Ryanair Bucharest 02/09/2018 Why do you want to check runway end lights?!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Lithuania
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ryanair Bucharest 02/09/2018 Why do you want to check runway end lights?!
This is quite interesting. Tail strike is not a big deal but why do you want to inspect runway end lights??? Was this rotation on the piano keys with one second left to the major disaster?
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: egll
Posts: 322
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It appears that the captain takes over the radio at some points and he definitely has an Irish accent. It may be like lots of the other eastern europe flights to DUB that switch depending on the season, VNO for example switches between DUB and VNO based crews depending on flight timings and season.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It appears that the captain takes over the radio at some points and he definitely has an Irish accent. It may be like lots of the other eastern europe flights to DUB that switch depending on the season, VNO for example switches between DUB and VNO based crews depending on flight timings and season.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Curious. Normally this scenario would be prompted by a suspicion of a tail strike and followed up with a pressurisation check. If there was no pressurisation problem, and ATC confirmed there was no sign of any ground impact, I wonder what prompted the level off and decision to return. I know that "when there's doubt there is no doubt", but there must be more to this. I was surprised by the initial call to burn off 6000kgs = 2.5 hours, but later it seems that was 600kgs.
Regarding performance and getting close to the end: shades of the Canadian A320 in Ireland?? They did not increase thrust as the far end was coming up fast. I wonder what happened here.
If there was no damage to a/c or ground was there even an 'incident'? If not we never learn anymore, except from an insider. No incident, no IAA.
Regarding performance and getting close to the end: shades of the Canadian A320 in Ireland?? They did not increase thrust as the far end was coming up fast. I wonder what happened here.
If there was no damage to a/c or ground was there even an 'incident'? If not we never learn anymore, except from an insider. No incident, no IAA.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,501
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Curious. Normally this scenario would be prompted by a suspicion of a tail strike and followed up with a pressurisation check. If there was no pressurisation problem, and ATC confirmed there was no sign of any ground impact, I wonder what prompted the level off and decision to return. I know that "when there's doubt there is no doubt", but there must be more to this. I was surprised by the initial call to burn off 6000kgs = 2.5 hours, but later it seems that was 600kgs.
Regarding performance and getting close to the end: shades of the Canadian A320 in Ireland?? They did not increase thrust as the far end was coming up fast. I wonder what happened here.
If there was no damage to a/c or ground was there even an 'incident'? If not we never learn anymore, except from an insider. No incident, no IAA.
Regarding performance and getting close to the end: shades of the Canadian A320 in Ireland?? They did not increase thrust as the far end was coming up fast. I wonder what happened here.
If there was no damage to a/c or ground was there even an 'incident'? If not we never learn anymore, except from an insider. No incident, no IAA.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe they used the QRH which told them not to pressurize the aircraft and land at the nearest suitable airport?
Indeed. Correct. I wonder why Boeing didn't include a light sensed from the tail cartridge to show a compression, or is that an option. It is left to 'suspected' tail strike; and when there's doubt there is no doubt. Of course the pressurisation could indicate normal, but under TEM, climbing to crz and high diff would not be good. (I was thinking of another checklist and became senilely confused)
Indeed. Correct. I wonder why Boeing didn't include a light sensed from the tail cartridge to show a compression, or is that an option. It is left to 'suspected' tail strike; and when there's doubt there is no doubt. Of course the pressurisation could indicate normal, but under TEM, climbing to crz and high diff would not be good. (I was thinking of another checklist and became senilely confused)
Last edited by RAT 5; 1st May 2018 at 14:04.
Regarding performance and getting close to the end: shades of the Canadian A320 in Ireland?? They did not increase thrust as the far end was coming up fast. I wonder what happened here.
If there was no damage to a/c or ground was there even an 'incident'? If not we never learn anymore, except from an insider. No incident, no IAA.
If there was no damage to a/c or ground was there even an 'incident'? If not we never learn anymore, except from an insider. No incident, no IAA.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: nowhere
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Runway 08L currently reduced length at the start of the runway being closed between N and W. Down to 2237M from 3500.
Did they have the correct date in the performance calculations or did they put in full length numbers I wonder. My companies perf on the iPad has the reduced runway length as the first option I guess to try and prompt you to use the correct data. If the wrong runway length was used it will be interesting to find out why such an error was made, fatigue, distractions, no doubt there could be a whole host of reason's.
Could be some interesting lessons to be learned from this one, fortunately no one hurt and nothing damaged except perhaps for some ones pride.
Did they have the correct date in the performance calculations or did they put in full length numbers I wonder. My companies perf on the iPad has the reduced runway length as the first option I guess to try and prompt you to use the correct data. If the wrong runway length was used it will be interesting to find out why such an error was made, fatigue, distractions, no doubt there could be a whole host of reason's.
Could be some interesting lessons to be learned from this one, fortunately no one hurt and nothing damaged except perhaps for some ones pride.
We usually do not consider the headwind during takeoff to make things conservative. That way if the wind drops off quite a bit, there is no issue at max derate/ATM. But what about if the wind is already calm as it was here and then a tailwind arises during takeoff. I notice that they took off toward the east but for landing, the westerly runway was the preferred runway. Only three knots but that can be an averaged wind over ten minutes. Maybe it is best to reconsider the reducing of takeoff thrust to the maximum possible extent when the headwind component is minimal.
Any thoughts?
