Ryanair, too low on..
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Choroni, sometimes
Posts: 1,974
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ryanair, too low on..
altitude, not fuel.
Incident: Ryanair B738 at Memmingen on Sep 23rd 2012, descended below minimum safe height
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Florence, ITALY
Age: 44
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Choroni, sometimes
Posts: 1,974
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@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
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
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Finsbury Park
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Florence, ITALY
Age: 44
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@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.
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.
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?
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?
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Calgary, AB, Canada
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Choroni, sometimes
Posts: 1,974
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
Obviously the goaround was the right decission.
But why that late?
Pressure NOT TO WASTE fuel?
Last edited by hetfield; 4th Dec 2012 at 07:55.
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,692
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They were less than 20 seconds from ground impact at that point. Pretty scary.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,039
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
PURE SPECULATION though...
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
- [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 11:28.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,039
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Germany
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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).
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).
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,039
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 302
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
a tailwind of 20-30 kts on the base leg was experienced
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.
.