Ryanair, too low on..
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One needs to be extremely careful before........
In reality, these 'swapping to the other runway' tricks to save taxy time don't save much unless you opt for the straight-in runway and open cans of worms if you are quite unprepared for the change.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: ...
Posts: 3,753
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was a fleet admiral in the US navy at 21...
Seriously guys get of the age thing, we all know that it has more to do with being in the right place at the right time then anything else.
In terms of suitability for command I trust more in the likes of Ryanair and easyJet as they upgrade people based on merit and ability instead of looking at who's next on the seniority list like most legacy carriers. People who don't make the grade simply don't get command. Not at 25 not at 50 not at 60. People who do make the grade and are lucky enough to be there at the right time do get command.
Simple.
Seriously guys get of the age thing, we all know that it has more to do with being in the right place at the right time then anything else.
In terms of suitability for command I trust more in the likes of Ryanair and easyJet as they upgrade people based on merit and ability instead of looking at who's next on the seniority list like most legacy carriers. People who don't make the grade simply don't get command. Not at 25 not at 50 not at 60. People who do make the grade and are lucky enough to be there at the right time do get command.
Simple.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having been through the LoCo experience, and speaking to friends still there, IMHO the root cause is that many airlines do not train even discourage visual approaches. Thus, on a daily basis it is not practiced and therefore not demonstrated. The result is that those who used to do it as the norm lose practice, and those who would like to try it are guessing in the dark. Then, occasionally, someone thinks this is the day and moment to give it a go, and it becomes a can of worms. Quickly you are on a slippery slope, think you can recover it and finally, hopefully, decide it won't work. The consequence is the FlT OPs dept decide that the attempt to save time & fuel achieves the opposite and so they discourage visuals more forcibly. The spiral is less practice, less demonstration and less competence. Thus piloting skills diminish, and this discussion, here, goes round & round, as per many previous threads. I leave you to decide where the root cause is. But once again the solution alludes the community. Pilots want to pilot, airline management want safety and cost saving. Allowing pilots to fly rather than operate can sometimes conflict with their philosophy. More training and encouragement of piloting skills needs resources and as the focus is profit it never happens.
Fully agree rat 5.
The downward spiral will only stop when the authorities properly police the industry, insure minimum appropriate standards for all and not just nod their mates policies through.
The downward spiral will only stop when the authorities properly police the industry, insure minimum appropriate standards for all and not just nod their mates policies through.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: R069 5.6d
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
737jock
To put your trust back on a level playing field with legacy carriers. Seniority systems don't guarantee command when you are next on the list. Assessments/checks etc must still be passed. All your seniority does is guarantee you are next in line for the opportunity to attempt the process.
To put your trust back on a level playing field with legacy carriers. Seniority systems don't guarantee command when you are next on the list. Assessments/checks etc must still be passed. All your seniority does is guarantee you are next in line for the opportunity to attempt the process.
Professional pilots should be able to fly a proficient visual approach with confidence just as they should be able to hand fly at altitude.
If they (or some of them) can't then it's the "system" (or lack of it) that's at fault.
Just to qualify (and I know for many this will be teaching grandma to suck eggs) when flying a visual approach all available aids should be monitored/utilized/crosschecked in order to confirm that things are going as planned.
A visual approach (or part of it) may be flown manually but for me such an approach implies switching off the automatics and the flight director and therefore hand flying. If the workload is that high that you don't feel happy to hand fly a visual then maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.
When I flew for the operator in question the Ops Manual specified that when executing a visual maximum use would be made of AFDS etc hence the use of same in this instance (not saying I agree with said instruction!).
Recall watching one FO fly a "visual" - he programmed all the points for the circuit into the FMC and I then watched him fly the whole circuit on instruments with the Flight Director! I remarked that, in my opinion, this was not a visual approach!
It's a sad day when many professional pilots are now barely competent and/or confident to fly a visual approach.
If they (or some of them) can't then it's the "system" (or lack of it) that's at fault.
Just to qualify (and I know for many this will be teaching grandma to suck eggs) when flying a visual approach all available aids should be monitored/utilized/crosschecked in order to confirm that things are going as planned.
A visual approach (or part of it) may be flown manually but for me such an approach implies switching off the automatics and the flight director and therefore hand flying. If the workload is that high that you don't feel happy to hand fly a visual then maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.
When I flew for the operator in question the Ops Manual specified that when executing a visual maximum use would be made of AFDS etc hence the use of same in this instance (not saying I agree with said instruction!).
Recall watching one FO fly a "visual" - he programmed all the points for the circuit into the FMC and I then watched him fly the whole circuit on instruments with the Flight Director! I remarked that, in my opinion, this was not a visual approach!
It's a sad day when many professional pilots are now barely competent and/or confident to fly a visual approach.
Last edited by fireflybob; 14th Dec 2012 at 09:03.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ffb, I agree. A visual approach is like parking your car in your driveway. Very easy and we all can do it every day. Relying on automation or a flight director to land an airplane doesn't make any sense.
Landing at some airport we had not ever seen on the east coast of the Dominican Republic one night on a charter in a B727 as a new captain I checked all notams, called dispatch to confirm all navaids and tower operations were normal. My FO and FE were new on probation. They faxed us charts for the approaches. I did everything I could because I could see problems coming up.
Three miles out in the clouds I called approach and said, verify we are cleared for the VOR approach. They said negative, the VOR is OTS, you are cleared for the NDB approach to R26. We quickly set up the NDB for 26 as we approach overhead our supposedly vfr airport still in the clouds, execute the NDB approach breaking out in our procedure turn at about 1200 ft and see the runway with the VASI saying we are too high so descend but realize quickly we are not high, the VASI is wrong so level out and make the approach visually using eyeballs for approach angle over the water in a black hole approach.
We landed fine but then we found out non of the computers at the airport worked so had to copy our return flight plan and take off data over the telephone. After takeoff I heard our company flight from New York coming in so warned them about everything that was broke at the airport.
Landing at some airport we had not ever seen on the east coast of the Dominican Republic one night on a charter in a B727 as a new captain I checked all notams, called dispatch to confirm all navaids and tower operations were normal. My FO and FE were new on probation. They faxed us charts for the approaches. I did everything I could because I could see problems coming up.
Three miles out in the clouds I called approach and said, verify we are cleared for the VOR approach. They said negative, the VOR is OTS, you are cleared for the NDB approach to R26. We quickly set up the NDB for 26 as we approach overhead our supposedly vfr airport still in the clouds, execute the NDB approach breaking out in our procedure turn at about 1200 ft and see the runway with the VASI saying we are too high so descend but realize quickly we are not high, the VASI is wrong so level out and make the approach visually using eyeballs for approach angle over the water in a black hole approach.
We landed fine but then we found out non of the computers at the airport worked so had to copy our return flight plan and take off data over the telephone. After takeoff I heard our company flight from New York coming in so warned them about everything that was broke at the airport.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 938
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with both 737Jock and some of the other contributors. Like many of us in the industry, I have friends at many UK and European airlines - including Ryanair. There is no doubt in my mind that Ryanair management exercise a higher-than-normal level of intervention with its pilots. For example, there is overt pressure to take minimum fuel. That pressure comes in the form of the Captain having to justify the most basic airmanship decisions to his manager afterwards. I stand by my view that such practices are fundamentally opposed to the spirit of flight safety. In my opinion, over a period of time it wears down the Captain's willingness to make decisions that are necessary by always forcing him to consider the potential retribution and subsequent hassle from his manager. That in itself does not, however, mean that Ryanair is intrinsically unsafe - it does mean they have removed a layer of safety from the operation that other airlines have not.
Moving on to the issue of promotion - I think that the major low-cost carriers (Ryanair and easyJet) have a pretty robust command selection processes. The time to command at easyJet is destined to double in years to come as the expansion process of the past grinds to a halt. I imagine that would be the same at Ryanair. It also has to be said that the legacy carriers also have a robust system. I agree with those that say the seniority system just gets you to the starting gate - it does not prevent the selection system removing an unsuitable candidate regardless of their place on the seniority list. You still have to pass the course. In reality easyJet operate a command seniority system these days - the only real difference is that you cannot get on that seniority list until you have the hours for command. That would strike me as a sensible safeguard. Sure, there are imperfections in that system, but there are anywhere. The alternative is very unattractive - that management pilots and their mates decide who is suitable and who is not. Before you know it managers's favourites, their pals, their wives tennis partners' husbands, 'good chaps', 'exceptional' ex-military candidates and so forth all get promoted ahead of the regular good guy who has worked hard all his days but has failed to catch the Chief Pilot's eye. Therefore a robust and transparent seniority system needs to be in place that ensure that once a particular pilot has reached the standard for command he gets on the course in the correct order, and not at the whim of some manager.
Moving on to the issue of promotion - I think that the major low-cost carriers (Ryanair and easyJet) have a pretty robust command selection processes. The time to command at easyJet is destined to double in years to come as the expansion process of the past grinds to a halt. I imagine that would be the same at Ryanair. It also has to be said that the legacy carriers also have a robust system. I agree with those that say the seniority system just gets you to the starting gate - it does not prevent the selection system removing an unsuitable candidate regardless of their place on the seniority list. You still have to pass the course. In reality easyJet operate a command seniority system these days - the only real difference is that you cannot get on that seniority list until you have the hours for command. That would strike me as a sensible safeguard. Sure, there are imperfections in that system, but there are anywhere. The alternative is very unattractive - that management pilots and their mates decide who is suitable and who is not. Before you know it managers's favourites, their pals, their wives tennis partners' husbands, 'good chaps', 'exceptional' ex-military candidates and so forth all get promoted ahead of the regular good guy who has worked hard all his days but has failed to catch the Chief Pilot's eye. Therefore a robust and transparent seniority system needs to be in place that ensure that once a particular pilot has reached the standard for command he gets on the course in the correct order, and not at the whim of some manager.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can see your point in para 1, but I see no harm in having to 'justify' an extra fuel uplift with a PLOG entry - the decider will be what (if any) excessive 'punitive' action is taken on these decisions. As I have posted before, I 'grew up' in airline ops with some Captains taking "1 tonne over PLOG for good measure" on both CAVOK and CATIII days - no logic at all. If such a system makes crews THINK about why they need extra, I am happy with that. You can view it as 'pressure' or 'guidance' depending on the ethos. Going back to the BUD 'incident' discussed elsewhere, with a 2 runway airport, CAVOK forecast and under 6 hour flight, why is 'extra' over PLOG needed as some have suggested? Very nice to have, but........................
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: England
Posts: 1,955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No not at all. Just suggesting that 'they' took the same amount of gas regardless of weather because it costs very little to carry it.
That was 'their' logic, I didn't agree with it.
That was 'their' logic, I didn't agree with it.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A slight expansion of the thread away, from RYR in particular, and back to the old cherry of manual competence. In the old Cathy at Kai Tak I thought a visual approach was part of the command pass/fail criteria. IMHO any competent captain applicant, who would have to prove that, should be able to have an a/c at 5000', 220kts, 10nm out at 90 degrees to the RWY in severe CAVOK, i.e. visual, wind calm. They should then be able to make a visual CDA/LDA onto either rwy; their choice. Overhead left circuit or turn immediate right for left downwind on the other rwy. PAPI's as the only aid, or perhaps not. i.e.. a MK.1 eyeball approach hand flown. That's what was necessary in some Greek islands in 80's, and indeed any European airport which might have had only an NDB or VOR aid. Nothing's changed in the expected competence of a pilot, but it's no longer tested. It wasn't tested then, it was norm on the line. The only test was if you spooled up before 1500' or levelled off with power on you bought the crew beers. It focused the mind. Being competent at pushing the buttons is also a required skill, bit it should/must not be at the expense of the basic foundations of aviating. I still think we are the last insurance policy for the pax and they expect us to be able to control the situation when 'windows 95' decides to take a holiday. Equally they expect us to avoid falling into self-dug holes, but when we do, to climb out quickly.