Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Ryanair incident Ciampino.

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Ryanair incident Ciampino.

Old 11th Nov 2008, 22:27
  #221 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: France
Posts: 163
Italy's "Ente Nazionale per l'Aviazone Civile" (ENAC) has published a report from (or called) "Bird strike committee Italy" named "Relazione annuale", Annual Report in English, I presume.

The ENAC site is there:
Home Page Ente Nazionale per l'Aviazione Civile

Scroll down and you can find this report (marked as "new"):
http://www.enac-italia.it/RELAZIONE_BSCI_2007.pdf

It's in Italian of course but it may be of some interest.
Can anybody confirm if the ENAC is the official body in charge also of the aviation accident investigations.
Just to know who shall issue a preliminary report, if any, about this accident/incident.
Regards
Squawk_ident is offline  
Old 11th Nov 2008, 23:25
  #222 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 5,349
ALL B737NGs (including EI-DLX) have overwing exit doors, which open springloaded upwards. When the B737NG was designed, tthe FAA decided that they wouldn't allow the old plug type door used on the B737 classic anymore (AFAIK based on the Manchester disaster), as too difficult to handle for people not used to it in an emergency.
I could be confused about model types here (excluding the -200 legacy).

I had understood that the standard plug type doors continued on the 737-Ng's until the passenger to door ratio crept up so as to require boeing to either limit the seating or to add additional doors. Boeing then submitted a plan to go to pop up doors as an equivalent safety. This was then published in the Federal Register for comments. I placed in the record a support for the Boeing proposal on the basis that it would indeed save time by ensuring that the new pop up doors got out of the way far quicker than the average passenger could read and comprehend the old style door instructions.

I stand to be corrected in the history of the Ng family
lomapaseo is offline  
Old 12th Nov 2008, 00:30
  #223 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: London
Posts: 46
...

Ryanair FO.

All FR aircraft flying around today are 737-800 (which are part of the NG series)...
- all over wing exits are springloaded upwards.
- there was no snow in rome, the white liquid on the runway is foam.
- cockpit window was not opened for depressurazation reasons (not ryanair procedure), possibly to assess damage/fire presence or speak to the emergency services (in my opinion).
- maneuvering at 200 feet to avoid birds is complete nonsense (or at 500, 1000 etc...)
- once landed, you would try to use full reverse until reaching a complete stop without bothering with 80kts idle reveres, 60kts stowed... being a non normal situation where they were probably struggling to stop withing the runway they had available.
- if the aircraft bounced several time as described by some observers, there would be a good possibility of a tailstrike.

my opinion on the events is:
- FO flying, after multiple birdstrikes and loss of engine thrust he attempted a go around as per ryanair procedure which states:
in the event of engine failure on final approach,
Flaps 15.
Bug Speed +20knots.
if between 1000agl & 500agl: go around mandatory if IMC & may elect to continue if VMC, requiring to be stabilised by 500.
below 500agl: go around mandatory IMC or VMC.
(IMC: instrument meteorological conditions ie. can't see the runway, VMC: visual meterological conditions ie. we can see the runway).

Therefore, assuming everything happened below 500feet and VMC (looking at the pictures in rome that day), with the information the FO was presented with (ie single engine situation), he was correctly following SOP in attempting a missed approach.
Furthermore, considering the runway type in CIA (2200m), a relative high landing weight (high pax load plus fuel tankering) and fiumicino just down the road (over 3000m runway and better equipped for an emergency situation), attempting a single engine landing would have not been the greatest of ideas anyway.

On pressing TOGA, no response/not enough thrust on other engine at which point Captain took over to "land".

Being familiar with Ciampino airport and the mentality around there I'm looking forward to find out from the inverstigation if the procedures that the airport had in place for bird scaring were ever put in place.

Alex.

Well done to the 6 crew members

Last edited by alex111; 12th Nov 2008 at 01:01.
alex111 is offline  
Old 12th Nov 2008, 01:12
  #224 (permalink)  
MOLWillie
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Hit hard on the left to fold the leg.
Why?

Downlock fail?
 
Old 12th Nov 2008, 06:37
  #225 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: France
Age: 69
Posts: 228
ENAC is the italian equivalent to British CAA, or irish IAA.
Baron rouge is offline  
Old 12th Nov 2008, 06:55
  #226 (permalink)  
FR-
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: MIA-IBZ
Posts: 563
I think it is time to wait for more information and stop some these silly comments. But well done to the crew for getting everyone out alive and safe. And well said The Real Slim shady.
FR- is offline  
Old 12th Nov 2008, 07:18
  #227 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: France
Posts: 163
Further my previous post, the equivalent of the AAIB in Italy is the ANSV (Agenzia Nazionale per la Sicurezza del Volo)
Link : English

ANSV - Agenzia Nazionale per la Sicurezza del Volo

Italiano:

ANSV - Agenzia Nazionale per la Sicurezza del Volo

There is an information about the Ryanair flight but only in the Italian version of the site for the time being.

Quote/
10/11/2008

Incidente aereo a Ciampino. Prime evidenze raccolte dall’ANSV

In merito all’incidente occorso questa mattina sull’aeroporto di Roma Ciampino ad un B737 della Societą Ryanair, l’Agenzia nazionale per la sicurezza del volo (ANSV) comunica che, dalle prime evidenze acquisite sul luogo dell’evento dal proprio team investigativo, emerge che il velivolo, in fase di atterraggio, ha impattato con le superfici alari ed i motori contro un grosso stormo di uccelli (storni).
Le cosiddette “scatole nere” sono state acquisite dai tecnici dell’ANSV, al fine dell’analisi dei dati in esse contenuti.
Il personale investigativo dell’ANSV, completati i rilievi in pista, sta procedendo all’audizione dell’equipaggio coinvolto nell’evento.
Dal primo sopralluogo operativo emergono estesi danni alla semiala sinistra, al relativo carrello ed al ventre della fusoliera.

Unquote
You may find a translation as follow

10/11/2008 Aircraft incident to Ciampino.
First evidences collections from the ANSV with respect to the incident been necessary this morning on the airport of Rome Ciampino to a B737 of the Ryanair Society, the national Agency for the emergency of flight (ANSV) communicates that, from the first acquired evidences on the place of the event from own investigative team, it emerges that the aircraft, in phase of landing, has impacted with the wing area and the engines against a large flock of birds (starlings). The so-called “black boxes” have been acquired from the technicians of the ANSV, to the aim of the analysis of the data they contained. The investigative staff of the ANSV, has completed the runway examination and is proceeding to the interview audition of the crew been involved in the event. From the first operating inspection it emerges extended damages to the left half wing, the relative undercarriage and the belly of the fuselage

Translation by an automatic translater on-line plus some adjustments of mine.
Regards

Last edited by Squawk_ident; 12th Nov 2008 at 09:08. Reason: corrected translation
Squawk_ident is offline  
Old 12th Nov 2008, 07:45
  #228 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 1997
Location: 5530N
Posts: 845
can some one explain (a) why FR have'nt mentioned a pip on their website about this incident which was nearly their first hull write off? the silence is deafening.

(b) why is their only one photo avail?

it appears there was a split decision made, ok the the hull is in sh#t but everyone walked away...deo gratis. well done.
Bearcat is offline  
Old 12th Nov 2008, 07:45
  #229 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Northern Hemisphere
Posts: 45
More reading material...

Ryanair's Ciampino birdstrike - Learmount
Diamond_Dog is offline  
Old 12th Nov 2008, 08:11
  #230 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: straight forward, there you go
Posts: 75
Bearcat
If you can read then Ryanair have had updates on their website from the minute they were informed. Look at website, mid page. They even have it upddated to the hour(see update @1730 11th nov)
Mindthegap is offline  
Old 12th Nov 2008, 08:13
  #231 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,581
Originally Posted by alex111 with my highlights
he attempted a go around as per ryanair procedure which states:
in the event of engine failure on final approach,
Flaps 15.
Bug Speed +20knots.
if between 1000agl & 500agl: go around mandatory if IMC & may elect to continue if VMC, requiring to be stabilised by 500.
below 500agl: go around mandatory IMC or VMC.
(IMC: instrument meteorological conditions ie. can't see the runway, VMC: visual meterological conditions ie. we can see the runway).
- if this is indeed correct and not yet another piece of misinformation, then as per post #183 - for rubik and all

- if your company INSIST on an automatic g/a regardless of conditions then:-

a) I apologise
b) I am staggered.
PERSONALLY if I had a runway in front and managed to control the a/c I would like the option to land if I had just peppered my engines with avians
BOAC is offline  
Old 12th Nov 2008, 09:17
  #232 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: London
Posts: 46
...

There's nothing to be staggared about, company procedures are put in place by company chief pilots with direct advice from boeing. And they probably just about understand a little more on aviation than you and I...
And in any case, with an engine failure at 200 feet any sensible pilot goes around, solves the problem, thinks about it and then attempts another approach.
More so when u're landing in ciampino which is performance limited, more so when everything happened at such low altitude which give u very little space to stablise the aircraft to land and most probably the engine didn't simply fail, it probably surged due to bird intake which was even more difficult to control at 200 feet.

Automatic go around? the only automatic go around is out of a dual channel approach, which isn't the case here. Any other go around is manually flown.

alex.
alex111 is offline  
Old 12th Nov 2008, 09:25
  #233 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,572
And in any case, with an engine failure at 200 feet any sensible pilot goes around, solves the problem, thinks about it and then attempts another approach.
He does?
What an absolute daft idea.
Must be 'new' guys in charge, with 'new' fuzzy thinking.

Of course, I don't fly a twin, so can't say about those.

We had one B737 Captain at SVA who had an engine failure on approach at approximately 800 agl, and he flew around for one hour to try to burn off fuel for a lighter landing weight.
The respective fleet manager was not amused, and suspended said Captain for a very long time....then back to the RHS.
411A is offline  
Old 12th Nov 2008, 09:29
  #234 (permalink)  

the lunatic fringe
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Everywhere
Age: 63
Posts: 617
And in any case, with an engine failure at 200 feet any sensible pilot goes around, solves the problem, thinks about it and then attempts another approach.
Barking idea.

Just land straight ahead.
L337 is offline  
Old 12th Nov 2008, 09:46
  #235 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: England
Posts: 652
May I add my support for the 2 posts above. Many years ago when I flew 4 jets world wide we did train for this exact scenario in sim. Land ahead and sort it out on the ground.

MM
Miles Magister is offline  
Old 12th Nov 2008, 09:51
  #236 (permalink)  
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
There's just 3 choices:
1)Maintain Flap 30 and try and hold speed and land.
2)Retract to Flap 15, accelerate to +20kts, try and hit Flap Inhibit, increase autobrake setting- but not if low down!
3)Apply go-around power, retract to flap 15, gear up and accelerate to +20kts, go around and retract of Flap 1 immediately.

Seems to me any of them are justifiable depending on the altitude. Maybe they wanted to try and get away from the birds, but then events overtook them and they were committed to landing. The important point is any of those outcomes are correct, so please people stop criticising or suggesting you know a better way of doing it! We were not there, we do not know the exact circumstances, but there must have been an enormous frightening racket of birds' bodies hitting the cockpit and flying past the windows. I can understand and sympathise with their predicament. The outcome says it all.

It would be interesting to know the extent of damage to the engines. Until we get any official word, any more is just foolish speculation and a total waste of time!
Rainboe is offline  
Old 12th Nov 2008, 10:04
  #237 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Under the clouds now
Age: 82
Posts: 2,187
With fifteen years experience on the 73/75/76 my gut reaction in those circumstances would be to continue the approach and land.
brakedwell is offline  
Old 12th Nov 2008, 10:07
  #238 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: munich/frg
Posts: 45
quoted from above: "And in any case, with an engine failure at 200 feet any sensible pilot goes around, solves the problem, thinks about it and then attempts another approach."


Only slf resp. ppl-holder but this statement is the most staggering i“ve ever read on PPRuNe. What made the first engine stop might as well affect the other engine only moments later and a go-around in any case gets You farer away from safe ground.

Would like to know if this is common practice with many airlines?
sf25 is offline  
Old 12th Nov 2008, 10:35
  #239 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In my seat
Posts: 822
In case of a birdstrike on approach it is normally best to continue the landing if possible. Bird-flocks have a tendency to fly UP when encountering an object on their flightpath, in this case, your aircraft. Going around will probably result in more birdstrikes.
This has happened several times already, a well documented accident being the C130 crash in Eindhoven by the Belgian AF.
Unfortunately, this is not briefed/trained/taught by/to most of our collegues. Just an observation, not criticism to FR's training department at all.

Someone who claims that any sensible pilot goes around with an engine failure at 200' is in my opinion not correct at all. If you can land, land. A one-engined Go-around is Always a high risk manoeuvre. Aviate first, then bother with secondary issues like SOP's.
despegue is offline  
Old 12th Nov 2008, 10:39
  #240 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Dre's mum's house
Posts: 1,432
Rainboe

normal flap setting for CIA is 40, not 30.

At 200ft with a 700FPM ROD one has about 17 seconds before terra firma arrives: perhaps the PF's action of initiating the go around gave them just enough extra energy to make a safe landing after the 2nd engine quit.
The Real Slim Shady is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.