Ryanair on grass in Poland - Taxi incident
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 332
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
During the recent civil aviation safety conference in Warsaw,
during the discussion on "Just Culture" it was mentioned
by some ATC people that "Ranair lands when nobody else lands in Okęcie".
during the discussion on "Just Culture" it was mentioned
by some ATC people that "Ranair lands when nobody else lands in Okęcie".
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: here, there, everywhere
Posts: 279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm with criss on that. I fly mostly on Polish domestic routes and it seems that Ryanair is very conservative about wx - very often after landing in poor weather (and no, I never ever bust the minima) we learn from the ground staff that Ryan had just diverted... (they usually aren't happy about this - having to deal with ~180 pissed off pax 
) Also, I have never seen them cutting corners - I often hear them opting for full procedure, even if the wx and traffic situation scream for a visual app. They are very quick on the turnarounds though...
) Also, I have never seen them cutting corners - I often hear them opting for full procedure, even if the wx and traffic situation scream for a visual app. They are very quick on the turnarounds though...
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: B Pier
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can't be more far from truth...
Ut Sementem Feeceris
X-wind limits are demonstrated limits and not to be compared with minimums regarding visibility/RVR and DH, MDA.
A4
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In a far better place
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Old Lufty's landing started to go pear shape before he passed over the fence.
"How could you defend that if it all went wrong?"
The same way if all went pear shaped if landing calm conditions... probably a harder defense though... don't you think?
"How could you defend that if it all went wrong?"
The same way if all went pear shaped if landing calm conditions... probably a harder defense though... don't you think?
Ut Sementem Feeceris
Morning Capt.
Point I'm trying to make is that if you land in calm conditions and go off the side - that's incompetance - unless caused by some failure after landing. However, if you knowingly exceed the max demonstrated x-wind limit (in essence saying you're better than the test pilot - and you've got pax in the back...) and go off the side - that's negligence - and you open yourself up to all sorts of issues.
A4
Point I'm trying to make is that if you land in calm conditions and go off the side - that's incompetance - unless caused by some failure after landing. However, if you knowingly exceed the max demonstrated x-wind limit (in essence saying you're better than the test pilot - and you've got pax in the back...) and go off the side - that's negligence - and you open yourself up to all sorts of issues.
A4
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 332
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vis Calls - Yes, it is right. I was referring to ptkay's statement that Ryanair often lands at EPWA when no one else does. This can't be more false, and no TWR controller at EPWA would say such a thing. My experience is quite the opposite - they hold when other a/c land, de-ice when no one would even consider checking their fuselage, and so on. A fellow controller from EPKT said that numerous times they held when wx was double than the minima for LLZ app. (I'm talking about ceiling/RVR minima, not xwinds). Sometimes I have an impression that ppl look at RYR's procedures and attitude towards safety thru their general attitude towards this airline as pax.
Of course, I cannot comment on what they do in DUB, maybe they feel more at home there.
Of course, I cannot comment on what they do in DUB, maybe they feel more at home there.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In my seat
Posts: 822
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
one other thing:
a minimum regarding ceiling does not exist. You can perfectly try a Cat1 aproach with OVC0018, it is the RVR/visibility and DA that counts.
I have often seen aircraft divert/hold while we landed with runway approach lights/edgelights in sight at minima when the ceiling is reported below that.
a minimum regarding ceiling does not exist. You can perfectly try a Cat1 aproach with OVC0018, it is the RVR/visibility and DA that counts.
I have often seen aircraft divert/hold while we landed with runway approach lights/edgelights in sight at minima when the ceiling is reported below that.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In my seat
Posts: 822
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Essexboy, Negative.
Ceiling has nothing to do with the approach-ban criteria. It is however a common misconception...
here is what JAR-OPS says:
JAR OPS 1 Subpart D 1.405
Commencement and
continuation of approach
(a) The commander or the pilot to whom
conduct of the flight has been delegated may
commence an instrument approach regardless of the
reported RVR/Visibility but the approach shall not
be continued beyond the outer marker, or equivalent
position, if the reported RVR/visibility is less than
the applicable minima. (See IEM OPS 1.405(a).)
(b) Where RVR is not available, RVR values
may be derived by converting the reported visibility
in accordance with Appendix 1 to JAR-OPS 1.430,
sub-paragraph (h).
(c) If, after passing the outer marker or
equivalent position in accordance with (a) above, the
reported RVR/visibility falls below the applicable
minimum, the approach may be continued to DA/H
or MDA/H.
(d) Where no outer marker or equivalent
position exists, the commander or the pilot to whom
conduct of the flight has been delegated shall make
the decision to continue or abandon the approach
before descending below 1 000 ft above the
aerodrome on the final approach segment. If the
MDA/H is at or above 1 000 ft above the
aerodrome, the operator shall establish a height,
for each approach procedure, below which the
approach shall not be continued if the
RVR/visibility is less than the applicable minima.
(e) The approach may be continued below
DA/H or MDA/H and the landing may be completed
provided that the required visual reference is
established at the DA/H or MDA/H and is
maintained.
(f) The touch-down zone RVR is always
controlling. If reported and relevant, the mid point
and stop end RVR are also controlling. The
minimum RVR value for the mid-point is 125 m or
the RVR required for the touch-down zone if less,
and 75 m for the stop-end. For aeroplanes equipped
with a roll-out guidance or control system,the
minimum RVR value for the mid-point is 75 m.
Note. “Relevant”, in this context, means that part of the
runway used during the high speed phase of the landing down
to a speed of approximately 60 knots.
[Ch. 1, 01.03.98; Amdt. 3, 01.12.01]
Ceiling has nothing to do with the approach-ban criteria. It is however a common misconception...
here is what JAR-OPS says:
JAR OPS 1 Subpart D 1.405
Commencement and
continuation of approach
(a) The commander or the pilot to whom
conduct of the flight has been delegated may
commence an instrument approach regardless of the
reported RVR/Visibility but the approach shall not
be continued beyond the outer marker, or equivalent
position, if the reported RVR/visibility is less than
the applicable minima. (See IEM OPS 1.405(a).)
(b) Where RVR is not available, RVR values
may be derived by converting the reported visibility
in accordance with Appendix 1 to JAR-OPS 1.430,
sub-paragraph (h).
(c) If, after passing the outer marker or
equivalent position in accordance with (a) above, the
reported RVR/visibility falls below the applicable
minimum, the approach may be continued to DA/H
or MDA/H.
(d) Where no outer marker or equivalent
position exists, the commander or the pilot to whom
conduct of the flight has been delegated shall make
the decision to continue or abandon the approach
before descending below 1 000 ft above the
aerodrome on the final approach segment. If the
MDA/H is at or above 1 000 ft above the
aerodrome, the operator shall establish a height,
for each approach procedure, below which the
approach shall not be continued if the
RVR/visibility is less than the applicable minima.
(e) The approach may be continued below
DA/H or MDA/H and the landing may be completed
provided that the required visual reference is
established at the DA/H or MDA/H and is
maintained.
(f) The touch-down zone RVR is always
controlling. If reported and relevant, the mid point
and stop end RVR are also controlling. The
minimum RVR value for the mid-point is 125 m or
the RVR required for the touch-down zone if less,
and 75 m for the stop-end. For aeroplanes equipped
with a roll-out guidance or control system,the
minimum RVR value for the mid-point is 75 m.
Note. “Relevant”, in this context, means that part of the
runway used during the high speed phase of the landing down
to a speed of approximately 60 knots.
[Ch. 1, 01.03.98; Amdt. 3, 01.12.01]
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Ireland
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Eb And Db
DP "relevant in the context of"........
what has all this got to do with the incident on this thread?????
always amuses me ,if you guys want to teach each other the regs then set up a thread for it!!
what has all this got to do with the incident on this thread?????
always amuses me ,if you guys want to teach each other the regs then set up a thread for it!!
