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 5th Dec 2012, 11:59
  #61 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 332
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
You seem to have some problems in reading the posts.
criss is offline  
Old 5th Dec 2012, 12:36
  #62 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: England
Posts: 1,955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by misterblue
"Request an orbit" would have solved it all.
They're not very good at those either.
Lord Spandex Masher is offline  
Old 5th Dec 2012, 14:03
  #63 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Just a couple of comments:
    They were High above an ILS GS, and presumably a VNAV profile, then they were Low on the ILS GS and VNAV profile and all without slowing down significantly. This means they descended through the GS. Does this imply the GS was not armed? After all, the A/P was engaged. The a/c went through the LOC from both directions. Therefore if APP was armed the LOC would have been captured allowing GS to be captured.

    The statements from RYR seem to claim the AV article was objectionably inaccurate. I would like them to be very specific about what. Rather than trying to deflect attention with various claims, spurious or not, I'd like to hear from them the absolute truth. That way the will really deflection attention and close down this discussion. If OFDM data is correct I, and all RYR pilots, want to learn something from this. Let everyone be open about this event. I always thought the idea of OFDM data was to enhance safety and not witch hunt; to share the data and lessons learnt. Until we see certified accurate data acceptable to RYR & AV & IAA & BFU then speculation will abound.
    RAT 5 is offline  
    Old 5th Dec 2012, 16:09
      #64 (permalink)  

    "Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
     
    Join Date: Jan 2000
    Location: England
    Age: 77
    Posts: 4,136
    Received 221 Likes on 64 Posts
    Could be a medical problem. My last flight was an unstable approach, flown by the FO, but with no comment from me. When I saw the FDR printout I realised that, after thirty-nine years in the business, I'd lost it. The result was a nervous breakdown, medical retirement, and I've not flown since. Stranger things have happened.
    Herod is offline  
    Old 5th Dec 2012, 16:38
      #65 (permalink)  
     
    Join Date: Sep 1999
    Location: United Kingdom
    Posts: 929
    Likes: 0
    Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
    Um they got it wrong. (we all do sometimes) & they went around at 500 ft so whats the problem?

    Last edited by IcePack; 5th Dec 2012 at 16:39.
    IcePack is offline  
    Old 5th Dec 2012, 17:08
      #66 (permalink)  
    Per Ardua ad Astraeus
     
    Join Date: Mar 2000
    Location: UK
    Posts: 18,579
    Likes: 0
    Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
    One has to hope some of these posters are pulling our plonkers and not actually serious. If they are, I hope they are not responsible for passengers' safety
    BOAC is offline  
    Old 5th Dec 2012, 17:25
      #67 (permalink)  
     
    Join Date: Jun 2001
    Location: UK
    Posts: 3,982
    Likes: 0
    Received 1 Like on 1 Post
    Fatigue? Call in sick, take a day off, take radar vectors whatever, no excuse for bad workmanship. It is the responsibilty of the Captain to ensure the safety of his pax and crew, flying fatigued, letting the FO fudge it, forget it..
    shaun ryder, I did not say fatigue was "the" cause but may be A factor. This was not to meant in any way to make "excuses" for this incident but it is a fact that fatigue can affect judgement as well as skill.

    Last edited by fireflybob; 5th Dec 2012 at 17:26.
    fireflybob is offline  
    Old 5th Dec 2012, 19:05
      #68 (permalink)  
     
    Join Date: Jan 2006
    Location: Singapore
    Posts: 320
    Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
    One has to hope some of these posters are pulling our plonkers and not actually serious. If they are, I hope they are not responsible for passengers' safety
    Does make a chap wonder somewhat....
    (p.s bet you miss wewol days)
    Phantom Driver is offline  
    Old 5th Dec 2012, 20:26
      #69 (permalink)  
    Thread Starter
     
    Join Date: Mar 2006
    Location: Choroni, sometimes
    Posts: 1,974
    Likes: 0
    Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
    We ask that the article be removed from the Aviation Herald website and an apology be issued by the AH for implying that the crew did anything wrong when recovering from this unstable approach incident.

    This article is being picked up internationally and is inaccurate.

    Please give this your urgent attention and call me to discuss.

    Regards
    Stephen
    Stephen McNamara
    Head of Communications
    Ryanair Head Office
    Dublin Airport
    Amen..........
    hetfield is offline  
    Old 5th Dec 2012, 20:47
      #70 (permalink)  
     
    Join Date: Feb 2009
    Location: Worldwide
    Posts: 579
    Likes: 0
    Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
    Originally Posted by Stephen McNamara
    an apology be issued by the AH for implying that the crew did anything wrong when recovering from this unstable approach incident.
    Nice attempt at spin there. I don't think anybody has implied that the go around was wrong.

    I thought Ryanair couldn't care less about the public's perception but the recent aggressive pursuits seems to indicate they have become a bit sensitive.
    KBPsen is offline  
    Old 5th Dec 2012, 22:45
      #71 (permalink)  
     
    Join Date: Mar 2002
    Location: Seat 1A
    Posts: 8,547
    Received 73 Likes on 42 Posts
    Originally Posted by RAT 5
    They were High above an ILS GS, and presumably a VNAV profile, then they were Low on the ILS GS and VNAV profile and all without slowing down significantly. This means they descended through the GS. Does this imply the GS was not armed? After all, the A/P was engaged. The a/c went through the LOC from both directions. Therefore if APP was armed the LOC would have been captured allowing GS to be captured.
    Pretty obvious to me they weren't doing an ILS, nor had a LNAV route in the box. It was a Visual Approach via a wide right base, so none of the above (capturing) would be expected.

    The lesson I get from this is the problem that can be created by using the automatics to turn visual base, especially when higher-energy. One needs to devote more time "controlling" the beast (looking at VS, speed) than actually looking at the big picture: where am I, do I want to be here; what do I have to do to fix it/give it away. Good learning scenario...
    Capn Bloggs is offline  
    Old 6th Dec 2012, 00:17
      #72 (permalink)  
     
    Join Date: May 2001
    Location: CA
    Posts: 47
    Likes: 0
    Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
    Heres what happens when you don't go around:

    Air Europa at Lanzarote

    Air Nostrum at Barcelona

    crispy banana is offline  
    Old 6th Dec 2012, 01:26
      #73 (permalink)  
     
    Join Date: Mar 2009
    Location: United Kingdom
    Posts: 938
    Likes: 0
    Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
    I was berated not too long ago by a PPRuNe mod over a previous post I wrote about Ryanair and safety. I therefore welcome the opportunity to put the record straight. I can only assume this was not in fact dangerous in any way, but a totally normal approach for them. As any Ryanair pilot will tell you, it is entirely normal to have a rate of descent in excess of 3200 ft/min 1000' above the airfield. Indeed, the previous 5 pages of comments are merely tittle tattle from disaffected pilots who were unsuccessful in their attempts to join such an illustrious organisation. There clearly is no cause for concern here, because we are told there is not, and that should be good enough. Clearly there was no breach of SOPs either, just an unfortunate misunderstanding, for which we are all extremely grateful. And mercifully, there is no writing on the wall, because it would be offensive to many to suggest there is. I am both heartened and reassured that all is well and that safety was clearly not an issue at any point.
    Alexander de Meerkat is offline  
    Old 6th Dec 2012, 02:35
      #74 (permalink)  
     
    Join Date: Aug 2002
    Location: SE Asia
    Age: 39
    Posts: 137
    Likes: 0
    Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
    i can see why the PR dept is getting involved..must be worried in case the red top papers get hold of this incident : 'aircraft plunging towards ground' ,'seconds from disaster' ,'pax screaming'....etc etc
    camel is offline  
    Old 6th Dec 2012, 02:37
      #75 (permalink)  
     
    Join Date: Nov 2012
    Location: Netherlands
    Posts: 6
    Likes: 0
    Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
    Meerkat

    They say sarcasm isn't a desirable trait, I have to disagree this post made my day.

    Now I have to go back to the subpoena in US court thread, lets have a drink first.

    Cheers
    Whip
    Whip Whitaker is offline  
    Old 6th Dec 2012, 04:59
      #76 (permalink)  
     
    Join Date: Mar 2005
    Location: Uh... Where was I?
    Posts: 1,338
    Likes: 0
    Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
    As for leaving the automatics in after being cleared visual approach would be considered industry best practice espically in an area with a lot of VFR traffic like FMM, reduces workload and frees up capacity to look for other traffic.
    I disagree.

    In a visual with APFD you have to scan instruments as much as without it. But without it you can adjust flight path more accurately and react more promptly in case of a cessna crossing your proyected path or something.
    Microburst2002 is offline  
    Old 6th Dec 2012, 05:11
      #77 (permalink)  
     
    Join Date: Mar 2002
    Location: Seat 1A
    Posts: 8,547
    Received 73 Likes on 42 Posts
    You guys are nuts accepting uncontrolled VFRs swanning around in your airspace, especially when you're trying to get the thing on the ground. Jets and bugsmashers don't mix!
    Capn Bloggs is offline  
    Old 6th Dec 2012, 05:40
      #78 (permalink)  
     
    Join Date: Mar 2005
    Location: Uh... Where was I?
    Posts: 1,338
    Likes: 0
    Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
    The claims by RYR in the Avherald are OK.

    But this does not imply that there is no problem if you make unstable approach as long as you go around in time,

    those excessive and hopless sink rates at such low height are unacceptable and very dangerous. Even if you can go around or even stabilize befor 500 ft.
    Microburst2002 is offline  
    Old 6th Dec 2012, 05:41
      #79 (permalink)  
     
    Join Date: Mar 2005
    Location: Uh... Where was I?
    Posts: 1,338
    Likes: 0
    Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
    AVHERALD STILL WITHOUT PUBLICITY?????

    How is it that they don't have any sponsors, banners and that stuff???

    I can't believe it. It is a very popular website!
    Microburst2002 is offline  
    Old 6th Dec 2012, 07:25
      #80 (permalink)  
    Per Ardua ad Astraeus
     
    Join Date: Mar 2000
    Location: UK
    Posts: 18,579
    Likes: 0
    Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
    RY appear to be wasting their time in the PR department and merely making things worse (not the first time!). Before we all get TOO excited about all this (frightening) event, it is worth remembering it happened on 23/9 and perhaps we should be focusing on the action taken by the airline to ensure it does not happen again? I'm sure any such 'action' is long gone by now.
    BOAC is offline  

    Thread Tools
    Search this Thread

    Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

    Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.