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 12th Nov 2008, 10:45
  #241 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,581
Bird-flocks have a tendency to fly UP when encountering an object on their flightpath
- another myth! Years of birds being hit has told the rest of the world that birds break DOWNWARDS in an emergency.
BOAC is offline  
Old 12th Nov 2008, 10:55
  #242 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: LHR
Posts: 427
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.
Priceless! What happened to Captains making such important decisions? How come this lot don't lose more aircraft ?

More importantly - Have those progressive thinking, aviation safety minded Italians started throwing everybody concerned in jail yet ? You can bet your life that someone's head will roll for the lack of bird control measures at this airfield... it is the Italian way.

BOAC Said:
For 'The Real Slim Shady' - I'm pretty sure old mag wossname has got more experience of 'hairy situations' and 'pretty demanding cardtricks' than you think, but I'm sure he will treasure your advice.
A master of understatement as always! .....Kids these days - You can't tell 'em anything
Magplug is offline  
Old 12th Nov 2008, 11:10
  #243 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Both Emispheres
Posts: 226
I think you meant:

You can bet your life that someone's head will NOT roll for the lack of bird control measures at this airfield.

There as been a region governor with a mafia formal accusation that didn't wanted to resign... why ENAC should be different.
el # is offline  
Old 12th Nov 2008, 11:23
  #244 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Wrong side of 30W
Posts: 9
First of all, congratulations to the crew for getting everyone off with only a few minor injuries.

Secondly none of us have all of the facts unless some one secretly works for Boeing or the various AAIB and authorities involved. Therefore the debate on the merits of landing over executing a missed approach are some what premature.

What is irritating though are comments like the one sf25 posted above. The company sop to execute a go around below 500’ after suffering the failure of one engine is a perfectly sensible one. At typical landing weights 60-65T the average approach speed would be in the order 140kts with flap 40. At 200’ the height sited here the aircraft would be 0.6nm from the runway, on a 3Deg glide path. To land the pilot flying must in 15seconds:

1/ Identify the failed engine and correct with rudder
2/ Increase thrust on the operative engine while maintaining the centreline and glide path
3/ Retract flap to 15 and try to accelerate to Vref +20 (approx V2+20)
4/ Determine the new landing distance required at a performance limited airfield.

Then having flown the aircraft the pilot flying could get on with the other niceties like declaring a mayday (at CIA probably not easy), briefing/bracing the crew, having the fire and rescue services on standby in case of fire on landing. In this case you would probably carry out any recall and non-normal checklists after landing so I will lighten our pilot’s workload and omit these until after landing. If SF25 and the other experts could execute this drill in the 15 seconds they’d have above then they are better drivers then me.

Or you could go-around on the operative engine, enjoy the single engine climb performance above your 2.5% missed approach climb gradient. Sort out the problem, have everyone ready on the ground, brief the crew, find a longer runway if necessary at Fiumicino. You could enjoy the knowledge that both engines are almost entirely separate with the fuel being the only common denominator, probably why various authorities give 180 ETPOS approval to a number of twin jet operators.

If both engines did fail due to bird strike the crew did a truly outstanding job and the decision to go-around was taken out of their hands. Or maybe the commander exercised his rightful discretion to take what he/she thought was the best decision given the information presented at a very critical time.
CanExpat is offline  
Old 12th Nov 2008, 11:34
  #245 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,581
Originally Posted by Rainboe
3)Apply go-around power, retract to flap 15, gear up and accelerate to +20kts, go around and retract of Flap 1 immediately.
- perhaps worth stating for those who 'hang on your words' that this 'option' only applies following option 2) and that if the '4th option' is exercised - an immediate g/a - the g/a is at F15 at Vref 30/40+5 (=V2 F15) and F1 is ONLY selected at cleanup as per the FCTM (p5.34 in my copy).
BOAC is offline  
Old 12th Nov 2008, 11:39
  #246 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: munich/frg
Posts: 45
... ... but if You start Your go around and the second (last) engine flames out or chockes -which is not unlikely in a case of birdstrike, and most probably was the case here- You´re in much deeper shit than if You´re trying to land as soon as possible.

... I know myself that I´m not an expert - but would love to learn from them.
sf25 is offline  
Old 12th Nov 2008, 11:48
  #247 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 202
I am fascinated a to why the press has steered so clear of a story that deserves more coverage.
I'm afraid it boils down to the fact that the crew had the audacity to have their accident somewhere other than London.
silverelise is offline  
Old 12th Nov 2008, 11:49
  #248 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Tardis
Posts: 15
Firstly without knowing all the circumstances well done to the flight and cabin crew!

On short final (200 ft) all stable then you get an engine problem - my (considerable) experience tells me continue approach and land!

Whilst I think it is important to have SOPS and to follow them I do feel part of my remit as commander is to do whatever I feel is necessary to secure the safety of the a/c and its occupants. There may be (rare) occasions where it is NOT appropriate to follow SOPs! Good pilots have "original thought". But this is NO criticism of this crew who obviously did what they could with the resources available to them given an apparently very unusual situation. Ok it's on my own head as the commander if I do so but my "authority" surely comes from the issuing State and I would rather be on the ground arguing my case with a fully serviceable a/c and all occupants intact than otherwise.

Finally, I wonder if MOL will consider legal action against the airport authorities for recovery of any cost?!
SpaceBetweenThoughts is offline  
Old 12th Nov 2008, 12:03
  #249 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Dre's mum's house
Posts: 1,432
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.
For the avoidance of doubt, if an engine fails on approach a go around is only mandatory below 1000ft AAL when IMC. Part A Page 8-131.
The Real Slim Shady is offline  
Old 12th Nov 2008, 12:09
  #250 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,623
Engine failure. . . "below 500agl: go around mandatory IMC or VMC."
An SOP as such would be stupefying. Why would any pilot need to go around when established on short final, already at minimum thrust with insignificant yaw. . . only to be in exactly the same position on short final on the 2nd approach?
GlueBall is offline  
Old 12th Nov 2008, 12:11
  #251 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 58
GA after multiple birdstrikes on short finals, maybe not but I can understand some of the concept behind the thoughts here. To reflect on BOAC thoughts on bird trajectories, probably they would fly down to ground, it is us whose instinct maybe to fly up away from the incident. After all, most things going wrong on short finals get the TOGA switches twitching.... maybe.. bang bang bang - maybe a tweek of power then find the big grey hard long thingy in front of me, tighten sphincter and land. Stop as safely as possible, if necessary, let PNF sort out drills, relax sphincter and deal with the problem ( just dont relax sphincter too much - your FO wont appreciate it )

Total kudos to all for keeping the damn thing straight and stopped on the black stuff - I wonder how many of us would look again at this thread if it happened to you tomorrow

Maybe someone will "chirp" in for back-up to Mr Greaser Sr...... after all everyone has flipped him the "bird"... sorry getting coat...
udachi moya is offline  
Old 12th Nov 2008, 12:16
  #252 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 542
What is irritating though are comments like the one sf25 posted above. The company sop to execute a go around below 500’ after suffering the failure of one engine is a perfectly sensible one. At typical landing weights 60-65T the average approach speed would be in the order 140kts with flap 40. At 200’ the height sited here the aircraft would be 0.6nm from the runway, on a 3Deg glide path. To land the pilot flying must in 15seconds:

1/ Identify the failed engine and correct with rudder
2/ Increase thrust on the operative engine while maintaining the centreline and glide path
3/ Retract flap to 15 and try to accelerate to Vref +20 (approx V2+20)
4/ Determine the new landing distance required at a performance limited airfield.


Shows you that SOP's can be wrong.In this scenario,GA only if you seriously lose the profile(ie.GP..if IMC, one dot max..if VMC, eyeball and use your best judgement).Fly the plane and call for GPWS flap inhibit as this would be a big distraction.Nothing else required,no callouts,nothing.Just fly the plane.GA is your worst option...Items 1,2,3 done in seconds by experienced and calm crew.4 is pure bs...you're landing,MAP grad is now an irrelevance.
Rananim is offline  
Old 12th Nov 2008, 12:35
  #253 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Belgium
Posts: 58
Simplifications

Originally Posted by CanExpat
At typical landing weights 60-65T the average approach speed would be in the order 140kts with flap 40. At 200’ the height sited here the aircraft would be 0.6nm from the runway, on a 3Deg glide path. To land the pilot flying must in 15seconds:

1/ Identify the failed engine and correct with rudder
2/ Increase thrust on the operative engine while maintaining the centreline and glide path
3/ Retract flap to 15 and try to accelerate to Vref +20 (approx V2+20)
4/ Determine the new landing distance required at a performance limited airfield.
1/ Identify the failed engine

NO NEED to identify anything, just the need to recognise a partial loss of the global thrust : say one or two seconds delay, the same delay as that required to decide a go-around.

and correct with rudder

No additional delay, just normal piloting skill (no need for thinking) - the yaw is quite moderate, we are not (yet) at TOGA thrust!

2/ Increase thrust on the operative engine while maintaining the centreline and glide path

- I say : a piece of cake for a properly trained pilot. I mean a pilot who was trained in the basic piloting skills and in the basics of n-1 flying. The key is : positive, but smooth, increase in thrust.

3/ Retract flap to 15 and try to accelerate to Vref +20 (approx V2+20)

- that is pure BS : by the time one reaches the flaps lever, the aircraft is already crossing the airport fence, just about to flare ...

4/ Determine the new landing distance required at a performance limited airfield.

Pure BS again : you should be landing at about the same speed, and starting the flare at about the same target height as usual ... And enjoy the 60% normal margin on total landing distance ...

This SOP and this "G-A" mindset is not considering the most propbable causes of engine failure on final ...
- icing
- fod
- fuel problems ...

The probabilty of a pure mechanical failure while the engines are delivering less than 50% of their normal rated thrust is so faint ...

That kind of SOP is making very poor use of a captain airmanship ... modern trend!

(Pilot)
Bis47 is offline  
Old 12th Nov 2008, 12:35
  #254 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Europe
Posts: 341
The Airbus guidance at the following link states that a landing should be continued, even if it entails flying through a flock of birds, rather than go-around. Is Boeing guidance much different for such a situation?

http://www.britflight.com/wingfiles/...rikeairbus.pdf
320DRIVER is offline  
Old 12th Nov 2008, 12:59
  #255 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Over the Moon
Posts: 774
Remember as per Boeing FCTM you do not have to retract the flaps to 15 if you suffer an engine failure on final. You may choose to do so but you can also choose to continue with landing flap set which would be appropriate close in as it would appear the RYR was.

Engine power is relatively low on the approach even with land flap so controllability is not normaly a problem if VMC and you would expect that on most occasions the crew would be able to maintain centerline and glidepath to acceptable limits especially as flight director guidance would still be available.

Given that they had a large flock of birds hit them they may have been denied normal visual queus by the birds and subsequent impacts on the windscreen. Add in an engine failure/surge with associated banging etc then things may well have got rather tricky very quickly and the approach may have started to become unstable leading to a go around decision reinforced by company SOP then subsequently reversed as it became clear the 2nd engine was in trouble too. This then leads to a forced landing situation from a less than ideal position. As with the BA we are very fortunate not to be dealing with a great number of fatalities. Maybe the crew did it all perfectly maybe they did not but it would appear that they suffered a double engine failure and managed to keep everyone alive and without major injuries and for that they should be applauded.

What we all need to consider is what our actions would be if confronted with a similar scenario and training needs to educate people about best practise when confronted by bird strikes leading to engine failure/s on final. The report will be an interesting one but for me the decision to go around and press TOGA is a key one and it may well be that it was the wrong call even though understandable given the emphasis on stable approachs' and possable consequences for not going around if you are not stable. SOPs cannot cater for everything and haveing made the call well done to the crew for reversing it and getting everyone down in one bit.
Ashling is online now  
Old 12th Nov 2008, 13:06
  #256 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: 41N12E
Posts: 80
CanExpat
quote:

"What is irritating though are comments like the one sf25 posted above. The company sop to execute a go around below 500’ after suffering the failure of one engine is a perfectly sensible one. To land the pilot flying must in 15seconds:

1/ Identify the failed engine and correct with rudder
2/ Increase thrust on the operative engine while maintaining the centreline and glide path
3/ Retract flap to 15 and try to accelerate to Vref +20 (approx V2+20)
4/ Determine the new landing distance required at a performance limited airfield."



Really don't know why at 200', with a dry rwy ahead, cavok, a pilot would prefer to execute a Ga instead of landing.
Oh, yes, there's the 4 above mentioned points...

1)I hope a pilot can still identify a failed engine by the feel on his feet, don't need to organize a conference
2)hands are already on the throttles, no big deal, push the good one forward
3)just leave flaps where they are
4)same config, same speed, landing distance already verified

Think it can all be done in 15 secs by the average pilot.

And the MAYDAY call? TWR will be watching the aircraft landing and before you said M.. the emerg services would be out.
And the cabin crew brief? The main reason they're on board is to handle these situations, briefed or not.
As for the ETOPS argument, enjoy the 180 min diversion after a bird strike.
Some SOPs really don't make sense, written by flightsim chief pilots for flightsim pilots. Nothing against these pilots, but I know with whom I would rather be flying.

Last edited by sleepypilot; 12th Nov 2008 at 15:30.
sleepypilot is offline  
Old 12th Nov 2008, 13:11
  #257 (permalink)  
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
- perhaps worth stating for those who 'hang on your words' that this 'option' only applies following option 2) and that if the '4th option' is exercised - an immediate g/a - the g/a is at F15 at Vref 30/40+5 (=V2 F15) and F1 is ONLY selected at cleanup as per the FCTM (p5.34 in my copy).
BOAC, don't agree. Procedure is not to go-around with flap 15 to clean up altitude on one engine- you might well have trouble with climb rate.
Scenario: approach, Flap 40, 1 engine fails. Retract to Flap 15 (quickly!), Accel to Vref40+20 (which= Vref15+5)
Go around decision.
Go around power on remaining engine, you are now at Vref40+20(=V2 for Flap 1)
Immediately retract to Flap 1 and climb away to clean up altitude.

It's in our Part B 03-18. You become equivalent to a planned S/E approach and the next process is simply a S/E go-around.

It is bewilderingly quick. The problem as you are aware is on one engine you cannot maintain profile with Flap40/gear down heavy. This is probably the reason for recommending go-around rather than simply 'land straight ahead' (much more than a few hundred feet height and you may not even be able to even reach the runway if you are not quick with the flap).

The procedure I have practiced is surprisingly rapid.
'Go around, Flap 15, pos climb, gear up' Full power, Accelerate 20 kts, Flap 1 climb away. You go from Flap 40 to Flap 1 literally in seconds (hence reason for the stops at Flap 15 and Flap 1), and end up climbing away at V2/Flap 1 to AA. Trying to control full asymmetric thrust, horrified that heading has wandered 20 degrees and you are hardly climbing, leg quivering with the effort (well mine does)!

Tremendously entertaining to watch the other guy absolutely sweating when he has to do it. Excellent detail in a cold sim first thing in the morning to warm you up!

Remember these twins are highly powered on 2 engines. On one, life isn't easy, and with flap and gear down, great care has to be exercised with managing energy.

I'm sure Ryanair procedure is totally different!

Last edited by Rainboe; 12th Nov 2008 at 13:25.
Rainboe is offline  
Old 12th Nov 2008, 13:33
  #258 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 2,312
320DRIVER:

The Airbus guidance at the following link states that a landing should be continued, even if it entails flying through a flock of birds, rather than go-around. Is Boeing guidance much different for such a situation?
The 737 is a different animal, and does not like to fly single engine at full flap. You need to do all sorts of heroic stuff involving speed, thrust, rudder, config and so on. In the 320 you just keep pointing at the runway and you let the autothrust cope while you stow the table (for 737 pilots - the 320 s/e landing config/speed is the same as 2 eng, no buttons to push and no loss of automation).

Sound like some SOPs for the old tractor are a bit scared of steering the pilots towards the sensible course of action.
HundredPercentPlease is online now  
Old 12th Nov 2008, 13:35
  #259 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 5,350
I'll steer clear of the controversy about abandoning a landing at 200ft in a bird flock encounter and let the writers of company SOPs sort that out after reading PPRuNe

I see yet another controversy about bird behavior going up or down.

Having studied the buggers a little I provide the following emperical comments:

It makes a difference how much altitude the birds start from.

on the ground when they see a threat they go up in order to gain manuevering space.

In the air they go sideways in a peeling action and thus fall away both vertically and horrizontally.

Big birds behave in a flock fashion to avoid each other as a higher priority than any other threat

Starlings behave in ball flocks like little bait fishes in the sea. I suppose that there is a nice mathmatical model that predicts this.

I don't suggest that pilots should try to out fox the bird's behavior
lomapaseo is offline  
Old 12th Nov 2008, 13:40
  #260 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,581
Rainboe - I think you have missed the point! Note the words
an immediate g/a.
IF you have satisfied 'our' approach '2.5%' requirements i.e. you are BELOW the F15 limiting mass, you will have the required climb performance, and if the decision is made to g/a straightway then that is the procedure to follow. Let's for example, consider an engine failure just above 50' on a CAT III approach and still in cloud. It is a brave man who accelerates to Vref+20 during the g/a, I propose - I don't think I would. The section you quote in the OM is, as I said, for the g/a FOLLOWING a 'continue' decision. In my book, the scenario I have added (for the sake of completeness) is the same as

"In the event of engine failure during a two-engine go-around,
ensure that the two-engine go-around procedure is actioned and
climb at Vref +5 to Aa. Limit bank angle to 15deg. Subsequent procedure will be the same as for engine failure on a Flap 15 take off."

Anyway - back to CIA.......................
BOAC 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.