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 3rd Dec 2012, 19:57
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Choroni, sometimes
Posts: 1,975
Ryanair, too low on..

altitude, not fuel.

A Ryanair Boeing 737-800, registration EI-DAC performing flight FR-3214 from Manchester,EN (UK) to Memmingen (Germany), was on a visual approach to Memmingen's runway 24 when the crew descended below required minimum height of 1000 feet AGL and initiated a go-around at 450 feet AGL. The aircraft landed safely on their second approach.

In their monthly bulletin Germany's BFU rated the occurrence a serious incident and opened an investigation reporting the minimum safety height was 1000 feet AGL however the aircraft descended to 450 feet AGL before initiating a go-around.
Incident: Ryanair B738 at Memmingen on Sep 23rd 2012, descended below minimum safe height
hetfield is offline  
Old 3rd Dec 2012, 20:50
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Florence, ITALY
Age: 40
Posts: 36
Yeah, we got a memo from the boss last week asking us to descend to 450 were possible and press the ‘empty poop tank’ button before landing thus saving on toilet services and reducing turnaround time. Of course, we’ll be charging the farmer a website administration fee to cover the costs of fertilising his crops with prime poop.
FLR-PSA is offline  
Old 3rd Dec 2012, 20:59
  #3 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Choroni, sometimes
Posts: 1,975
@FLR-PSA

Well, hard times for loco...

BTW, does it also save money to take off without ATC clearence?

Incident: Ryanair B738 at Eindhoven on Oct 18th 2012, took off from wrong intersection and without clearance
hetfield is offline  
Old 3rd Dec 2012, 21:01
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Finsbury Park
Posts: 10
mda/mdh

so it was a visual approach, what minima apply?

not enough information here, but if I need to go round from 10' radio if I want to, I believe I'm allowed to.

why did they go round? landing gate? EGPWS? ATC? loss of visual? who knows?
Alycidon is offline  
Old 3rd Dec 2012, 21:05
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Florence, ITALY
Age: 40
Posts: 36
@hetfield

Yeah, we got a memo from the boss last week asking us to use as much runway as possible and not to hang around waiting for clearances at quiet airports if no one’s looking and no high-fare airlines are on approach. If Eindhoven complain we’ll just stop going there he said.
FLR-PSA is offline  
Old 3rd Dec 2012, 21:11
  #6 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Choroni, sometimes
Posts: 1,975
That's great. One should stand up to stop these moneymakers.
hetfield is offline  
Old 3rd Dec 2012, 23:17
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 7,859
so it was a visual approach, what minima apply?

not enough information here, but if I need to go round from 10' radio if I want to, I believe I'm allowed to.

why did they go round? landing gate? EGPWS? ATC? loss of visual? who knows?
Have a look at the parameters on the diagram on Avherald. Pretty obvious to any jet pilot, I would have thought, especially if you understand the concept of a stabilised approach.
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 4th Dec 2012, 07:07
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Calgary, AB, Canada
Posts: 40
CFIT almost

These guys were descending at 3200 fpm descending through 1000 AGL at 211 knots with F5, gear down and speed brakes extended.

Hardly a stabilised approach by anyone's standard and it triggered a classic EGPWS Mode 2 warning.

They were less than 20 seconds from ground impact at that point. Pretty scary.
b737NGyyc is offline  
Old 4th Dec 2012, 08:52
  #9 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Choroni, sometimes
Posts: 1,975
At 609' RA still 1.740 ROD and 211 kts, jezz....

Obviously the goaround was the right decission.

But why that late?
Pressure NOT TO WASTE fuel?

Last edited by hetfield; 4th Dec 2012 at 08:55.
hetfield is offline  
Old 4th Dec 2012, 08:54
  #10 (permalink)  
Pegase Driver
 
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 69
Posts: 2,652
They were less than 20 seconds from ground impact at that point. Pretty scary.
Do not know, maybe the guys were in control , we do not have all the facts.

But Going from min 3200 ft/m to plus 3800 in less than 20 sec, plus the noise , might have been a bit "scary" for the pax behind..

Diving and reducing speed at the same time, especially on a 737NG has never been a good combination.
ATC Watcher is offline  
Old 4th Dec 2012, 09:33
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 2,980
Maybe they were a bit more preoccupied with finding the runway with the help of their ND, than looking outside and seeing the obvious terrain rising. It is quite an acute turn for a visual.

PURE SPECULATION though...
PENKO is online now  
Old 4th Dec 2012, 09:54
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 238
As I understand the BFU report

- [Initially cleared for an ILS approach to RWY 06 => incorrect; RWY in use was 06, the crew was cleared for an ILS approach on RWY 24, and..], the crew requested a visual approach to RWY 24 (this would save time in taxying to the gate, enabling them to compensate for their late arrival)
- weather was CAVOK
- the crew had expected radar vectoring for the visual approach but didn't get any
- a tailwind of 20-30 kts on the base leg was experienced

Terrain around Memmingen is relatively flat, in my opinion

Last edited by EDMJ; 4th Dec 2012 at 12:28.
EDMJ is offline  
Old 4th Dec 2012, 10:08
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,179
No big deal

Arriving half way down the runway at V2+ 20 is reason for an anti Ryanair witch hunt............... Not a GA from an unstable approach!
A and C is offline  
Old 4th Dec 2012, 10:18
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 2,980
Fact is that pilots are not paying enough attention to the high elevation of some airports. I see it quite often, even in experienced guys, they think they are safe and high at 3000' whereas this may only be 1000' or 1500' AGL in airports like MAD, RAK and in this Memmingen place..leading to rushed and unstable approaches.
PENKO is online now  
Old 4th Dec 2012, 10:24
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Near an airport
Posts: 141
ATC watcher

When you get a "Terrain! Terrain! Pull up! Pull up!"

The aircraft EGPWS thinks it is 20-30 seconds from projected impact.
Check Mags On is offline  
Old 4th Dec 2012, 10:30
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Germany
Posts: 14
Do RYR crews have to submit a report if they G/A?

In the end they did go around so at least one of them wasn't completely target fixated.

Not responding to GPWS alerts does in fact also happen to big reputable airlines, they just don't get reported publicly (a big German airline).
bungeeng is offline  
Old 4th Dec 2012, 11:11
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: far too low
Posts: 231
Question for EDMJ. How can the crew expect radar vectors for a visual approach? Surely the clue is in the title?
gorter is offline  
Old 4th Dec 2012, 11:25
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 2,980
gorter, radar vectors for a visual are very common in certain parts of Europe. In Bordeaux ATC even offer it 9 out of 10 times if runway 05 is in use. You get positioned by ATC to a certain point whereafter it is up to you to find the runway and land.
PENKO is online now  
Old 4th Dec 2012, 11:33
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 291
I am not a RYR apologist (at all), but the guys went around and nobody lost an eye. There's nothing to see here.
Am I the only other person here who has had an approach that didn't go to plan?
AFAIAA, the EU OPS take on stabilised approach is that the company has to have an acceptable (to the authority) set of SOPs setting out the limits. In most companies that means a target of 1000 aal and limit of 500 aal.
Maybe someone can correct me, but it seems that, by stating any go-around below 1000 is worthy of an investigation, the German BFU is stepping outside it's remit, and should mind it's own business.
As I say, I stand to be corrected, but maybe I should plan to go-around from over 1000 feet next time DUS or MUC keeps me high and fast.
16024 is offline  
Old 4th Dec 2012, 11:39
  #20 (permalink)  

Avoid imitations
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 12,432
a tailwind of 20-30 kts on the base leg was experienced
Surely this would give a tendency to be too high; rather than too low. It would certainly explain why they were heading for touchdown too far down the runway, set up a high ROD in an attempt to compensate then eventually went around from 450ft.

Maybe airline management pressure was a factor, maybe it was only a basic aircrew error, but whatever it was, it's another reason to stick to my personal policy of not flying with this airline.

.
ShyTorque is online now  

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.