Ryanair B738 off runway in Limoges (LFBL/France)
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Never land with a sizeable tailwind on a wet/contaminated runway..if its wet you can accept five knots but if contaminated,accept nothing but a headwind.Crosswind is 25 knots wet reducing to 5 for braking action poor.
Low cost carriers are particularly vulnerable in this risk-assessment..Captains carry min fuel because they live in fear of being hauled before the hypocritical and gutless management who publicly say"Safety is number one" but privately think"woe betide the pilot who screws up our schedule".
Short tunrarounds and high a/c utilization rates leave little room for holding and diversion.The airline is not unionized and the CEO a well-known totalitarian who neither knows or cares about anything but the bottom line.The pilot has to resist the temptation to dance to his tune and think only of the safety of his crew and passengers.
Carry the extra fuel,divert,put the schedule back 3 hours and fight the SOB in court.The regs are on your side.You will win.Has this unethical twit ever won in court?By playing his game and sliding off the end of the runway you only give him more ammunition to denounce pilots as overpaid fools.
If unsure about wet vs contaminated,apply this simple rule.
RERA=wet; RA/RA+= contaminated
Low cost carriers are particularly vulnerable in this risk-assessment..Captains carry min fuel because they live in fear of being hauled before the hypocritical and gutless management who publicly say"Safety is number one" but privately think"woe betide the pilot who screws up our schedule".
Short tunrarounds and high a/c utilization rates leave little room for holding and diversion.The airline is not unionized and the CEO a well-known totalitarian who neither knows or cares about anything but the bottom line.The pilot has to resist the temptation to dance to his tune and think only of the safety of his crew and passengers.
Carry the extra fuel,divert,put the schedule back 3 hours and fight the SOB in court.The regs are on your side.You will win.Has this unethical twit ever won in court?By playing his game and sliding off the end of the runway you only give him more ammunition to denounce pilots as overpaid fools.
If unsure about wet vs contaminated,apply this simple rule.
RERA=wet; RA/RA+= contaminated
Perhaps that's going a bit far.
There are several factors here:
1. The runway condition. How accurate/up to date are the airport operator's coefficient values?
2. The surface wind. How accurate was the reported W/V?
3. Approach aids. Were all RWs available at the time?
If the only RW available due to cloud/vis/aids would require a downwind landing, that might have been acceptable on a bare, dry RW or one which was damp. Probably even wet unless it was, in reality, 'slippery when wet'.
The holes begin to line up. Given plenty of planning time and potential LDA reductions cross-checked by an experienced colleague, the likelihood of a diversion could have been assessed. Reasonable management would surely support extra fuel being carried to hold before diverting if conditions looked 50/50.
But if there really is a corporate culture which encourages aircraft commanders to push the limits in such circumstances, then the result is inevitable.
Fortunately no-one was hurt on this occasion.
There are several factors here:
1. The runway condition. How accurate/up to date are the airport operator's coefficient values?
2. The surface wind. How accurate was the reported W/V?
3. Approach aids. Were all RWs available at the time?
If the only RW available due to cloud/vis/aids would require a downwind landing, that might have been acceptable on a bare, dry RW or one which was damp. Probably even wet unless it was, in reality, 'slippery when wet'.
The holes begin to line up. Given plenty of planning time and potential LDA reductions cross-checked by an experienced colleague, the likelihood of a diversion could have been assessed. Reasonable management would surely support extra fuel being carried to hold before diverting if conditions looked 50/50.
But if there really is a corporate culture which encourages aircraft commanders to push the limits in such circumstances, then the result is inevitable.
Fortunately no-one was hurt on this occasion.
Last edited by BEagle; 22nd Mar 2008 at 14:42.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: One hump; two if you're pretty.
Posts: 293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But if there really is a corporate culture which encourages aircraft commanders to push the limits in such circumstances
Not in any circumstances.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was right about the news void. My post is not about whether Ryanair or BA or any other company is 'safer' than others. I cannot understand why an incident like this would be headline news if it was BA, yet for Ryanair it is ignored by the press.
I was wrong about my spelling of anomaly.
I was wrong about my spelling of anomaly.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: England
Age: 47
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
probably not a big media hit here because its an Irish airline not English, in happened in France and they got mud on the tyres, they did not destroy a 777! or 737! and no one had broken legs!
you cant even try to compair it to the BA crash, it was a bit slippy, they did not crash before the runway in a big ass Jet at one of our Major airports.
you cant even try to compair it to the BA crash, it was a bit slippy, they did not crash before the runway in a big ass Jet at one of our Major airports.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There isn't.
Not in any circumstances.
Not in any circumstances.
HOWEVER you cannot ignore the fact that numerous FR pilots have indeed been of the opinion that corporate culture is "non-optimal" as a direct result of management behaviour. So your "There isn't" is an opinion to which you are welcome, but the "Not in any circumstances" assertion is a bit of a stretch (at a minimum how could you know?). What matters is NOT what you think, but the fact that there are FR pilots who believe that this is an issue. Your saying that it is 'not so' is as meaningless (and useless) as would my asserting it to be a fact.
But there is smoke. The question is "is there fire behind the smoke?". Too many people who were perceived by management to not be "on side" have "fallen by the wayside" to make such issues merely a matter of having a "bad press". Corporate culture involves perceptions of such events. Demoting pilots who declare themselves to be fatigued, or after incidents, etc. can be presented as 'strong no bull-**** safety management' - or in alternative ways.
Just saying 'it ain't so' does not respond effectively to those who claim to the contrary.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Ireland
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ryanairs OPs Man Part A doe s not say "Push the limit".However the management style from the top piles pressure on their crews to get the job done no matter what.Now how this is communicated is the question.
How much fuel you carry and land with for example !!!
Why did you divert and not try to land on poor BA?
Why were you late off blocks?
Why were you sick/Fatigued ????
Why did you burn so much fuel?
When a crew are under pressure of all of the above then decisions are made which can contribute to an accident.
NO,Not possible,UNDER Any Circumstances....FR Arrogance personified.....
(
How much fuel you carry and land with for example !!!
Why did you divert and not try to land on poor BA?
Why were you late off blocks?
Why were you sick/Fatigued ????
Why did you burn so much fuel?
When a crew are under pressure of all of the above then decisions are made which can contribute to an accident.
NO,Not possible,UNDER Any Circumstances....FR Arrogance personified.....
(
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Buckinghamshire
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was right about the news void. My post is not about whether Ryanair or BA or any other company is 'safer' than others. I cannot understand why an incident like this would be headline news if it was BA, yet for Ryanair it is ignored by the press.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: France
Age: 81
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Waiting to happen
I'm retired in France and no longer travel frequently by air but when I do it's with Ryanair, usually from Bergerac but I've travelled from Limoges. You guys must know this better than I do but my view is that this accident was something that has been waiting to happen and it's fortunate that no one was hurt. My gripe is the violence of Ryanair take-offs and landings. On my last trip to England, I switched from Ryanair to Easyjet airbus for an onward flight and I astonished by the smoothness of the way the latter got off the ground and back on. That's generally been my experience with airline travel. I tell myself that logically, Ryanair crews can't be suicidal but for the first time in travelling by air in 40 years, Ryanair (and only Ryanair) make me nervous.
Plumbum Pendular
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Avionics Bay
Age: 55
Posts: 1,117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
George, smoothness of TOs and landings is completely irrelevant.
Leo, how can you speculate that it is hydroplaning and then berate everybody else for not waiting for the investigation.
You really are either an amazing wind up or quite possibly one of the most eloquent at showing off your stupidity!
Leo, how can you speculate that it is hydroplaning and then berate everybody else for not waiting for the investigation.
You really are either an amazing wind up or quite possibly one of the most eloquent at showing off your stupidity!
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: UK.
Posts: 629
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
George,
As FMGC has stated, T-Os and Landings have really little to do with the quality of the airline. I have been in many BA aircraft that have landed fairly rough.
The main point of this thread isn't to point out the faults with the pilots, or how they lack skill. It's the amount of pressure management put on their pilots which may result in a serious accident when something is rushed in order to meet a target.
As FMGC has stated, T-Os and Landings have really little to do with the quality of the airline. I have been in many BA aircraft that have landed fairly rough.
The main point of this thread isn't to point out the faults with the pilots, or how they lack skill. It's the amount of pressure management put on their pilots which may result in a serious accident when something is rushed in order to meet a target.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TDZ
Wet runways, etc, the question is where did the aircraft touchdown? The runway in LFBL is in excess of 8,000 feet, plenty for the B737-800.
It's a good job they didn't overrun 03, or they would have been looking up at those funny looking approach lights!
MK
It's a good job they didn't overrun 03, or they would have been looking up at those funny looking approach lights!
MK
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Tardis
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suppose another question to ask ourselves though is given the level of equipment on board most aircraft of this type (RNAV/VNAV capability) why is it necessary to conduct an ILS with a tailwind onto a wet runway when it is far safer to conduct a VNAV approach to the reciprocal runway?
There are obviously certification issues involved but from a systems point of view a VNAV approach onto the other runway would probably have offered a much higher level of safety.
Obviously we will have to wait for the findings of the investigation but one comment I would make on previous comments about carriage of extra fuel etc - how do you know this was not a "tankering" sector?
I wish the crew and all involved well including Ryanair. Whatever axes we have to grind I wouldn't want to see any of my fellow aviators in any company involved in any sort of incident of this nature.
There are obviously certification issues involved but from a systems point of view a VNAV approach onto the other runway would probably have offered a much higher level of safety.
Obviously we will have to wait for the findings of the investigation but one comment I would make on previous comments about carriage of extra fuel etc - how do you know this was not a "tankering" sector?
I wish the crew and all involved well including Ryanair. Whatever axes we have to grind I wouldn't want to see any of my fellow aviators in any company involved in any sort of incident of this nature.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: ***
Posts: 350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VNAV
Well, A VNAV Approach might be fairly safe nowadays, however it only is considered a NON precision approach with the minima accordingly. With your normal CAT I ILS being 200' ceiling and between 800 and 550 m RVR, the nonprecision deals with minima around 450 to 800 ' ceiling and around 1,5 km visiblity. It always depends on the particular approach published. And given the weather, it simply might not have been an option. I don't know, I wasn't in that plane...
Nic
Nic
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
limoges airport is still closed.....suspect problems with runway surfacing/braking action...aircraft being diverted elsewhere..perhaps an indication of problems with the surface as opposed to airmanship.