LoCo airlines busting minima in LVP's at STN?
aka Capt PPRuNe
Join Date: May 1995
Location: UK
Posts: 4,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to put a bit of perspective on this thread before it degenerates into the usual plain vanilla Ryanair bashing, please be aware of the title. I deliberately changed it when it first appeared as Ryanair were not the only airline to bust the minima that night.
I received a copy of the RVR readouts for that night shortly after the incidents were reported. The RVR readouts are updated every minute. I also received a copy of the touchdown times of all aircraft that night together with the flight numbers. Again, Ryanair were not the only airline to have aircraft land below minimums whilst the Low Vis Procedures were in effect.
The information I received was raw data and had to be correlated. As I am downroute at the moment and do not have the actual data to hand, you will have to forgive me if my memory doesn't provide all the detail and minutae of the information I was given at the time.
What I can remember is that around 16 aircraft actually touched down whilst the RVR was below 550m. The RVR during the earlier part of that night was varying around 600m-250m. I am no expert but I decided to take the RVR reading for the two minutes before touchdown as the one that should apply using the fact that with an approach speed of around 120kts (a bit low), two minutes earlier they would have been about 4nm away on the approach and roughly at around 1,000ft agl. For those who are not instrument rated pilots, 1,000ft above the runway is the point that a flight must not continue unless the visibility is above the minimum required for the approach in use, taking into account the serviceability of the equipment on the aircraft AND of the equipment at the airport. If the RVR (Runway Visual Range) should drop below the minimum AFTER the aircraft has passed the 1,000ft point (or other suitable reference, often 4nm) then the approach can continue.
Using the above criteria, I was able to see that of the 16 aircraft that landed in RVR below 550m (the lowest visibility allowed for a landing that night due to the downgraded lighting systems at the airport), 8 of them should be given the benefit of the doubt as the RVR two minutes earlier had been at 550m or above. Of the remaining 8 aircraft, if memory serves me right, only three or four were Ryanair flights. I think there were also three flights by a German LoCo and one or two were by other UK operators, one of which was Titan.
The most interesting point was that of all the aircraft that landed that night after having breached the minimum RVR limits, they were all from LoCo airlines. I will name the others when I get back home and can find the reports and my notes.
I was surprised when Flight International published their article the other day, as to why they concentrated solely on Ryanair's breaches of the minima and the fact that the IAA still hadn't managed to produce a report. Considering that some of the obviously blatant breaches of RVR minima were by a German LoCo much later that night when the RVR never got above about 250m, I would have thought that the CAA would have reported that airline to the German aviation regulators.
The main point of the thread is, as the title suggests, is there a problem of standards of training within some LoCo airlines? If so many captains could breach the regulations that are designed to provide a safety margin when operating in Low Visibility Operations, is that down to poor training, poor airmanship or a fear from the commanders of the repercussions should they not be able to satisfactorily explain why they diverted when the aircraft and they are CATIII certified and their Chief Pilots were not aware that downgraded lighting systems would affect the minima at a fogbound home base or destination?
I received a copy of the RVR readouts for that night shortly after the incidents were reported. The RVR readouts are updated every minute. I also received a copy of the touchdown times of all aircraft that night together with the flight numbers. Again, Ryanair were not the only airline to have aircraft land below minimums whilst the Low Vis Procedures were in effect.
The information I received was raw data and had to be correlated. As I am downroute at the moment and do not have the actual data to hand, you will have to forgive me if my memory doesn't provide all the detail and minutae of the information I was given at the time.
What I can remember is that around 16 aircraft actually touched down whilst the RVR was below 550m. The RVR during the earlier part of that night was varying around 600m-250m. I am no expert but I decided to take the RVR reading for the two minutes before touchdown as the one that should apply using the fact that with an approach speed of around 120kts (a bit low), two minutes earlier they would have been about 4nm away on the approach and roughly at around 1,000ft agl. For those who are not instrument rated pilots, 1,000ft above the runway is the point that a flight must not continue unless the visibility is above the minimum required for the approach in use, taking into account the serviceability of the equipment on the aircraft AND of the equipment at the airport. If the RVR (Runway Visual Range) should drop below the minimum AFTER the aircraft has passed the 1,000ft point (or other suitable reference, often 4nm) then the approach can continue.
Using the above criteria, I was able to see that of the 16 aircraft that landed in RVR below 550m (the lowest visibility allowed for a landing that night due to the downgraded lighting systems at the airport), 8 of them should be given the benefit of the doubt as the RVR two minutes earlier had been at 550m or above. Of the remaining 8 aircraft, if memory serves me right, only three or four were Ryanair flights. I think there were also three flights by a German LoCo and one or two were by other UK operators, one of which was Titan.
The most interesting point was that of all the aircraft that landed that night after having breached the minimum RVR limits, they were all from LoCo airlines. I will name the others when I get back home and can find the reports and my notes.
I was surprised when Flight International published their article the other day, as to why they concentrated solely on Ryanair's breaches of the minima and the fact that the IAA still hadn't managed to produce a report. Considering that some of the obviously blatant breaches of RVR minima were by a German LoCo much later that night when the RVR never got above about 250m, I would have thought that the CAA would have reported that airline to the German aviation regulators.
The main point of the thread is, as the title suggests, is there a problem of standards of training within some LoCo airlines? If so many captains could breach the regulations that are designed to provide a safety margin when operating in Low Visibility Operations, is that down to poor training, poor airmanship or a fear from the commanders of the repercussions should they not be able to satisfactorily explain why they diverted when the aircraft and they are CATIII certified and their Chief Pilots were not aware that downgraded lighting systems would affect the minima at a fogbound home base or destination?
Danny, in your post you say:
"The most interesting point was that all the aircraft that landed that night after breached the minimum RVR limits, they were all from LoCo airlines". Why is this especially interesting and is it actually true?
Firstly, almost all the arrivals at STN (especially late in the evening) are from LoCo airlines, nothing particularly interesting about that.
Secondly, you yourself seem to be making assumptions about how many aircraft actually did land below minimums - I'd be happy to wait for concrete facts when you get home.
I myself was flying into STN that evening and (like many others) was taken by surprise by the sudden and unexpected deterioration in the visibility, but this is not an event unique to LoCos. (We diverted to LGW btw!).
"The most interesting point was that all the aircraft that landed that night after breached the minimum RVR limits, they were all from LoCo airlines". Why is this especially interesting and is it actually true?
Firstly, almost all the arrivals at STN (especially late in the evening) are from LoCo airlines, nothing particularly interesting about that.
Secondly, you yourself seem to be making assumptions about how many aircraft actually did land below minimums - I'd be happy to wait for concrete facts when you get home.
I myself was flying into STN that evening and (like many others) was taken by surprise by the sudden and unexpected deterioration in the visibility, but this is not an event unique to LoCos. (We diverted to LGW btw!).
aka Capt PPRuNe
Join Date: May 1995
Location: UK
Posts: 4,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not making any assumptions at this stage. Just stating the facts as I remember them. However, the reason this all came to light was because of the number of flights that made approaches that night and continued to a landing. It was the ATC guys that expressed their concerns.
Is there another example of a busy airport which had LVP's with reduced minima due to equipment outages where so many a/c continued to make approaches? I don't know.
The only fact about this case is that all the approaches made were by LoCo operators. Were there any non-LoCo operators that were scheduled to land at STN that night? If not then the stats don't mean a whole lot. If there were, then draw your own conclusions. BTW, are you the same Rocket Ron that I used to fly with on the B757/767? If so, then you are not flying for a LoCo operator and in which case, validates my point.
Hopefully a lesson was learnt that night. Perhaps the airlines concerned should have an LVP checklist that they can refer to before doing their approach/landing brief. In the airline I work for we have one and it makes you double check the notams for anything that might affect the minimums to be applied. If you are a Jepp user then it certainly beats trying to find the relevant info in their complex publication.
Is there another example of a busy airport which had LVP's with reduced minima due to equipment outages where so many a/c continued to make approaches? I don't know.
The only fact about this case is that all the approaches made were by LoCo operators. Were there any non-LoCo operators that were scheduled to land at STN that night? If not then the stats don't mean a whole lot. If there were, then draw your own conclusions. BTW, are you the same Rocket Ron that I used to fly with on the B757/767? If so, then you are not flying for a LoCo operator and in which case, validates my point.
Hopefully a lesson was learnt that night. Perhaps the airlines concerned should have an LVP checklist that they can refer to before doing their approach/landing brief. In the airline I work for we have one and it makes you double check the notams for anything that might affect the minimums to be applied. If you are a Jepp user then it certainly beats trying to find the relevant info in their complex publication.
Danny,
No we've never met, but I do work for a LoCo with the highest standards (imho). We also have an LVP checklist but needed to refer to the LPC in this instance. (Airbus
)
On an average evening at STN there are 45 FR and 15 EZY arrivals after 2100 and rarely more than a handful by other operators (who aren't necessarily CATIIIB equipped anyway, so mightn't have commenced an approach in the first place!), so I wouldn't expect anybody to be drawing conclusions one way or the other.
No we've never met, but I do work for a LoCo with the highest standards (imho). We also have an LVP checklist but needed to refer to the LPC in this instance. (Airbus
)On an average evening at STN there are 45 FR and 15 EZY arrivals after 2100 and rarely more than a handful by other operators (who aren't necessarily CATIIIB equipped anyway, so mightn't have commenced an approach in the first place!), so I wouldn't expect anybody to be drawing conclusions one way or the other.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
what would i have done to the crew who bust the minimas.it should have been prevented not cured.
I ask then question again, what would you do to improve the safety after the event took place?I may agree with you Grim Repa about the management 'style' at FR and the complete limp wristed manner in which the IAA behave towards us, it really is damning to the Irish aviation industry and is a shame on them. However, when you originally started this thread you were somewhat misleading as it was not just FR aircraft who landed below minima.
europe's lowest airline.
Yes, Jet2 is an dreadful carrier with lousy SOPs and they definitely didn't listen to their crews when they really bloody well should have done, but having been unfortunate enough to have spent time in their company it makes you realise that Ryanair is genuinely a cut above many other operators.
Don't make it your personal battle to improve the whole of Ryanair and the ineffective IAA. Get on with your career and enjoy.
The 1000ft point is a pseudo altitude that is used as an equivalent position if there is not 'outer marker' or 'final fix'.
If there is indeed such a beacon at STN then this renders the 1000ft point as a non event.
i.e. if the final fix is at, say 6 miles, roughly 1500aal, then pilots can continue approach below this height even if rvr drops below the 550 minimum (or whatever the minimum is for that approach).
trouble is, I'm not familiar with STN so have no idea about where the final fix is!
If there is indeed such a beacon at STN then this renders the 1000ft point as a non event.
i.e. if the final fix is at, say 6 miles, roughly 1500aal, then pilots can continue approach below this height even if rvr drops below the 550 minimum (or whatever the minimum is for that approach).
trouble is, I'm not familiar with STN so have no idea about where the final fix is!
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Stockholm Sweden
Age: 74
Posts: 569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
On an average evening at STN there are 45 FR and 15 EZY arrivals after 2100 and rarely more than a handful by other operators (who aren't necessarily CATIIIB equipped anyway, so mightn't have commenced an approach in the first place!),
Lets remember that there are no Cat3B B737. At best they are Cat3A as the B737 has no rudder channel in the autopilot
On an average evening at STN there are 45 FR and 15 EZY arrivals after 2100 and rarely more than a handful by other operators (who aren't necessarily CATIIIB equipped anyway, so mightn't have commenced an approach in the first place!),
Lets remember that there are no Cat3B B737. At best they are Cat3A as the B737 has no rudder channel in the autopilot
Just another number
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 1,077
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
kick the tires
JAR-OPS states that an aircraft may continue the approach if the RVR drops below minimas after passing the outer market or equivalent position, which is usually 4 miles DME. If there is no equivalent position then 1000ft can be used. However some airlines (including BA) ignore the first bit and just use 1000ft. The two minutes used by Danny still applies to the 4 mile fix and he mentions this in his post #141.
At STN there is a 4 DME fix where the altitude is 1680ft (1330ft aal).
Airclues
JAR-OPS states that an aircraft may continue the approach if the RVR drops below minimas after passing the outer market or equivalent position, which is usually 4 miles DME. If there is no equivalent position then 1000ft can be used. However some airlines (including BA) ignore the first bit and just use 1000ft. The two minutes used by Danny still applies to the 4 mile fix and he mentions this in his post #141.
At STN there is a 4 DME fix where the altitude is 1680ft (1330ft aal).
Airclues
Airclues, thanks for the STN info.
The reason I replied to Dannys post is just as we have both said in our posts; that is the 1000ft point is irrelevant at STN as (I now know) there is a fix at 1680ft.
Therefore, if the RVR drops when you are at 1679ft (I'm hope i dont sound like a smartarse) then you may continue and have a looksee. This is certainly what we do in orange land, i.e ignore the 1000 EP if there is an independent radio fix. Of course if there is no such fix we mandate the 1000ft equivalent position.
This may even take some of the aircraft out of Danny's '2 min from touchdown, 120kts' category and may even lead to a retraction of implied guilt towards the remaining 8 aircraft, if memory serves me right, only three or four were Ryanair flights. I think there were also three flights by a German LoCo and one or two were by other UK operators, one of which was Titan.
The reason I replied to Dannys post is just as we have both said in our posts; that is the 1000ft point is irrelevant at STN as (I now know) there is a fix at 1680ft.
Therefore, if the RVR drops when you are at 1679ft (I'm hope i dont sound like a smartarse) then you may continue and have a looksee. This is certainly what we do in orange land, i.e ignore the 1000 EP if there is an independent radio fix. Of course if there is no such fix we mandate the 1000ft equivalent position.
This may even take some of the aircraft out of Danny's '2 min from touchdown, 120kts' category and may even lead to a retraction of implied guilt towards the remaining 8 aircraft, if memory serves me right, only three or four were Ryanair flights. I think there were also three flights by a German LoCo and one or two were by other UK operators, one of which was Titan.
Couldonlyaffordafiver
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The Twilight Zone near 30W
Posts: 1,934
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
....some airlines (including BA) ignore the first bit and just use 1000ft.
The question here is whether some operators made illegal approaches below their approved approach ban minima, due to the RVRs being received immediately prior to that point being below the appropriate limits.
Danny,
one easyJet aircraft landed after a report of reduced RVR.
easyJet reviewed the ATC tapes and the aircraft in question continued his approach because the report was given AFTER the marker.
Apologies? perhaps not as your accusation was implied.
But worth checking facts a wee bit more first before naming such transgressions.
one easyJet aircraft landed after a report of reduced RVR.
easyJet reviewed the ATC tapes and the aircraft in question continued his approach because the report was given AFTER the marker.
Apologies? perhaps not as your accusation was implied.
But worth checking facts a wee bit more first before naming such transgressions.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: London
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Danny I note that you say that the "ATC guys were concerned", but it dose appear that the controllers at the time did not issue an absolute minima warning as per AIC 7/2005 published by NATS. It is then understandable to assume that the controllers are either un-aware of such an AIC or "aided and abbetted" the situation that the pilots found themselves in.
It is also my understanding that the ATIS at the time was broadcasting a "CATIII ILS is available" Not that relates to the lights which were not CAIII but it does help fix a mindset that all is "OK". What a gotcha?
Yes the runway is undergoing work as notamed, fog comes down, is it possible that the the airport upgrades the systems under the circumstances to CAT3, bash out suitable ATIS broadcast previous aircraft are landing and ATC say nothing to the contrary other than "cleared to land?"
Then pick up the phone to the authority expressing concerns?? How about telling the boys and girls on finals?
I don't wish to be pugnacious but i wonder sometimes why it always has to be the crews or the operators at the S*tty end of the stick.
It is also my understanding that the ATIS at the time was broadcasting a "CATIII ILS is available" Not that relates to the lights which were not CAIII but it does help fix a mindset that all is "OK". What a gotcha?
Yes the runway is undergoing work as notamed, fog comes down, is it possible that the the airport upgrades the systems under the circumstances to CAT3, bash out suitable ATIS broadcast previous aircraft are landing and ATC say nothing to the contrary other than "cleared to land?"
Then pick up the phone to the authority expressing concerns?? How about telling the boys and girls on finals?
I don't wish to be pugnacious but i wonder sometimes why it always has to be the crews or the operators at the S*tty end of the stick.
aka Capt PPRuNe
Join Date: May 1995
Location: UK
Posts: 4,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At no stage did I mention easyJet. I am fully aware of the easyJet flight that landed when RVR was below 550m but it was one of the other 8 or more aircraft that made approaches whilst the RVR was above 550m. The thread was about the other 8 aircraft that made approaches with RVR below 550 whilst descending through the 1000ft aal approach ban point. No need to apologise though. 
As for the requirements of the ATC people to say anything, ther was a full discussion on this at the time. I will merge this thread into it so as to avoid any further confusion.
As for the requirements of the ATC people to say anything, ther was a full discussion on this at the time. I will merge this thread into it so as to avoid any further confusion.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: essex
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are now 14 pages on this thread and as usual most contributions are missing the point.
My recollection of this night is that the ATIS was broadcasting "low visibility procedures are in force". Even if you had checked the notams a few hours earlier, you might now be seduced into thinking that the airfield equipment required for low vis procedures is now all servicable. Indeed it was only when a pilot queried the statement and the status of the lighting that atc began to ask approaching aircraft if they realised that the downgraded lighting might effect their ability to make an approach.
It is very unlikely that any one intentionally made an approach knowing the minima was below their limits
My recollection of this night is that the ATIS was broadcasting "low visibility procedures are in force". Even if you had checked the notams a few hours earlier, you might now be seduced into thinking that the airfield equipment required for low vis procedures is now all servicable. Indeed it was only when a pilot queried the statement and the status of the lighting that atc began to ask approaching aircraft if they realised that the downgraded lighting might effect their ability to make an approach.
It is very unlikely that any one intentionally made an approach knowing the minima was below their limits
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In a far better place
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have not read all 14 pages of this thread, but this whole cock up would have been avoided if an opening statement was recorded on the ATIS about the down-grading of the runway lighting.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I could be wrong here and if so apologise if I am out of date or have a bad memory but I think you will find that if you read the UK ANO there is an absolute requirement to have the required RVR at the 1000 ft point point regardless of how many radio fixes, ie markers etc you may have received before you get to that point. If you do not have the RVR at 1000 ft you have to GA. Below 1000ft you can continue for looksee with a deterioration in the RVR
