Don't think it is out of phase with 150 or more aircraft, just that people LOVE it when it happens. . . .the "told you so" syndrome. . . well up to a point.

To clear up one error in this thread, the Captain was not fired. After an investigation, he was demoted to first officer.

In fairness this is not the time this has ever happened with an Irish airline but the other event didn't lead to a demotion. One would imagine it would be traumatic having to demote oneself.

in '99 I was on a flight from Standstead to Knock on Ryan Air, flight was delayed, wet runway at night, and felt an interesting sensation that aircraft did a tail slide as the bus driver opened the throttles as we were turning onto the active, continuing acceleration for the t/o roll.

Would be curious if anyone here experienced/did that?

This incident not good that it happened and that they didnt return.
Think couple of years ago a dutch major airline b737 landed a bit long and ended up with nosewheel in grass. They used reverse to get out of that without success!

SOPs
 

As long retired ancient aviator, I wonder if the proliferation of SOPs is related to the often relatively low experience of many of the crew? To overcome this, there have to be detailed instructions to act as a guide.
For many years I would conclude my T/O briefing with "and what have we forgotten today, gentlemen?" Seemed to work OK!
And of course the captain should have been punished for not returning to the ramp to have the aircraft checked whatever the reason for the excursion.
And commonsense should override SOPs at all times.

Quote: And of course the captain should have been punished for not returning to the ramp to have the aircraft checked whatever the reason for the excursion.


I can see that you have retired a long time, since then safety has evolved and it has been proved that punishment is not the way forward. Understanding the "why" something happened is more importand then creating a fear of punishment, fear of risk comes from understanding, understanding comes from open investigation.

Well I agree punished was not the right word! But continuing without bothering to check to see if any damage had been done certainly calls for action.

I have been in aviation for more than 50 years. I was always taught, and I have always taught my students in turn, that if you drop a bollock in aviation then you should immediately own up to said bollock and so prevent, hopefully, one of your fellow aviators from dropping the same bollock.

This chap went off the prepared surface and put a mainwheel in the grass. He managed to get the aircraft out again and then went flying.

That is where most of us would have a problem with his decision-making process. He should, of course, have either sat tight in the grass or taxiied back in for a check of the offending gear.

So, I am forced to ask a couple of questions. Did he actually know that he had put a couple of wheels over the edge? Maybe, not?

If it was known on the flight deck that they had put a set of tyres over the edge, did the F/O also go along with the decision to go flying without a gear inspection being carried out first?

I guess the questions are:

... why the captain felt inclined not to report it (e.g. was he worried about the punishment he might receive if he reported it, or did he have a goal fixation of 'getting the flight under way' etc etc?);

... if the first officer raised objection to not reporting it, and if not, why not;

... why the wheel ended up off the hard surface.


I believe the first and second question are potentially just as important as the third, if not more so.

Contrary to what -8AS said, I was told that he was indeed fired, and that his attitude at the Disciplinary may not have acted in his favour, but I stress that this is repeated third hand.
At the same time I am hoping this is NOT true, as he is a very good bloke, and a good operator to boot.

not that good if he did indeed put a wheel over and knowingly took-off afterwards!

Lots of mud slinging & red herrings as usual. JW411 & Super have at last asked some salient questions. Could we please have some more facts from thems in the know. Was it dark or daylight? What was the vis? Was it raining? (it is often hard to see the lines in night rain, if the are no greens.) Which part of EMA's grass was damaged; i.e. exiting the apron or turning at the hold? What was the vis; were all lights working etc. etc. Were they on time or late or missing a slot? Are there any mitigating circumstances?

Was this an incident waiting to happen; i.e has EMA an inherrent problem? Has anyone else nearly done the same? Did they know about it and therefore willing disregard it? Did the crew even discuss it?

Is there anything the rest of us can learn to stop us doing the same thing.

Let's recover some of the 'professional' in the prune rumour forum.

There is no way you would miss this excursion.

It happened at A, a 90° taxiway at the end of 27, just where A joins 27 (so way past the CAT1 hp). There is a perfectly good lead on / lead off line to keep you out of trouble, but the FR turned hard right to get the last couple of feet of TORA (27 is off to your left). Wheels 3 and 4 both came off the right of the taxiway and back on to the edge of the runway, leaving 2 big trenches that look about half a wheel radius deep.

Hmm. I've noticed quite a few FR's do this "extreme" line up technique at STN.... and I've seen some come very close to doing exactly the same as the EMA aircraft whilst lining up on 23 at STN from "S" (the 45° lead on). Now, I'm all for not using up runway (runway behind you being one of the three most useless things in aviation) but is it really necessary on a 3000m runway i.e. STN and EMA? Not to mention the stresses on the main gear and tyre scrubbing.

Common sense :confused:

A4

They do the same in Luton and I have never understood why.
They backtrack half-way and then turn around. They get very close to the edge of the runway whilst at the end of the runway there is much more space to turn your aircraft around.
Also, what performane figures to they use for this?

The correct ones! Company policy is to plan for an intersection departure so anything extra is a bonus.

Performance A calculations (should) assume a line up allowance depending on the geography of the line up maneuver.

The yellow lead off lines are, I believe, there to assist runway vacating rather than lining up.

LTN is a different case. So are you saying, FFB, that perf is calculated from the intersection but they still backtrack a couple of hundred metres, do a 180°, and then depart? Why? Why not calculate full length and taxi an extra 20 seconds, do your 180° in the turning circle provided and then depart. Or leave your intersection performance but still use FULL length - LTN isn't the longest of runways (and very unforgiving if you go off the end of 26 :\ ).

The only reason possible is to save time (seconds) - so why back track at all if you've got valid perf from the intersection - what is the objective here :confused::confused:

A4

A4 - I cannot answer that question - you would have to ask the individuals concerned!

FFB
Am glad to see it wasn't you !:\