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

Ryanair, too low on..

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, too low on..

Old 4th Dec 2012, 11:59
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 1997
Location: 5530N
Posts: 845
This is demotion material where I come from.

A disgraceful display of continue on itis.....
Bearcat is offline  
Old 4th Dec 2012, 12:00
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Earth
Posts: 332
To a previous poster: GA in RYR is mandatory report below 1000 agl optional above if there's reportable circumstances....
McBruce is offline  
Old 4th Dec 2012, 12:03
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 238
Question for EDMJ. How can the crew expect radar vectors for a visual approach? Surely the clue is in the title?
Just quoting from the report, don't ask me...
EDMJ is offline  
Old 4th Dec 2012, 12:05
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 322
I'm with 16024. While I detest MoL's management philosophy and would have to be desperate to travel with his airline, show me the commercial pilot who has never misjudged an approach. There seems to a lot of sanctimonious claptrap going on here.
"Let the one without sin cast the first stone!"
scotbill is online now  
Old 4th Dec 2012, 12:16
  #25 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,584
Some (not so) pretty big breaches of airmanship here, with excessive descent rates both below MSA and below 1000' AGL - 1700+ down at 600 radio!!!??. At the 450' radio they were nowhere near the runway either. No doubt some serious goings-on in an office somewhere and I am certain RY will handle this incident properly. I would honestly expect demotion or dismissal for this episode (Vis Bearcat). What was PNF doing? Who was PF? A complete mental abberation?

However, there does appear to be some misinformation on this thread. Shy Torque - even as a rotating palm-tree driver you need to think about your comment 'rather than too low'!

No sign of 20-30kts on 'base leg' - or anywhere, come to that - all within 'limits'.

No sign of an intent to land half-way down the runway either.

Interesting wind plots if accurate, and they may have been experiencing a significant tailwind as they made their way in initially to 06.

As explained elsewhere 'Radar to visual' is by no means unusual.

As for 'sanctimonious claptrap going on here' - yes, we all can screw up approaches, especially visuals. It is when you quit that counts. Are you implying you would have done the same?
BOAC is offline  
Old 4th Dec 2012, 12:26
  #26 (permalink)  

Avoid imitations
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 12,401
BOAC,

However, there does appear to be some misinformation on this thread. Shy Torque - even as a rotating palm-tree driver you need to think about your comment 'rather than too low'!

No sign of 20-30kts on 'base leg' - or anywhere, come to that - all within 'limits'.
I based my comments on post#13 from EDMJ, who presumably has seen an initial report.
ShyTorque is online now  
Old 4th Dec 2012, 12:32
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 238
Have just reread the report and this was how the commander described it (page 68 of the Bulletin, 7th line, beginning with "Im (rechten) Queranflug...") , i.e.:

"On (right) base, which was very short, there was a tailwind component of 20-30 kts".
EDMJ is offline  
Old 4th Dec 2012, 12:40
  #28 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,584
Interesting - BFU show 240/21 --->250/20 ie 90 off. Who is right?

Which 'report', EDMJ?
BOAC is offline  
Old 4th Dec 2012, 12:48
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 238
The preliminary report in the BFU September 2012 Bulletin (pages 65-75):

http://www.bfu-web.de/cln_030/nn_223...tin2012-09.pdf

In German only.
EDMJ is offline  
Old 4th Dec 2012, 12:58
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Dry bar
Posts: 352
Visual approach. No big deal?

From what I can see there was no hand flying until AP disconnect at 16:39:37. Why were they flying the aircraft on the automatics when supposedly cleared for the visual approach? Kind of defeats the object of the exercise in my mind. Also this method of flying visuals with the automatics in usually leads to unstabilised and scrappy approaches.

It looks to me like they were coupled to a speed mode viewing the speed vs ROD + configuration in the attached report. This seems to have led to the high rates of descent developing as the drag increased followed by the inevitable GPWS invite to the CP's office. In order to get a handle on the exercise, plan well in advance, get the automatics off, followed shortly after by the FD when cleared for the visual. Not enough hand flying ability, to much reliance on the autopilot and some pretty scary rates of descent close to the ground.

Having said that, anyone can have a bad day.
shaun ryder is offline  
Old 4th Dec 2012, 13:02
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Put out to graze
Age: 59
Posts: 1,034
Having said that, anyone can have a bad day.
Oh great summation, not!!! Trying using that reasoning to the 180+ lives behind these two numpties!
kick the tires is offline  
Old 4th Dec 2012, 15:57
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,509
Was this daylight? I hope so, but where was the sun? It's not the first time crews have been caught out by low sun as they turn 180 degrees. But then again, thinking ahead for that is basic airmanship. However, without that factor, and assuming the ILS24 was the last wpt in the Legs page there must have been a lot of VNAV deviation data screaming at them about their predicament. This compensates for the high elevation of the rwy and avoids all the mental gymnastics if Altimeter v Distogo. What does beg the question is why wait so long to correct a bad situation getting worse. It was a bit of a no-hoper a long time before the G/A. An early realisation of that and a quick timely correction is what could have been a better decision. Did they G/A because of the EGPWS or because they were unstable at 500' agl. The fault with the latter is they seem to be in a very scary place at 500' agl. I'd like to know what their interpretation of all the VNAV and raw ILS data was, and what visual clues they had. Ultimately, what it all comes down to is lack of practice, both in Mk.1 eyeball approaches, which RYR decry, and a full understanding of how to use the automatics in ALL phases of flight. If they were descending >3000fpm on autopilot at F5 I wonder where the MCP speed bug was. I hope over the F5 bug. I wonder why they didn't level the a/c on base leg, get it to F40 and then go down. There was still V/S down while trying to slow down, close in. It ain't gonna work, not that close. Drag it up, but that requires having done it or seen it done before. It's not in the robotic trained monkey syllabus. Yes, they went around, but not from the correct point, only height.
To learn from this, for which I hope all RYR pilots do have the opportunity, we need to know much more detail facts, not only about what happened but why.
Remember AA in Cali. The what was easy to follow, it was the CVR that gave an insight into the why.
RAT 5 is offline  
Old 4th Dec 2012, 16:42
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: FAR FAR AWAY from Hanger 89
Posts: 188
1000' RA at 210kts with almost 3300fpm rate of decent? Then they continued down to 600'RA at 1700fpm before eventually deciding to throw the approach away? This approach should have been thrown away LONG before their actual go-around. A pat on the back for going around when they did? Bollocks, a black cab with no biscuits for continuing as far as they did.
bracebrace! is offline  
Old 4th Dec 2012, 16:50
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Uh... Where was I?
Posts: 1,342
The unforgivable sin of these crew is the over 3,000 fpm sink rate at 1,000 AGL. That is absolutely unacceptable and it shows an extremely poor judgement and attitude on their part.

Unless there was some form of loss of control, automation mismamagment, mishap, etc... Then it is adifferent story. But if they hand flew the visual like that, intentionally, they are surely sending CVs right now because I don't think they are very merciful in RYR.
Microburst2002 is offline  
Old 4th Dec 2012, 16:51
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Belfast
Posts: 89
Here we go again anything to do with Ryanair and ye are off, wonder how many pages will this one go, as I said before the people on this board are totally anti Ryanair, time to give it a break no one was hurt
Thunderbirdsix is offline  
Old 4th Dec 2012, 16:58
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Essex Boy
Age: 57
Posts: 3,225
No, I think this time we are all anti-incompetence.

The RYR bit is irrelevant. There was no chance of getting in, therefore they should have gone around at 1,000ft.

End of.
misterblue is offline  
Old 4th Dec 2012, 17:07
  #37 (permalink)  

Avoid imitations
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 12,401
BOAC, I was trying to understand how they got in that situation. It now seems they didn't even make the runway, so it was worse than I first thought.

I'll still accept an overdue apology, even from a plank wing driver.
ShyTorque is online now  
Old 4th Dec 2012, 17:15
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: planet earth
Age: 54
Posts: 48
@ 16024 & scotbill

Did you have a look at this report from post nr 1?

Those guys were:
-at 450' RA at 4NM from the threshold
-at 420' above RWY elev. at aprox. 4 NM from threshold with a V/S of -1740 fpm and at 211 kts
-at 913' above RWY elev. at aprox. 6NM from threshold with a V/S of -3280 fpm

This is not just an approach that didn't go to plan, as you put it, but a major [email protected]&§up!

Were you sitting in that cockpit? Otherwise I can't believe that anybody is defending these guys.
Cagedh is offline  
Old 4th Dec 2012, 17:56
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Betwixt and between
Posts: 666
610 ft height but 4 miles out and off the centreline?
3200fpm at 1000ft height?

And people are defending them? It beggars belief.
There is something strange about those parameters. Gear down, flap five, the NG will not hold 210kts at 3200fpm. Those parameters show that he decelerated from 216kts to 211kts with a stowed speedbrake and an increasing rate of descent peaking at 3200fpm.

Hmmmmm
Sciolistes is offline  
Old 4th Dec 2012, 19:04
  #40 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,584
Scio - in all probability the figures were instantaneous (or even 'max' for effect....) and not sustained.

Plank says sorry to rotary man - I read your post as assuming the wind had anything to do with the altitude 'lows'. It didn't really.

TBsix - this event has shocked me and probably quite a few other current and ex pilots. I have always held RY training and supervision in high regard considering the intensity and pressures that the crews operate under, but this (September event) has just blown my mind.

It is interesting seeing the addenda coming into the AvHerald report.
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.