Ryanair, too low on..
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!"
"Let the one without sin cast the first stone!"
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 419 Likes
on
221 Posts
BOAC,
I based my comments on post#13 from EDMJ, who presumably has seen an initial report.
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 20-30kts on 'base leg' - or anywhere, come to that - all within 'limits'.
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".
"On (right) base, which was very short, there was a tailwind component of 20-30 kts".
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.
http://www.bfu-web.de/cln_030/nn_223...tin2012-09.pdf
In German only.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Dry bar
Posts: 351
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
descending at 3200 fpm descending through 1000 AGL at 211 knots
At 609' RA still 1.740 ROD and 211 kts
At 609' RA still 1.740 ROD and 211 kts
3200fpm at 1000ft height?
And people are defending them? It beggars belief.
"A superior pilot uses his superior judgement to avoid situations that would require the use of his superior flying skills"
Triple fail there then...
There can be no excuse whatever for passing 1000ft in that manner, none at all. That is the very latest at which a g/a should have been initiated.
Automatics still in? - my guess - seen it - been there - is they were maxed out - possibly with energy management - possibly spatial awareness (which was pretty much absent I venture to suggest) and hand flying was simply beyond their capability. It does not bespeak a crew in their comfort zone. = g/a
The really worrying thing is that they didn't throw this away back on base turn because when they run this through the sim it will be a butt-clencher from 5000ft onwards - The picture at the point of 609' and 1700fpm will be simply terrifying. This is essentially a pilotless aeroplane flying itself into the ground over 10 miles or so.
It certainly illustrates why you don't carry excess speed to lose height close in.
This will no doubt turn into a first-rate training demo of supreme lack of judgement and no doubt the Ryanair trainers will make full use of it in future.
Rat5 has hit the nail too re parachuting in on F40 and fly by numbers training that doesn't allow for airmanship. OH bugger! I've said it again! Sorree.
I'll get my coat.
Last edited by Agaricus bisporus; 4th Dec 2012 at 15:51.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: FAR FAR AWAY from Hanger 89
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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. 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Uh... Where was I?
Posts: 1,338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Belfast
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 
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.
The RYR bit is irrelevant. There was no chance of getting in, therefore they should have gone around at 1,000ft.
End of.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 419 Likes
on
221 Posts
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.
I'll still accept an overdue apology, even from a plank wing driver.
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: planet earth
Age: 59
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ 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 f@&§up!
Were you sitting in that cockpit? Otherwise I can't believe that anybody is defending these guys.
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 f@&§up!
Were you sitting in that cockpit? Otherwise I can't believe that anybody is defending these guys.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Betwixt and between
Posts: 666
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
610 ft height but 4 miles out and off the centreline?
3200fpm at 1000ft height?
And people are defending them? It beggars belief.
3200fpm at 1000ft height?
And people are defending them? It beggars belief.
Hmmmmm
