Ryanair incident Ciampino.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: The Middle East
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Was in the car listening to Newstalk an Irish news station at noon, and who trumps up only aviation's expert the renowned David Learmount. Without boring you with the long details on Ryanair's training etc. he categorically blamed the crew stating that they had become fixated on the problem of the bird strike, and effectively forgot about the landing.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: CGN, EDDK
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The LH main gear collapsed inwards and forward. The part you see sticking up from the wing IS the upper end of the strut, plus possibly the landing gear beam.
Unless the fwd trunnion bearing housing or the landing gear beam attachment fitting got torn off the rear spar (or the lower wing skin fwd of the rear spar got damaged by the landing gear leg), the wing should be intact.
The upper surface of the wing above the landing gear leg (spanning the area between the rear spar and the landing gear beam) is covered by a simple composite panel, which most likely got destroyed.
Since the design philosophy is that in case of a crash the attachments to the wing, like landing gear legs, flaps or engine pylons should rather tear off than having the integrity of the wing box (which after all acts as a fuel tank) compromised, the attachment points are designed as the weakest spots (e.g. by use of fuse pins), it is quite likely that the wing box did not get damaged at all.
Unless the fwd trunnion bearing housing or the landing gear beam attachment fitting got torn off the rear spar (or the lower wing skin fwd of the rear spar got damaged by the landing gear leg), the wing should be intact.
The upper surface of the wing above the landing gear leg (spanning the area between the rear spar and the landing gear beam) is covered by a simple composite panel, which most likely got destroyed.
Since the design philosophy is that in case of a crash the attachments to the wing, like landing gear legs, flaps or engine pylons should rather tear off than having the integrity of the wing box (which after all acts as a fuel tank) compromised, the attachment points are designed as the weakest spots (e.g. by use of fuse pins), it is quite likely that the wing box did not get damaged at all.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: LGW
Age: 51
Posts: 539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nope! The 737-800 has eight emergency exits: four over the wings, plus two fwd exits and two aft. The fwd and aft exits use inflatable slides; only the overwing exits use the flaps as "slides." The aircraft most certainly does have escape slides.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
For nearly everything that 'happens' in the sim, a GA is the answer.
Of course, it seems logical to go just ahead and land with a systems problem if you are on final, the plane is configured and you can easily make it. However, if you blow a tire since antiskid wasn't available, you'll get hung for not staying in the air and running several minutes of checklists. Also, if you were a little fast passing 1000 feet (500 feet at some carriers), you'll be in trouble since it's on the tape and you didn't go around. So, you're right, we are spring loaded by training to go around, even on pretty short final when something unusual happens.
In the real world, many times the safest course of action would be to land and sort things out on the ground. I sure won't fault Greesecap JR for his decision to go around or the forced decision to land.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Airbubba
Yes I know it's usually the easiest, safest thing just to take it around.
But not always. This incident & the BA 777 at LHR are just 2 examples of GAs that couldn't be done.
I'm not faulting the Ryanair crew in any way. But their good engine could easily have responded and simply taken them to the scene of the accident.
They finished up plonking it down anyway so it turned out well.
Sometimes your first chance is your best chance.
Yes I know it's usually the easiest, safest thing just to take it around.
But not always. This incident & the BA 777 at LHR are just 2 examples of GAs that couldn't be done.
I'm not faulting the Ryanair crew in any way. But their good engine could easily have responded and simply taken them to the scene of the accident.
They finished up plonking it down anyway so it turned out well.
Sometimes your first chance is your best chance.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Gran Canaria
Age: 59
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spunky Monkey
OK call it 130 knots if you want. It's still bloody fast to go out of control.
My point is that after the gear collapsed that speed needed to be cut to zero, and an engine nacelle skidding on concrete is in reality providing precious little braking force. So, the force comes from the remaining two sets of rubber, which, dangerously, are asymmetric relative to the moving centre of mass.
Again, hats off to the f/c who pulled it off, all the time keeping control.
OK call it 130 knots if you want. It's still bloody fast to go out of control.
My point is that after the gear collapsed that speed needed to be cut to zero, and an engine nacelle skidding on concrete is in reality providing precious little braking force. So, the force comes from the remaining two sets of rubber, which, dangerously, are asymmetric relative to the moving centre of mass.
Again, hats off to the f/c who pulled it off, all the time keeping control.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: commuter
Age: 43
Posts: 226
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Same situation, way less birds for me and a skipper in BVA 40 days back.
Flock of pidgeons out of the grass at 300 ft, right in front of us..hit windscreen wings nose engines stab and wings. 1 engine had vibration and lost little N1 but the call was LAND...and i admit it was kinda hard. Instinctively or just because my mind was to ground it asap (i was PF) . Came out we had 15 strikes, 3 birds in the hot section of the engine and none on the other, multible damages to surfaces. The airplane was stuck in BVA for 2 days of inspections and washout of engine.
As close as it get in my opinion.
One question...do you guys think it is ok for Cpt to take over during go around one engine? isnt it already complicated to keep it under control for one guy that have been flying it for the past few moments already to have another guy come in and start feeling it right there and then? maybe if the PF was a very young and inesperienced guy i would understand.
What do you guys think?
D.
Flock of pidgeons out of the grass at 300 ft, right in front of us..hit windscreen wings nose engines stab and wings. 1 engine had vibration and lost little N1 but the call was LAND...and i admit it was kinda hard. Instinctively or just because my mind was to ground it asap (i was PF) . Came out we had 15 strikes, 3 birds in the hot section of the engine and none on the other, multible damages to surfaces. The airplane was stuck in BVA for 2 days of inspections and washout of engine.
As close as it get in my opinion.
One question...do you guys think it is ok for Cpt to take over during go around one engine? isnt it already complicated to keep it under control for one guy that have been flying it for the past few moments already to have another guy come in and start feeling it right there and then? maybe if the PF was a very young and inesperienced guy i would understand.
What do you guys think?
D.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: London, UK
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Bamber,
Your first post said:
Both of these theories could be correct depending on the degree of braking used. What the original poster (who I assume is a pilot) meant was that dropping an engine onto the tarmac will generally give you a level of retardation on that side which will be greater than you would expect on a normal landing at touchdown (bearing in mind you often don't even necessarily use brakes straight away especially on long runways). You are also probably correct that using heavy braking you could get the other (good) gear to provide even more retardation if you hammered it (you would be amazed at how powerful the brakes of an airliner are when they are really needed). You then have the added complication in this case that the partially collapsed gear has only been pushed up until the engine contacted the ground and remained in contact with the runway according to the photographs, and for all we know may have continued to provide some braking and directional control. BTW the nosegear has no brakes, although it does have steering which may also have been used by the pilot to stay on the runway of course.
Your second post could be way off with the numbers - speed more like 130 kts maybe at touchdown or less with double engine failure if they tried to "stretch the glide" as it is known depending on what position the flaps ended up in for landing after the reconsidered go-around. This gives only just over 40% of the kinetic energy your 200 kts assumption gives. On the other hand maybe they were at 200 kts needing to get the thing on the ground before the concrete ran out, which they appear to have done successfully.
The other forces that you are neglecting to consider are those provided by the rudder and nosewheel steering. Pilots instinctively use the rudder to keep straight on take off and landing and it is extremely powerful until the speed reduces when the nosewheel steering can then be used. It is easily possible to land and just use the brakes on one side for example, using the rudder to keep straight (this has to be the case of course in case the brakes fail on one side).
Ex-737 driver with a physics degree and 20 years on commercial jets BTW.
Your first post said:
If (and I am postulating from the picture alone so I caveat this statement heavily) the left engine pod had been in contact with the ground on the roll out it would produce a left yaw
This is wrong. The friction force acting on the engine will be much LESS than that exerted on tyres. So, there will be a danger of the a/c slewing to the RIGHT if the pilot stamps on the brakes too hard. Well done flight crew for keeping it straight, on the runway, and stopping in time. That will have required a cool head and a light foot.
Btw I'm not a pilot.
This is wrong. The friction force acting on the engine will be much LESS than that exerted on tyres. So, there will be a danger of the a/c slewing to the RIGHT if the pilot stamps on the brakes too hard. Well done flight crew for keeping it straight, on the runway, and stopping in time. That will have required a cool head and a light foot.
Btw I'm not a pilot.
Your second post could be way off with the numbers - speed more like 130 kts maybe at touchdown or less with double engine failure if they tried to "stretch the glide" as it is known depending on what position the flaps ended up in for landing after the reconsidered go-around. This gives only just over 40% of the kinetic energy your 200 kts assumption gives. On the other hand maybe they were at 200 kts needing to get the thing on the ground before the concrete ran out, which they appear to have done successfully.
The other forces that you are neglecting to consider are those provided by the rudder and nosewheel steering. Pilots instinctively use the rudder to keep straight on take off and landing and it is extremely powerful until the speed reduces when the nosewheel steering can then be used. It is easily possible to land and just use the brakes on one side for example, using the rudder to keep straight (this has to be the case of course in case the brakes fail on one side).
Ex-737 driver with a physics degree and 20 years on commercial jets BTW.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: commuter
Age: 43
Posts: 226
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PS before somebody tell us what bird those can be, i can tell you something that i know. There is a gypsi camp right 200 metres before the threshold slightly right of the centerline. Full of garbage, smoking all the time to get materials out of old appliances and full of Gulls circling around it since few months now...that could be the case...even if i never seen so many gulls flying together here in CIA...always 2 o 3 max...so could not be the case this time, but nonetheless important to point out and maybe solve.
D
D
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Rochester, UK
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very interesting, pic three shows that the first overwing exit was not used - given that most SLF run to bag a emergency row exit, should their be better breifings be given to those who occupy these seats. Very pleased that everyone got off safely, but we are all aware that this is not always unfortunately the case.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: MCT
Posts: 895
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well just being an infrequent SLF these days, it seems that the crew did a good job and everyone walked away. Will be interesting to read the official report when it comes out.
And now for some light relief. Someone asked
The answer is quite obvious - the birds weren't squawking .....
I'll get me coat.......
Suzeman
And now for some light relief. Someone asked
Why did the crew not get a TCAS message to climb from the bird threat?
I'll get me coat.......
Suzeman
Guest
Posts: n/a
If Greasecap SR is correct then it would seem that the Captains intervention was appropriate and that is of course no criticism of the PF, the relation of Mr Greasecap.
It would perhaps support the philosophy that in addition to the airmanship call of "Continue" from The Captain after a malfunction or event on the take-off roll that similar support calls are relevant to all phases of flight, particularly when time is limited in the decision making process. A bit of direction from the senior pilot in the flightdeck can often help. Obviously, switched on FO's can also make these calls to indicate that they are immediately aware of the issues accompanied by an intuitive sense of the correct course of action, the P1 can then chill and continue monitoring.
How we work symbiotically during the duty will always have an enormous amount of influence on these incidents and that is why I am always relieved to complete a duty with one of the very small minority of pilots who only communicate using grunts or chest-beating. True in both seats.
Great intervention Captain, and the conscience of yourself and your valiant FO and crew should be entirely clear.
It would perhaps support the philosophy that in addition to the airmanship call of "Continue" from The Captain after a malfunction or event on the take-off roll that similar support calls are relevant to all phases of flight, particularly when time is limited in the decision making process. A bit of direction from the senior pilot in the flightdeck can often help. Obviously, switched on FO's can also make these calls to indicate that they are immediately aware of the issues accompanied by an intuitive sense of the correct course of action, the P1 can then chill and continue monitoring.
How we work symbiotically during the duty will always have an enormous amount of influence on these incidents and that is why I am always relieved to complete a duty with one of the very small minority of pilots who only communicate using grunts or chest-beating. True in both seats.
Great intervention Captain, and the conscience of yourself and your valiant FO and crew should be entirely clear.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Thailand
Posts: 942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engine number one failure on final approach, select flap 15, set go-around thrust, apply a few degrees pitch up, positive climb, gear up. All perfectly standard so far. One major Hyd pump down, but no worries.
Ooops!! Engine number two running down, pitch down, select gear down, but hang on a minute, no major Hyd power now so it's still not yet even fully retracted, oh well, we're going to land anyway, with the gear wherever it happens to be.
That just about covers it I think. No crashing it on to the runway, simply the gear not where it was meant to be. I hazard a guess the ROD was lower than normal without three greens.
An extremely 'Well done' to the crew involved for getting it on the runway in the configuration with which they were presented.
DV windows open are totally irrelevant.
Ooops!! Engine number two running down, pitch down, select gear down, but hang on a minute, no major Hyd power now so it's still not yet even fully retracted, oh well, we're going to land anyway, with the gear wherever it happens to be.
That just about covers it I think. No crashing it on to the runway, simply the gear not where it was meant to be. I hazard a guess the ROD was lower than normal without three greens.
An extremely 'Well done' to the crew involved for getting it on the runway in the configuration with which they were presented.
DV windows open are totally irrelevant.
Visual committal height: A nominated height at or above which a safe asymmetric go-around can be initiated, and below which the aircraft is committed to land.
Single engine failure below VCH is going to be a pretty dire event - and a safe asymmetric go-around is unlikely to be possible.
Single engine failure below VCH is going to be a pretty dire event - and a safe asymmetric go-around is unlikely to be possible.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
this would be a non event and is trained by crews repeatedly