem?
Ryanair is the IAA's biggest customer.
Does anyone think that they (the IAA) are going to bite the hand that feeds it?
Wake up and smell the Euros changing hands.
Ryanair is the IAA's biggest customer.
Does anyone think that they (the IAA) are going to bite the hand that feeds it?
Wake up and smell the Euros changing hands.
Ut Sementem Feeceris
Quote from article:
Stansted's first NOTAM on the subject did not emphasise that the runway lighting downgrade affected the RVR minima, according to Conway.
No excuse. NOTAM's are not there to instruct pilots what to do. They provide factual information that the crew are required to act upon according to the law. Trying to throw the blame back onto the NOTAM is ridiculous - the blame lies with a training (or lack of) issue.
Increased minima with reduced lighting is as fundamental as ensuring your wings are properly de-iced - this is basic stuff...........
A4
Stansted's first NOTAM on the subject did not emphasise that the runway lighting downgrade affected the RVR minima, according to Conway.
No excuse. NOTAM's are not there to instruct pilots what to do. They provide factual information that the crew are required to act upon according to the law. Trying to throw the blame back onto the NOTAM is ridiculous - the blame lies with a training (or lack of) issue.
Increased minima with reduced lighting is as fundamental as ensuring your wings are properly de-iced - this is basic stuff...........
A4
Ut Sementem Feeceris
Whilst I agree that this event has indeed highlighted the issue of increased minima, I do find it quite alarming the lack of awareness prior to the event.
Reduced lighting/increased minima have played a part in my LPC/OPC's for many years........
A4
Reduced lighting/increased minima have played a part in my LPC/OPC's for many years........
A4
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: England
Posts: 762
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A4 - It is disappointing, particularly when the planning of the runway works involved many months of communicating in advance the details, including removal of c/l and TDZ lights, to all operators at many different forums. The Notam just confirmed what we had been telling everyone.
There have been many occasions I can think of at different airports where pilots have had no knowledge of airfield work when Notams have been issued with the details, so the effectiveness of the AIS system and/or pilot's method's of obtaining the information needs to be addressed.
There have been many occasions I can think of at different airports where pilots have had no knowledge of airfield work when Notams have been issued with the details, so the effectiveness of the AIS system and/or pilot's method's of obtaining the information needs to be addressed.
Ut Sementem Feeceris
Muskett - my comment regarding "lack of awareness" was not in respect to the work being carried out - the NOTAM system is international and works well. The comment was in reference to the regs regarding increased minima.
At the time of the alleged events the work had been in progress for some time I believe - hardly a suprise!
A4
PS Good job on the runway at STN - a significant improvement
A4
At the time of the alleged events the work had been in progress for some time I believe - hardly a suprise!
A4
PS Good job on the runway at STN - a significant improvement
A4
Join Date: May 2003
Location: france
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
increased minimas, reduced lights
hello every one,
sometime after these incidents, i flew into stn in almost identical weather conditions. with the lights still out. we had to hold 30min(yes, we had the fuel) for the rvr to improve above the 550m.(night).
during that time several other ryr flights requested to hold as well & upon request of atc(also in the loop probably, cfr the previous incidents) : " ryr ... . what are your minima ?", unanimous response was "550m"(lessons learned, you know). same question was asked to 3 different approaching berliner aircraft & surprisingly 3 different values were responded ???
happy landings,
bm
sometime after these incidents, i flew into stn in almost identical weather conditions. with the lights still out. we had to hold 30min(yes, we had the fuel) for the rvr to improve above the 550m.(night).
during that time several other ryr flights requested to hold as well & upon request of atc(also in the loop probably, cfr the previous incidents) : " ryr ... . what are your minima ?", unanimous response was "550m"(lessons learned, you know). same question was asked to 3 different approaching berliner aircraft & surprisingly 3 different values were responded ???
happy landings,
bm
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Sussex, England
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is the report the IAA should have made!
The reason that so many crews were ignorant of the LVP landing minima requirements are,
1. Too many inexperienced SFIs(2500 hours or less) teaching OCC courses to pilots from non JAR OPS states with very poor general and theoretical knowledge. The course does not even touch the OPS manual. Legislation training must be introduced in the RYR OCC.
2. On line CAT II/III practice landings have been reduced from 8 to 3, with the trainee being released for CAT III ops after his first practice.
3. A large number of very inexperienced pilots being selected by their base captains for line training positions without any sort of weeding out process. Most of these base captains have commercial heads and are not what you could call 'good operators' (with about two exceptions out of 17), so they have in some cases chosen poorly.
4. AIS services need to be standardised and NOTAMS simplified for easier reading.
5. ATC should have made the statement, 'Check your minima' on the ATIS.
6. JAR OPS requirements for LVT is very thin and operators that are too commercially focused will cut right back to the stated MINIMUM training requirements!
7. There should be NO more validations handed out to non EU pilots. Their backgrounds are too varied. At the very least they should operate for 6 months at CAT I status in European weather/environment before completing LVT.
That it IMHO.
The reason that so many crews were ignorant of the LVP landing minima requirements are,
1. Too many inexperienced SFIs(2500 hours or less) teaching OCC courses to pilots from non JAR OPS states with very poor general and theoretical knowledge. The course does not even touch the OPS manual. Legislation training must be introduced in the RYR OCC.
2. On line CAT II/III practice landings have been reduced from 8 to 3, with the trainee being released for CAT III ops after his first practice.
3. A large number of very inexperienced pilots being selected by their base captains for line training positions without any sort of weeding out process. Most of these base captains have commercial heads and are not what you could call 'good operators' (with about two exceptions out of 17), so they have in some cases chosen poorly.
4. AIS services need to be standardised and NOTAMS simplified for easier reading.
5. ATC should have made the statement, 'Check your minima' on the ATIS.
6. JAR OPS requirements for LVT is very thin and operators that are too commercially focused will cut right back to the stated MINIMUM training requirements!
7. There should be NO more validations handed out to non EU pilots. Their backgrounds are too varied. At the very least they should operate for 6 months at CAT I status in European weather/environment before completing LVT.
That it IMHO.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: right behind you
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Appears that the iaa took ryanairs word for it about the retraining of the crews involved.they most definitely did not have an inspector present and from talking to those who were "retrained",they spent a day in the training centre reading through the lo vis op's manual with an sfi who did not know the answers to any of their questions and had to keep running off to ask someone else the answers.not very effective but real cheap!
the iaa are nothing short of a bloody disgrace and ireland is now nothing but a flag of convenience!
the iaa are nothing short of a bloody disgrace and ireland is now nothing but a flag of convenience!
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why re-train only those crews affected? There but for the grace......... If they made an error it would suggest there is an error in the LVP training of the operator and that should be addressed in entirity.
I have spoken to a RYR colleague. His opinion is the handout he has received is not comprehensive enough. It leaves many questions unanswered; that is if you have the knowse to ask the questions. He had come from an airline where the LVP training, groundschool and sim, was very detailed and included Q/A's for various situations, before practicing in the sim.
Could such an event have helped here?
I have spoken to a RYR colleague. His opinion is the handout he has received is not comprehensive enough. It leaves many questions unanswered; that is if you have the knowse to ask the questions. He had come from an airline where the LVP training, groundschool and sim, was very detailed and included Q/A's for various situations, before practicing in the sim.
Could such an event have helped here?
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why are you still at Ryanair?
from talking to those who were "retrained",they spent a day in the training centre reading through the lo vis op's manual with an sfi who did not know the answers to any of their questions and had to keep running off to ask someone else the answers.not very effective but real cheap!
I have worked with, & trained, many crew at Ryanair & the standard is generally higher than average. Your detrimental posts create an unfounded, unprofessional and totally unfair image about the standard of Ryanair pilot to other airlines. If you do want to leave FR it's something that you may want to consider!
Tell me, what would you have done with the crew who 'bust' their minima, sack them? Make public scape goats of them? Hang them out to dry? As you say, they spent a day in training to revise LVPs and that's all it took to correct them and all that was required. Believe me they won't do it again. And if the SFI didn't know the answer to a question then, IMHO, he did the correct thing in seeking clarification and not passing on potential duff information. As far as the cost is concerned it doesn't need to be expensive to sort these errors out.
Many of us have a beef with the Ryanair management. I agree with you totally about the IAA, they are useless, but you seem to want blood from your fellow crew. You are far too bitter and twisted.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 772
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pulp Fiction,
I agree with your comments but you still have ask the simple question WHY would Ryan Air pilots bust minimas? I assume it can only be one of two answers....1. They didnt know the minima or didnt know where to look for the minimas or 2. They knew the minimas and just busted them anyway.
I have been in professional flying for 20 years now and I have to say I cant think of a pilot who when is faced with potential fog and reduced lighting, wouldn't have hesitated in looking for reduced minima at the very first thought. I know of no one (other than in emergency) who would bust minima. If they did this because of company pressure then it is disgraceful and if they did it because of sheer ignorance then questions have to be asked. Did they have they information to hand? If they did then they should be hauled over the coals. If it wasn't to hand then the Company surely must have a big problem.
I agree with your comments but you still have ask the simple question WHY would Ryan Air pilots bust minimas? I assume it can only be one of two answers....1. They didnt know the minima or didnt know where to look for the minimas or 2. They knew the minimas and just busted them anyway.
I have been in professional flying for 20 years now and I have to say I cant think of a pilot who when is faced with potential fog and reduced lighting, wouldn't have hesitated in looking for reduced minima at the very first thought. I know of no one (other than in emergency) who would bust minima. If they did this because of company pressure then it is disgraceful and if they did it because of sheer ignorance then questions have to be asked. Did they have they information to hand? If they did then they should be hauled over the coals. If it wasn't to hand then the Company surely must have a big problem.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: right behind you
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I will stay and fight to better this company,as i have always done.Just because it is a step up from jet2,don't make it a good operation.Before you start to point the finger about negativity,look back on your own posts and check you are not staring into a mirror.appearances can be very deceptive.
I have no major beef with the crews who bust the minimas,what i have a problem with the company structure that allows this to go on and the training structure who looks to further their own careers and line their own pockets while handing out substandard training to clowns who are stupid enough to pay for that sub standard training.
the lights had been out for some time,the info on failed and downgraded equipment is available in the lo vis ops manual and jeppesen, that night,most people were holding and requesting alternate status and there was ryanair aircraft who were bypassing the hold at high speed to get in.there was huge potential for disaster that night and it is only by sheer luck that an aircarft did not go off the runway.would you be happy if your family were on one of those aircraft.
what would i have done to the crew who bust the minimas.it should have been prevented not cured.why was it not,because we can see from flight international and internal memo that the chief pilot is quoted in both as saying that he "does not now that lack of runway lighting would effect landing minima".if you think that is acceptable,dandy,i do not and because io cannot voice this opinion openly within ryanair for fear of recrimination,i am forced to voice it here.if you do not like it here,bury your head a little deeper in the sand and everything will be fine.you can always leave.
I have no major beef with the crews who bust the minimas,what i have a problem with the company structure that allows this to go on and the training structure who looks to further their own careers and line their own pockets while handing out substandard training to clowns who are stupid enough to pay for that sub standard training.
the lights had been out for some time,the info on failed and downgraded equipment is available in the lo vis ops manual and jeppesen, that night,most people were holding and requesting alternate status and there was ryanair aircraft who were bypassing the hold at high speed to get in.there was huge potential for disaster that night and it is only by sheer luck that an aircarft did not go off the runway.would you be happy if your family were on one of those aircraft.
what would i have done to the crew who bust the minimas.it should have been prevented not cured.why was it not,because we can see from flight international and internal memo that the chief pilot is quoted in both as saying that he "does not now that lack of runway lighting would effect landing minima".if you think that is acceptable,dandy,i do not and because io cannot voice this opinion openly within ryanair for fear of recrimination,i am forced to voice it here.if you do not like it here,bury your head a little deeper in the sand and everything will be fine.you can always leave.