Cullen concern over Ryanair landings
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: North East
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bia Botal I should of said that it is breaking the rules if your flying at 250+knots below 10,000ft in class G which is where I was basing my arguments on as I have knowledge of Ryanair operations within these areas. Regarding the bmi go around it was as I stated but have now recieved full info on it. Will not give out information on where it happened to protect anyone involved but it was come down from higherlevels with a following wind trying to make an out of wind runway. As I said pilots can get things wrong sometimes, no one was put in danger, just a go around, thankfully aviation is safety orientated.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Uk
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a pilot and a spectator I would just like to point a few things out to maybe clarify things for a few of the previous posters.
1. To minimise time on the ground it makes more sense to fly at a slower approach speed to ensure a convenient exit from the runway. Landing faster will mean a longer ground run.
2. 310 Kts at four miles out would be highly unlikely in any jet aircraft. At around 4 miles, in most cases, landing flap would be taken and the clearance to land would have been given. 310 kts would mean no gear extended and you wouldn't get to 4 miles in such a configuration.
3. Spoilers in the undershoot. Type specific, but if being used as speed brakes or air brakes then highly unlikely with landing flap deployed. Lift dump would be unavailable until the weight on wheels switches are active.
4. Speed above 250 kts is permitted below FL100, and is sometimes encouraged by ATC.
5. Errors with jepp charts of one or two feet should not result in a heavy landing if the rad alt is used as an advisory alert if being unable to judge the height off the ground is hard to judge by looking out (even I can't work this one out. Who uses a barometric altimeter to judge the flare?)
Why people go on about 25 minute turnarounds is totally beyond me. Surely this is the time between brakes on and brakes off? How does taxiing faster, landing faster, flying unstable approaches etc. possibly reduce this time? Clearly there is a time pressure but this might have more to do with punctuality targets or crew duty issues or anything else. All pilots try to minimise time on the ground, doesn't matter who they fly for.
Sorry, this post has turned out longer than I planned, sorry for any realism it is only implied
1. To minimise time on the ground it makes more sense to fly at a slower approach speed to ensure a convenient exit from the runway. Landing faster will mean a longer ground run.
2. 310 Kts at four miles out would be highly unlikely in any jet aircraft. At around 4 miles, in most cases, landing flap would be taken and the clearance to land would have been given. 310 kts would mean no gear extended and you wouldn't get to 4 miles in such a configuration.
3. Spoilers in the undershoot. Type specific, but if being used as speed brakes or air brakes then highly unlikely with landing flap deployed. Lift dump would be unavailable until the weight on wheels switches are active.
4. Speed above 250 kts is permitted below FL100, and is sometimes encouraged by ATC.
5. Errors with jepp charts of one or two feet should not result in a heavy landing if the rad alt is used as an advisory alert if being unable to judge the height off the ground is hard to judge by looking out (even I can't work this one out. Who uses a barometric altimeter to judge the flare?)
Why people go on about 25 minute turnarounds is totally beyond me. Surely this is the time between brakes on and brakes off? How does taxiing faster, landing faster, flying unstable approaches etc. possibly reduce this time? Clearly there is a time pressure but this might have more to do with punctuality targets or crew duty issues or anything else. All pilots try to minimise time on the ground, doesn't matter who they fly for.
Sorry, this post has turned out longer than I planned, sorry for any realism it is only implied
>3. Spoilers in the undershoot. Type specific, but if being used as speed brakes or air brakes then highly unlikely with landing flap deployed. Lift dump would be unavailable until the weight on wheels switches are active.
737-800. I got the impression that a nose-down input activated them...
r
737-800. I got the impression that a nose-down input activated them...
r
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: ireland
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A4, spot on I was indeed joking.
Benhur I was using irony to play down the point about rough landings, which while never pleasant for any of those involved are not for the most part dangerous or indicative of poor company safety ethos. Now watch carefully because I'm going to use it again, I really enjoyed your post and feel you know what your talking about.
Benhur I was using irony to play down the point about rough landings, which while never pleasant for any of those involved are not for the most part dangerous or indicative of poor company safety ethos. Now watch carefully because I'm going to use it again, I really enjoyed your post and feel you know what your talking about.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Someone might care to look at RYR schedule block times and sector flight times and then comment. I'm told it is not uncommon to have block times shorter than flight times. If so, that is real schedule-keeping pressure.
Spare a thought for the struggling line trainers trying to impart some aviating knowledge into 200 hour pilots under such circumstances and 25 min turn rounds. Wow! And all that with an NPA waiting for on a nasty day.
However, professionalism should never be compromised by any pilot. I operate by the maxim that I'd rather be 5 minutes late than 20 years early.
Spare a thought for the struggling line trainers trying to impart some aviating knowledge into 200 hour pilots under such circumstances and 25 min turn rounds. Wow! And all that with an NPA waiting for on a nasty day.
However, professionalism should never be compromised by any pilot. I operate by the maxim that I'd rather be 5 minutes late than 20 years early.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Uk
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rat 5 , that was kind of what I was hinting at... How on earth can anyone schedule a block time less than a flight time?
I am asking this as a serious question.
Being but a humble line pilot I don't understand technical stuff such as "nose down input" so I think it best that I don't pass comment.
I am asking this as a serious question.
Being but a humble line pilot I don't understand technical stuff such as "nose down input" so I think it best that I don't pass comment.
While we're at it, is there a relationship between excessive touchdown speed (if that's possible at all) brake temperatures, and turn-round time?
Only asking, I don't know the answer. Is there one?
Only asking, I don't know the answer. Is there one?
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Gatwick
Age: 58
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a couple of points-
The speed brakes during the final approach phase are in the armed position ie,when the air/ground sensors sense the a/c is on the ground (weight on wheels)all 12 spoiler panels extend,during flight,with more than 2.5 units of control wheel turn the flight spoilers (8 of the 12) extend,to assist roll.now those who have had the pleasure of actually flying a real a/c would know that putting a 60 tonne piece of metal on a 45m wide strip of tarmac is quite an art,especially during the last few hundred feet-even if,as mentioned,the wind is straight down the runway.therefore quite large inputs in roll are required which = flight spoiler movement.
also,with regards "carrier landings" as with 250 below 10,atc may request minimum time on the runway ie. aircraft right up your a%$e.therefore getting of at the first intersection or high speed turn off may be requied.
oh yeah,and while im at it,speeding up youre approach from say 145 kts to 165 kts = about 22 seconds saved-hardly worth it.
back seat drivers....
The speed brakes during the final approach phase are in the armed position ie,when the air/ground sensors sense the a/c is on the ground (weight on wheels)all 12 spoiler panels extend,during flight,with more than 2.5 units of control wheel turn the flight spoilers (8 of the 12) extend,to assist roll.now those who have had the pleasure of actually flying a real a/c would know that putting a 60 tonne piece of metal on a 45m wide strip of tarmac is quite an art,especially during the last few hundred feet-even if,as mentioned,the wind is straight down the runway.therefore quite large inputs in roll are required which = flight spoiler movement.
also,with regards "carrier landings" as with 250 below 10,atc may request minimum time on the runway ie. aircraft right up your a%$e.therefore getting of at the first intersection or high speed turn off may be requied.
oh yeah,and while im at it,speeding up youre approach from say 145 kts to 165 kts = about 22 seconds saved-hardly worth it.
back seat drivers....
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: ireland
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Listen to the FR guys, they tell you and have posted here that they feel under pressure. Is there a link between 25min turn rounds and safety? Probably not if a safety culture exists which is supportive of the commander. Again, listen to the FR guys, do they seem to work within that sort of corporate culture? The Minister may be going into this investigation for all sorts of reasons, it doesn't matter. This is a real opportunity to get it sorted. Ben, "nose down imput" he's trying to tell you the micro switch is on the nose gear.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Boeing forbids the use spoilers with flap 5 or more, so if the report of use in the undershoot is correct it is a clear indication of non-compliance with aircraft limitations and therefore a very serious matter. However, lets be sure this wasn't automatic deployment on touchdown before we start slinging mud.
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 1,879
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Although I disagree with the minister on many issues, I'm bound to say that he's completely within his rights to request such a report. Too often (particularly in relation to DUB Airport), there's a tendency to put corporate or regulatory bodies between the minister and the issue, so he can say, "oh, someone else's problem" and effectively wash his hands of it. Now, those who say it's just an election gimmick may be right, but frankly I don't see even the most cynical minister making an issue of air safety.
Frankly, I find FR's response dismaying; it's just another opportunity for a slanging match and for an airline which says it takes air safety seriously, this attitude is unhelpful and inappropriate.
To use the well worn Swiss cheese model, I think we can see many of these cheeses lining up already, to the extent that, if FR were to have a serious accident, how many of the likely contributory factors would be issues NOT discussed on various threads on PPRUNE?
I think it's time FR were shown in no uncertain terms who is in charge as far as air safety regulation is concerned:
- Is there Corporate manslaughter legislation in Ireland? (I should know, but off the top of my head, I don't);
- The IAA should have the right (as the FAA did, in relation to Frank Lorenzo) to order the removal of persons whose behaviours/ attitudes pose a danger to air safety.
- The IAA should be in a position to levy fines with interest for air safety infractions, (which, if necessary, should be enforced through grounding of aircraft).
- IAA to establish a confidential reporting system, with effective and thorough investigations of air safety issues (with fines for non-cooperation or obstructionism).
It's the old tombstone imperative; do it now, or wait until there's a major accident ...
Frankly, I find FR's response dismaying; it's just another opportunity for a slanging match and for an airline which says it takes air safety seriously, this attitude is unhelpful and inappropriate.
To use the well worn Swiss cheese model, I think we can see many of these cheeses lining up already, to the extent that, if FR were to have a serious accident, how many of the likely contributory factors would be issues NOT discussed on various threads on PPRUNE?
I think it's time FR were shown in no uncertain terms who is in charge as far as air safety regulation is concerned:
- Is there Corporate manslaughter legislation in Ireland? (I should know, but off the top of my head, I don't);
- The IAA should have the right (as the FAA did, in relation to Frank Lorenzo) to order the removal of persons whose behaviours/ attitudes pose a danger to air safety.
- The IAA should be in a position to levy fines with interest for air safety infractions, (which, if necessary, should be enforced through grounding of aircraft).
- IAA to establish a confidential reporting system, with effective and thorough investigations of air safety issues (with fines for non-cooperation or obstructionism).
It's the old tombstone imperative; do it now, or wait until there's a major accident ...
>back seat drivers....
We don't know everything, but do, at least, credit us with knowing something.
Some of us can tell when drivers are in a rush.
And aviation seems not too tolerant of those in a hurry....
also,with regards "carrier landings" as with 250 below 10,atc may request minimum time on the runway ie. aircraft right up your a%$e.therefore getting of at the first intersection or high speed turn off may be requied.
I worked at Teesside for a number of years, then flew very regularly as a passenger there for a good while afterwards. This chap was going for the intersection to save time. I've experienced this many times, but never with quite so much force, particularly with the brakes sounding like a slowing tube train.
Nothing up his derriere, as I saw up the approach as we turned off, and nothing arrived. The only thing "chasing" him was the MOL "fast food" culture.
And what that culture does to professionals is pretty obvious to some of the passengers. The whole point of my particiaption in this thread is to share my experience from twelve years at the commercial end of the business, namely that passengers are more perceptive than folks driving may sometimes appreciate.
>therefore quite large inputs in roll are required which = flight spoiler movement. No sensations of roll or correction experienced, just a coincidental wallop down.
There appear to be lots of holes forming in this particular cheese.
r
We don't know everything, but do, at least, credit us with knowing something.
Some of us can tell when drivers are in a rush.
And aviation seems not too tolerant of those in a hurry....
also,with regards "carrier landings" as with 250 below 10,atc may request minimum time on the runway ie. aircraft right up your a%$e.therefore getting of at the first intersection or high speed turn off may be requied.
I worked at Teesside for a number of years, then flew very regularly as a passenger there for a good while afterwards. This chap was going for the intersection to save time. I've experienced this many times, but never with quite so much force, particularly with the brakes sounding like a slowing tube train.
Nothing up his derriere, as I saw up the approach as we turned off, and nothing arrived. The only thing "chasing" him was the MOL "fast food" culture.
And what that culture does to professionals is pretty obvious to some of the passengers. The whole point of my particiaption in this thread is to share my experience from twelve years at the commercial end of the business, namely that passengers are more perceptive than folks driving may sometimes appreciate.
>therefore quite large inputs in roll are required which = flight spoiler movement. No sensations of roll or correction experienced, just a coincidental wallop down.
There appear to be lots of holes forming in this particular cheese.
r
Last edited by Midland 331; 23rd Feb 2007 at 14:09.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Eire
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I really must say that I don't think any of this has anything to do with "faster approaches". That is simply a laymans term for what was reported as unstable approaches in the recent incident reports. No one can seriously believe that Ryanair or anyone else will land at a higher speed to save time.
They will approach faster however and try to close the gap between becoming stabilised and the 500 foot stabilised approach gate. I know, cos I've been there. And in the end, it is more effiecient. Sometimes it goes wrong and you go around (and subsequently waste more time than you could ever has used up by taking your time in the first place, hence the reluctance to correct your error). The recent events were cases of gross errors during the initial approach that were blatantly unrecoverable but were continued to the limit (or beyond) anyway.
As for 25 minute turnarounds, surely no body believes that these are the root of the problem either. They are purely a link in the chain. Each link is relatively harmelss, but chain can give you an awful whack when you least expect it. Ryanair management will not accept this though. They see - pilots are trained, pilots get it wrong, pilots fault.
Martin Cullen is grossly in error. He has said that the Cork incident was highlighted by a foreign authority. He wants them to give him the info so he can decide whether to approach the IAA about conducting an investigation. It was the bloody AAIU that investigated it in the first place!!! Plonker!
Nonetheless, I don't care what Cullen says because he is not an aviation professional. I don't expect him to get it right. I simply welcome the fact that a further review of Ryanair practices may result. That has to be a good thing, even if only to stop us all worrying. (no sarcasm intended!
)
Cullens remarks are the first sign that some people outside of the aviation industry itself are standing up and saying "What oh old boy! What's going on here?". I can do nothing but say it's about time.
They will approach faster however and try to close the gap between becoming stabilised and the 500 foot stabilised approach gate. I know, cos I've been there. And in the end, it is more effiecient. Sometimes it goes wrong and you go around (and subsequently waste more time than you could ever has used up by taking your time in the first place, hence the reluctance to correct your error). The recent events were cases of gross errors during the initial approach that were blatantly unrecoverable but were continued to the limit (or beyond) anyway.
As for 25 minute turnarounds, surely no body believes that these are the root of the problem either. They are purely a link in the chain. Each link is relatively harmelss, but chain can give you an awful whack when you least expect it. Ryanair management will not accept this though. They see - pilots are trained, pilots get it wrong, pilots fault.
Martin Cullen is grossly in error. He has said that the Cork incident was highlighted by a foreign authority. He wants them to give him the info so he can decide whether to approach the IAA about conducting an investigation. It was the bloody AAIU that investigated it in the first place!!! Plonker!
Nonetheless, I don't care what Cullen says because he is not an aviation professional. I don't expect him to get it right. I simply welcome the fact that a further review of Ryanair practices may result. That has to be a good thing, even if only to stop us all worrying. (no sarcasm intended!
)Cullens remarks are the first sign that some people outside of the aviation industry itself are standing up and saying "What oh old boy! What's going on here?". I can do nothing but say it's about time.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see no inherent danger in a fast/noise abatement approach.The Cork incident was dangerous because it was too low.The airline cant attract the right stuff because of their horrendous reputation so they're getting more and more of these incidents.They're stuck with a mismatch of low-hour cadets,mostly from Belgium/Holland,who they upgrade way too early,and a melee of management Irish/Brit pilots and then a whole bunch of people from anywhere from Brazil to Serbia.The good pilots do occasionally join but leave because they dont like being stepped on.Their training is quite good to be fair;if they only understood that you only get the good guys when the malarkey stops.Provide the rating,the uniform,the car pass,treat the pilots with respect and they'll turn it around.Otherwise,they're on a one-way trip to perdition.They have the potential to beat their third-rate cousin from Luton but they're shooting themselves in the foot.Passenger growth is still good but any safety problems will quickly put an end to that.
MIDLAND331
Sometimes the pilot can "feel" the start of a roll almost before it happens and puts in a control movement to stop it before it gets going.
Spent many a happy hour on the flight deck of of my company's TriStars watching the PF doing just that and feeling nothing, but the control surfaces (including roll control spoilers) must have been going barmy on some very windy appoaches.
Haven't heard of the 737 having pitch inuut controlled spoilers (willing to be corrected having limited experience here) , but the Tristar was first with that, years before its time, made for a wonderfully stable approach.
Doc C
Sometimes the pilot can "feel" the start of a roll almost before it happens and puts in a control movement to stop it before it gets going.
Spent many a happy hour on the flight deck of of my company's TriStars watching the PF doing just that and feeling nothing, but the control surfaces (including roll control spoilers) must have been going barmy on some very windy appoaches.
Haven't heard of the 737 having pitch inuut controlled spoilers (willing to be corrected having limited experience here) , but the Tristar was first with that, years before its time, made for a wonderfully stable approach.
Doc C
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem with Ryanair consists of a three letter word. MOL. He's running the company like a cab driver in Rome. (No offense intended...). Our safety culture consists of strict SOP's and "you're fired if..." -memo's, accompanied by mandatory safety-seminars on our days off. All this combined with pilots from 42 different nationalities, with less than desired experience.
However, the attention we have got during the last few months, has nothing to do with lack of safety. Come on, who believes we're landing above Vref to save time? And aiming for the first exit...really, who doesn't? Ever heard of reducing RWY occupancy time? Rushed approaches has nothing to do with lack of safety...it's simply bad airmanship..and it could happen to anyone. We're getting big, and that will add to the number of incidences.
However, the attention we have got during the last few months, has nothing to do with lack of safety. Come on, who believes we're landing above Vref to save time? And aiming for the first exit...really, who doesn't? Ever heard of reducing RWY occupancy time? Rushed approaches has nothing to do with lack of safety...it's simply bad airmanship..and it could happen to anyone. We're getting big, and that will add to the number of incidences.
aka Capt PPRuNe
Join Date: May 1995
Location: UK
Posts: 4,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a gentle reminder, once again, that this is the 'professional pilots' rumour network. Whilst input from non-professional pilots, enthusiasts, Flight Sim 'pilots', spotters or anyone else is welcome, the line has to be drawn when there is garbage being posted by those who either try to pretend they know or think they know but in reality don't know what they are on about.
Examples from this thread are the mention of spoilers being "deployed" by someone who is not a professional pilot and has never actually done a ground school for the B737NG or is even licensed to operate one. As a passenger with a bit of knowledge, it is easy to see how the conclusion that spoilers were "deployed" in the "undershoot" but in all probability only roll spoilers were seen on the side the passenger was sitting. To try and twist it to represent anything else, including "pitch" spoilers is just embarrassing and does those who really don't know no favours.
As in all cases, it becomes very obvious to the rest of us who do hold the necessary licences and have the experience of operating the real thing, that those who try to pretend they know or would like us all to think that they know about flying heavy metal, in reality don't know much at all. There are some people using terminology on here that makes me squirm with embarrassment and immediately rings alarm bells because it is more often than not, someone trying too hard to be something they are not such as an airline pilot.
We are the first to have a go at journalists who are sloppy on their research and report aviation incidents and accidents with non-standard terminology. So, why are some posters, especially on this thread, trying so hard to sound as though they have knowledge of everything aviation when it is quite obvious that in reality they are just making fools of themselves?
If you are going to make observations about how a pilot is handling an aircraft or performing a manoeuvre and you have never actually flown the type or something similar then please try to do so with the necessary objectivity and understanding that you don't have all the facts or experience to do so. It is just as bad as bad journalism to try and pretend that you know exactly what you are talking about when in reality it is obvious to the rest of us that simply is not the case.
Examples from this thread are the mention of spoilers being "deployed" by someone who is not a professional pilot and has never actually done a ground school for the B737NG or is even licensed to operate one. As a passenger with a bit of knowledge, it is easy to see how the conclusion that spoilers were "deployed" in the "undershoot" but in all probability only roll spoilers were seen on the side the passenger was sitting. To try and twist it to represent anything else, including "pitch" spoilers is just embarrassing and does those who really don't know no favours.
As in all cases, it becomes very obvious to the rest of us who do hold the necessary licences and have the experience of operating the real thing, that those who try to pretend they know or would like us all to think that they know about flying heavy metal, in reality don't know much at all. There are some people using terminology on here that makes me squirm with embarrassment and immediately rings alarm bells because it is more often than not, someone trying too hard to be something they are not such as an airline pilot.
We are the first to have a go at journalists who are sloppy on their research and report aviation incidents and accidents with non-standard terminology. So, why are some posters, especially on this thread, trying so hard to sound as though they have knowledge of everything aviation when it is quite obvious that in reality they are just making fools of themselves?
If you are going to make observations about how a pilot is handling an aircraft or performing a manoeuvre and you have never actually flown the type or something similar then please try to do so with the necessary objectivity and understanding that you don't have all the facts or experience to do so. It is just as bad as bad journalism to try and pretend that you know exactly what you are talking about when in reality it is obvious to the rest of us that simply is not the case.
Paxing All Over The World
caulfield
As a pax and cynic I would reply, "No it won't."
If RYR lose one hull - there will be nothing more than a blip in revenue. Lose two in one year and it might hesitate. MoL did not get rich by misunderstanding the Pax.
Passenger growth is still good but any safety problems will quickly put an end to that.
If RYR lose one hull - there will be nothing more than a blip in revenue. Lose two in one year and it might hesitate. MoL did not get rich by misunderstanding the Pax.
