Ryanair incident Ciampino.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Both sides of 40W
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All very interesting comments about the incident. But, after having seen most of them some and indeed, myself having contributed. I would like to insist that speculating of the exact scenario of the incident is, not wise. The final report will shed light on the sequence of events. At what height did this flight encounter the flock of birds and at what time was a G/A initiated an then canceled. The most important issue at this point is knowing that everybody walked away from this incident alive and in a more or less good shape!!
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Belgium
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(I am a B737 pilot)
NO SIM training would have prepared this crew for what they were up against.
The SOP allows for the CPT to decide whether he wants to continue or to GoAround in the event of an engine failure/sever damage/stall/surge on Final Approach... (as long as he's not IMC below 1000ft AAL)
It was the CPT's prerogative to go-around If he decided to do so.
Further damage due bird ingestion could not have been predicted.
(Maybe even avoided by this decision, who can ever tell ?? )
One thing is SURE : Abandoning a GoAround is NEVER trained in the SIM !
And prompt and heroic split-second decision making and flying skills MAY have saved 166 lives that morning...
I hope this crew gets the appreciation they deserve.
Maybe RYR will not put up a show as BA did, but in my opinion they SHOULD !
Well done guys !
NO SIM training would have prepared this crew for what they were up against.
The SOP allows for the CPT to decide whether he wants to continue or to GoAround in the event of an engine failure/sever damage/stall/surge on Final Approach... (as long as he's not IMC below 1000ft AAL)
It was the CPT's prerogative to go-around If he decided to do so.
Further damage due bird ingestion could not have been predicted.
(Maybe even avoided by this decision, who can ever tell ?? )
One thing is SURE : Abandoning a GoAround is NEVER trained in the SIM !
And prompt and heroic split-second decision making and flying skills MAY have saved 166 lives that morning...
I hope this crew gets the appreciation they deserve.
Maybe RYR will not put up a show as BA did, but in my opinion they SHOULD !
Well done guys !
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rainboe - I think you have missed the point! Note the words
Quote:
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."
Quote:
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."
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
Back to CIA.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Over the Moon
Posts: 780
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
disagree, training can prepare you for this kind of scenario and many pilots will have already considered this very scenario. I've chatted through it with a number of colleagues over the years and there is no reason why training departments cannot issue guidance on it and in due course you will find various operators restate and clarify their guidance on the issue.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: isle of man
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm with Yellowmonster on this one; how many of you 737 pilots would have wished to have been involved in this incident? Whether a go around was initiated, or appropriate on this occasion is far beyond me. Suffice to say that I am happy to await the outcome of the incident investigation. In the meantime I congratulate the FC on safely reaching the runway, I am sure they had but a few seconds to make and then amend a multitude of decisions whilst being faced with a dire and rapidly changing situation.
Bloody well done I say!!!
Bloody well done I say!!!
Mach 3
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Stratosphere
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the BOAC versus Rainboe debate only serves to demonstrate that the "correct" course of action depends on when (i.e., at what height AGL) the engine fails and at what weight you are...
However, if both fail, or more than one looks likely to fail, are you really going to try a GA whatever the hell your SOP says?
Kudos to the crew at this stage...
However, if both fail, or more than one looks likely to fail, are you really going to try a GA whatever the hell your SOP says?
Kudos to the crew at this stage...
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dead right! The complication of the procedure shows in the seconds available, some extremely rapid decisions and thought processes must be taken, whilst being peppered with chicken carcases! As a long time 737 pilot, I can fully understand the decision to go around for several reasons, as well as a decision to land ahead. Following a decision (b), one then has to take another decision what configuration should you use for landing. In literally an instant.
I admire their handiwork. Awful situation, well handled.
I admire their handiwork. Awful situation, well handled.
Last edited by Rainboe; 12th Nov 2008 at 15:41.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PREFIX - Now't to do with Ryanair/CIA.
Hmm.
NB
- when the book says 'as a guide' there is no 'have to'. Our treasured OM gives the advice only as a 'guide' and offers no 'advice' on an immediate g/a or one from a CatIII s/e. That is what you and I are paid for.
NB
- you have no doubt forgotten much of the 737, but I would have though your decision was pretty well made for you AT the moment of engine failure, IMC, below CatI MDA and single a/p? Indeed our company procedures (which you do have to follow) dictate a g/a. Exactly when are you plannning on making this 'decision' while you drag across the airfield trying to accelerate to V2+20? Why not go up up and away, avoiding the radio masts and control tower?
NB
- oh dear. (I actually said 'the same as' not 'I am flying'). Basically because an engine has failed. I would suggest that, unless you are heavily into pedantry, losing an engine in a g/a is not that dissimilar to going around immediately you lose an engine in handling terms? As you can see (from the bit at the top of your quoted page), Boeing designed the speeds for the 737 to cope with a s/e F15 g/a. It's there if you need it.
By the way, if you pop your head into the company library/external publications you may be surprised to see not only can you download the 737 FCTM but also the 757 FCTM
PS I'm with 'gayford' on this one too.
Hmm.
Originally Posted by Rainboe
Notso!
You have to immediately reconfigure into engine failure
NB
You................ approach (Flap 15 and add speed) and then decide, continue or go around.
NB
Why are you flying a 2 engine go around on one engine?
By the way, if you pop your head into the company library/external publications you may be surprised to see not only can you download the 737 FCTM but also the 757 FCTM
PS I'm with 'gayford' on this one too.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rainboe,
If you maintain F30(and Vref+5) SE and subsequently decide to go-around due profile loss,you have no option but to fly that GA with F15 up to at least 400,then get your 20 knots,take F1 and continue to 800 or 1000..which is why I believe the F15 selection and acceleration at engine failure recognition is a wiser move.Maintaining landing flap is poor judgement unless light.It seems to me the maintain landing flap position was advocated just so you wouldnt get the EGPWS FLAP warning which is a poor pretext.I would add that if the FO doesnt find the flap inhibit,then a GA would be better,unless ice runs through your veins.
If you maintain F30(and Vref+5) SE and subsequently decide to go-around due profile loss,you have no option but to fly that GA with F15 up to at least 400,then get your 20 knots,take F1 and continue to 800 or 1000..which is why I believe the F15 selection and acceleration at engine failure recognition is a wiser move.Maintaining landing flap is poor judgement unless light.It seems to me the maintain landing flap position was advocated just so you wouldnt get the EGPWS FLAP warning which is a poor pretext.I would add that if the FO doesnt find the flap inhibit,then a GA would be better,unless ice runs through your veins.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maintaining landing flap is poor judgement unless light.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Over the Moon
Posts: 780
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maintaining Flap 30/40 has is not primarily about EGPWS unless you have some twisted priorities.
Its an option the manufacturer says you can use. It may well be appropriate close in or light and I'm guessing Boeing give you that option in order to avoid unecessary configuration changes and keep it simple. The EGPWS bit is a fringe benefit not the primary reason.
As the pilot you have to make the call. The better you know your aircraft, procedures and the more thought you have given to various scenarios then the better chance you will have of getting it right. If the scenario was indeed a large flock of birds on short final then in my view the correct call is to continue to land even if you then fly into those birds and suffer damage or an engine failure. This is because if you intiate a go around and then fly into them you could well loose both engines and be in an irrecoverable position and if you have already suffered strikes and have lost an engine you cannot gaurentee that your remaining engine is undamaged and will provide you with TOGA power so again you could put yourself in an irrecoverable position. The safest course is to accept the pain and land. If you are further out and are advised by ATC of bird activity on final then a go around would indeed be appropriate.
As I said earlier I admire the crew for keeping everyone alive and substantialy uninjured under great duress and pressure but I do wonder if the decision to initiate a go around (if indeed thats what happened) will be seen as an error albeit an understandable one influenced by many things including company culture.
Its an option the manufacturer says you can use. It may well be appropriate close in or light and I'm guessing Boeing give you that option in order to avoid unecessary configuration changes and keep it simple. The EGPWS bit is a fringe benefit not the primary reason.
As the pilot you have to make the call. The better you know your aircraft, procedures and the more thought you have given to various scenarios then the better chance you will have of getting it right. If the scenario was indeed a large flock of birds on short final then in my view the correct call is to continue to land even if you then fly into those birds and suffer damage or an engine failure. This is because if you intiate a go around and then fly into them you could well loose both engines and be in an irrecoverable position and if you have already suffered strikes and have lost an engine you cannot gaurentee that your remaining engine is undamaged and will provide you with TOGA power so again you could put yourself in an irrecoverable position. The safest course is to accept the pain and land. If you are further out and are advised by ATC of bird activity on final then a go around would indeed be appropriate.
As I said earlier I admire the crew for keeping everyone alive and substantialy uninjured under great duress and pressure but I do wonder if the decision to initiate a go around (if indeed thats what happened) will be seen as an error albeit an understandable one influenced by many things including company culture.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have seen many negative posts about Ryanair and very rarely travel with them these days. The cabin with the yellow and purple actually makes my head hurt!
However, on the basic flying rules we all grew up with, the boys (& girls) did a great job. One dented aircraft and nobody dead. Who cares about the details?
No thrust on finals in a heavy aircraft leaves options somewhat limited.
Be interested to hear how many hours the Captain and F/O have as I think they made the right decisions based upon what is here. New boys or old warriors?
However, on the basic flying rules we all grew up with, the boys (& girls) did a great job. One dented aircraft and nobody dead. Who cares about the details?
No thrust on finals in a heavy aircraft leaves options somewhat limited.
Be interested to hear how many hours the Captain and F/O have as I think they made the right decisions based upon what is here. New boys or old warriors?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London
Age: 68
Posts: 1,269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Greuzi
There are a few fanatic posters here who have a beef with Ryan Air and will post on any Ryan Air thread or start them even just to try and muddy the waters,
one of them from where Bresjnev used to reside, could be related to him actually....
one of them from where Bresjnev used to reside, could be related to him actually....
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: West Sussex
Age: 82
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Never mind about the piloting aspects of this accident, what about the bird strike capability of the engines? Big flocks of starlings are very common indeed, and brought down the Electra at Logan many many years ago.
Regulations were improved such that starlings were no longer perceived as a threat, and we had moved on to address Canada Geese!
Bird Requirements probably need revisiting. Is the AIA database still in place?
Regulations were improved such that starlings were no longer perceived as a threat, and we had moved on to address Canada Geese!
Bird Requirements probably need revisiting. Is the AIA database still in place?
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: england
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOAC vs RAINBOE
BOAC wins my vote 100%. The IN speed is the OUT speed on 737.
Vref30/40 = V2 for F15 (approx), as Vref15 = to V2 for F1 (approx.).
RAINBOEs version is NOT what Boeing train for a S/E GA. Try that when hot and high and you die! To accelerate to Vref +20 in a GA is very very difficult, you will pretty much have to level off. That is not in compliance with ICAO PANS OPS which require 2.5%.
Also RAINBOE, you said, 'watch the pilot sweat trying to fly your profile', I'm not suprised 'cos its not correct and a perfect example of a chief pilot writing procedures because he/she doesn't have the necessary experience. Also I am 100% sure your Part B has slipped past the Flight Ops inspectorate who could not allow such a procedure.
Your version is ONLY correct in the engine failure continue approach scenario.
Sorry to be so direct but what your company is professing is dangerous at best and also sending out a poor training message here on the web and I'll end up having to re-train the guys who might believe your version.
BOAC wins my vote 100%. The IN speed is the OUT speed on 737.
Vref30/40 = V2 for F15 (approx), as Vref15 = to V2 for F1 (approx.).
RAINBOEs version is NOT what Boeing train for a S/E GA. Try that when hot and high and you die! To accelerate to Vref +20 in a GA is very very difficult, you will pretty much have to level off. That is not in compliance with ICAO PANS OPS which require 2.5%.
Also RAINBOE, you said, 'watch the pilot sweat trying to fly your profile', I'm not suprised 'cos its not correct and a perfect example of a chief pilot writing procedures because he/she doesn't have the necessary experience. Also I am 100% sure your Part B has slipped past the Flight Ops inspectorate who could not allow such a procedure.
Your version is ONLY correct in the engine failure continue approach scenario.
Sorry to be so direct but what your company is professing is dangerous at best and also sending out a poor training message here on the web and I'll end up having to re-train the guys who might believe your version.
Never mind about the piloting aspects of this accident, what about the bird strike capability of the engines? Big flocks of starlings are very common indeed, and brought down the Electra at Logan many many years ago.
Regulations were improved such that starlings were no longer perceived as a threat, and we had moved on to address Canada Geese!
Bird Requirements probably need revisiting. Is the AIA database still in place?
Regulations were improved such that starlings were no longer perceived as a threat, and we had moved on to address Canada Geese!
Bird Requirements probably need revisiting. Is the AIA database still in place?
OTOH I haven't seen any photos of the engines showing damage, just a rumor a few posts above about the Mods editing out the photos of damage.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flight are showing some pictures of a rear fuselage that's seen better days...
PICTURES: Bird-struck Ryanair 737 extensively damaged
PICTURES: Bird-struck Ryanair 737 extensively damaged
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Hadlow
Age: 60
Posts: 597
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Light releif
The following was added to the Wikipedia article on Ryanair today (since deleted). Thought it might raise a smile though
Passengers were charged €27 per head emergency landing fee and €23 per head for escape chute usage
*wouldn't put it past them though!
*
Passengers were charged €27 per head emergency landing fee and €23 per head for escape chute usage
*wouldn't put it past them though!
*