"Land at the nearest suitable airport"
 

When I used to fly Boeings, this phrase (or one very similar to it) followed every check in the QRH where an engine had been shut down or similar. There was even a definition of exactly what it meant.

Last Saturday evenings Ryanair flight from Beziers to Bristol had a birdstrike between V1 and VR (according to a conversation between the pilots overheard by SLF - "There wasn't enough room to stop") accompanied by severe vibration. What did our heroes do? Land back at BZR (10 knots down the runway, CAVOK)? No, they diverted to Girona, some 200km (and a mountain range) away where maintenance facilities were [presumably] available. Three fan blades severely damaged.

Obviously as ever in these cases I am not in possession of all the facts, but I would like to be, before I consider my next RYR flight!!

Was the engine shut down? If not it seems like a perfectly reasonable decision to me.

You appear to have pre- judged them in any event in spite of admitting that you don't know much about it.

A likely checklist would be the high engine vibration checklist which does not lead you to land at the nearest suitable airport if the vibration can be kept within parameters.

You really should get your facts before making posts like that,

On the Safety side
1. Don't forget how fast a 737 is, by the time the guys had the checks done and talked to atc they would have most of the distance to GRO covered rather than sitting in a hold over BZR.
2. The rwy in GRO is a good 1000ft longer than in BZR, a very important factor on one engine.
3. Most Ryr pilots will know GRO airport being one of the bigger bases, meaning less workload on the pilots.
4. Being a base the emergency services in GRO will be more familiar with Ryr aircraft.

On a commercial side
1.There will be engineering cover in GRO
2.At this time of year they will prob have a spare aircraft/crew.
3.The ground staff will be better able to manage the situation.

Contrary to popular belief there are reasons the pilots fly the plane and not the cabin crew :}

Commercial pressure if I ever read it...

I Agree with Wayupthere

Two engines on there and if there both still turning, gain some distance from terra firma and work the problem, if your heading towards friendly ground at the same time then bonus! for me immediate landing is engine fire or other fire and aircraft(pax) in dire stress, a bit of birdie feathers on one lump of metal ill happy work the problem first before going nuts into the nearest airfield

mountain range would make me think a little more about GRO though but without all the facts cant say thats a bad decision, maybe more than enough altitude to risk flying over it single engine.

Hey Zero, don't change the context of the thread, of course immediate landing is an appropriate response for a fire but that's not what we're discussing.

I've had several birds in several engines over the years and I can't predict the extent of damage from the cockpit; nor can you. I agree that working the problem before "going nuts into the nearest ..." is sensible but I would generally prefer to remain in close proximity to a usable runway while doing so. An engine with a bird down it can behave normally for a while then go downhill fast!
I agree with wayupthere's safety factors but his commercial factors can be no more than minor bonuses if the safety decision points the same way.

In any case sounds like the outcome was a safe landing so well done the guys!

Happy landings!

The statement that GRO is 1000' longer than BZR and therefore a better choice in considering a SE landing is not a significant consideration. The LDR at F15 is not so much longer than F30. With that logic he should have gone to TLS with xx,xxx thousand feet available. If the engine was dead he should have landed back at BZR, if it was just 'injured' going to GRO was quite an acceptable course of action.

When you run an airline targeting minimum costs in all areas it goes without saying that using airports 'out in the sticks' that are poorly connected and have little/no facilities will result in more diversions for technical and weather reasons. Ryanair is happy to take that commercial risk as it does not arise so often........ unfortunately if it is your flight that is diverted then this is no consolation whatsoever.

Whatever the circumstances, with Ryanair the convenience of the customers will not be on the list of considerations. Culture in any organisation is bred from the top down. With the attitude of Mr O'Dreary it can only be a matter of time before we see a Ryanair tail sticking out of a smoking hole.

bzr is 2000m long
 

In the emergency briefing i usually specify return alternate. One is not very confortable to land with one engine inop on a 2000m long runway. It can be done but why make it chalenging. MPL is 2600m long at 30 NM and PGF is at 40 NM (2500 m long).

Reference distance for 60000KG (24K) is 955 m ; oei Vref 15; dry runway

Nobody is saying anything about the weather, the aircraft weight, runway condition and also about the outcome of the birdstrike => Engine failure or high engine vibration.

It's easy to stay in front of the computer and speculate.

There are some serious geeky PPL guys who must wear 4 stripes when they show up to there flying club to get in there C150.

The crew did the right thing for the situation.

The rest of you go back to the airport fence with your note pads and airband radio.

Finbarr, does the Boeing checklist also include a phrase "Land Immediately"?

Once again a thread about second guessing a "what if" pilot decision.

What condition the engine is found after landing has no bearing on a decison while in the air.

The crew is provided with engine symptoms in the air, SOPs and room for weighing alternatives (judgemental).

The decision to land and when and where should consider the crew work load, (opportunity for errors) versus the performamnce degardation of the aircraft.

Having had an engine annomaly with vibration that is controllable by retarding the throttle still provides redundancy in systems as well as a potential thrust redundancy in an emergency.

Landing at unfamilar airports (charts, protocols etc.) vs a more comfortable alternate simply is part of the flexibility in judgement in-the-air (not hind sight on-the-ground)

We had a similar situation climbing out of Lincoln [KLNK] to Omaha [KOMA]. Bird strike; some engine vibration; did NOT shut engine down; continued to Omaha [10-15 minutes maybe ?]. No big deal. Had the vibration been such that we shut the engine down, we probably would've gone back to Lincoln, but the time involved would be pretty close between that and continuing on to Omaha. We only had ONE fan blade damaged. What amazed me was that Maintainence merely filed the oposite blade down the same as the damaged one and ferried the aircraft to KSFO for an engine change !

Edit: BTW.....aircraft was a B-737-200.

Monday morning quaterbacks!
 

A few years back XL airways had an engine failure just north of Alexandria, I seem to remember a lot of flack on these forums for not landing in Egypt.

The fact of the matter was that by the time the QRH items had been done Larnaca was the best place to go.

I suspect that this situation was much the same except that the anti Ryanair faction is much bigger and rushing to jump on the band wagon.

suitable airfield
 

seems a good decision to me unlike one carrier a few years ago that decided that a suitable airfield was EGCC after having an engine go bang at LAX!

FWIW: flying the 200nm to the longer rwy burned off a bit more fuel, lower landing weight ... lomapaseo's response was almost exactly what I was thinking after I read the OP.

Wayupthere, thanks for the well rounded illustration of factors in decision making for an engine malfunction.

Typical FR pilots wanting to go way further into France and over the mountains into Gerona rather than going across the Med, they obviously ignored the easiest way as the Med is really hard to see from Beziers.:ugh::ugh:

OP could you provide us with the ATC track they followed in getting there as no doubt that will back up your "theory".

ISTR that was a BA 744, so perfectly happy to continue on 3 engines.
It started an argument between the UK CAA who agreed with the pilot and the FAA/NTSB who threw a hissy fit despite the Boeing SOPs
clearly supporting the decision to continue on 3.

But my memory could be wrong........

Funny, but nobody has considered the stupidity behind turning around and landing a loaded up (over landing weight) aircraft on a runway that is covered in the debris from that recently damaged engine.

There aren't too many things more stupid that trying to land a jet on a bunch of N1 fan blade parts scattered all over a runway. That would sure help with braking efficiency...not!


More appropriately, they decided to go TO their TAKEOFF ALTERNATE. For all the rookies, yes, we professionals actually "plan" Take-Off Alternates.

These boys did a good job. Compromised aircraft is on the ground without incident. They handled the problem very professionally.

If your family had been on that flight, you'd be singing heroic praises, so leave these guys alone.

bzr - gro

racedo, suggest you check your geography before making such comments! The great circle distance from bzr to gro is 89 nm, hardly a long cross country even on one engine although we don't even know whether an engine was shut down!

The arrivals from the east and south into Gerona would avoid any "mountains"!

You missed the complete sarcasm in my post that somehow the Pilots would have needed to go across the Pyrenees and that they would have missed seeing the Med from Bezier ;)

Avherald has a similar comment to OP's that was slapped down.

racedo - sorry LOL - hook, line and sinker!

Get the facts JACK!
 

No doubt a very nice CRM discussion to be made out of this.

Ok so we have two Rated, Current and Typed Pilots who can read and understand ICAO 4 english.

We have Operations who may have played a 0 role in their decision or applied immense pressure - do they comm. thru ACARS directly with the crew?!

We have CM1 who may have had a hot babe waiting for him after duty!
OR
Thinking "Crap if I don't avoid a big financial mess - O'Dreamy will say I'm gone!"

We have CM2 who is maybe one of those "I pay by the hour types" and little input.
OR
CM2 had CM1's Wife secretly waiting for him after Duty?
OR
CM2 made all the decisions.

So now thinking back to my Boeing NG days.

Was the engine still running after this strike/s?
Damage blade/s DOES NOT MEAN A DAMAGED Engine as per NNC or QRH's.
You could look through a PAX window to see if in inner engine side had been penetrated otherwise your source of info is from your digital displayed data.
Did it SURGE or STALL or have a HIGH VIB or EGT?
If it did, then at what power of N1 setting could the surge or stall or high VIB be avoided by retarding the Thrust Lever?
Then the question - when do you YOU consider an engine as DAMAGED or SINGLE ENGINE?
I would say if it cannot produce max thrust its damaged - so a Flight Idle running engine is for me still SE when I need performance! Yes Smartie-pants I know you still have an IDG and EDP (hyd.).

My opinion is that CFM's do not flame out, surge or stall unless they are damaged in some way. Let us face - these engines will run over 50,000 hrs. will fluid and oils sufficient.

What did the SOP say about this?
What will the Feds say?
Did Ops in DUB start sending some sort of ACARS messages to continue (if they can)?

OR
Was it a classic sim. generate crunching grinding halt 92 to 0% N1 in millliseconds? So no argument there - SEVERE DAMAGE!
A shut down engine means what? 60% loss of performance in certain areas (obviously no in DLD)?

So even IF this engine was at Flight Idle OR Shutdown, making the decision to fly away from that Dep. Airport COULD be another slice in the swiss cheese model.
What If the Dest. airport shuts down for any insanely remote reason (WX, Bomb scare, FF services in use, etc.) and you cannot make it - then what? Fly back - divert some more?
Here comes Smarie-pants SLF again "But what if the Dep. A/P shutsdown for ALL landing traffic just as you are performing your Approach!". Valid point, but then I know I'll have to divert or HOLD until it re-opens. Bla. Bla.

Back to this example. What if Enroute the non-damaged engine starts to shows signs it too was damaged by the flying culprits. Surges, stalls, etc...

So when you're half way between T/O point and Div. A/P, it may just be a no win situation!

So when you have the facts we can start the CRM discussion properly.

I would say as far as flight safety goes - if the Dep. A/P was CAVOK, xwc and DLD within limits I would not even think about going anywhere but into the Hold and land from where I started.
If O'Dreamy and the Pax what to get on my Ass - let them, because history is full of those Crews who rolled the dice and got burned.

Lastly we should find out what this extra flight time on this damaged engine cost AFTER THE FACT? A windmilling or even a Flight Idle running engine can still look to be functioning normally but every minute of operation drives the repairs into the Millions of extra $. So in this case the Crew saved the Co. Euro 50K in hotels, buses, etc. but drove up the repair bill up 20 fold... so then commercially a very bad decision?

Nothing fancy like that in Ryr aircraft!

I can assure they don't - ACARS - we wish!!

Good grief, never seen such a fuss over nothing - you know these a/c will fly on one engine - you also need time to prepare, brief the cabin, even burn a bit of the weight off prior to landing. Sounds like good decison making to me - Captains are paid to make such decisions and it says "Nearest" (which means in terms of time not distance) "Suitable" airport - GRO seems a lot more suitable to me than BZR.

Well put, studi.:)
A very well reasoned reply, considering this was a two engine airplane.
3 or 4 engines, different story altogether.

flame out???????????
 

Read the CAA report re the LAX engine failure.

Air Accidents Investigation: Boeing 747-436, G-BNLG
The full report is even better!
They didn't know the extent of the damage so the spare FO went to look at the engine in the dark and then asked passengers what they had seen.:rolleyes:

The fuel mismanagement ended up with a Mayday going into EGCC.:\

And that wouldn't be the only G reg kite that had fuel problems!

From the Times - the FAA withdrew the fine if they changed their procedures.:ok:

And for many of our Brit friends - what they did is illegal in many parts of the world as one of their ex pilots did a similar trick working for the frogs and was arrested!

Engine goes bang - land at first suitable airfield, the rest is arrogant stupidity.

blind pew, the case under discussion bears little resemblance if any to the BA LAX engine "failure" which has been debated endlessly in previous threads.

If you accept that in that case they shouldn't have continued (which I dont and btw I don't work for BA) then you could argue that they didn't land at the "nearest suitable" airport.

In this case we don't even know whether an engine was shutdown but clearly a landing at GRO rather than BZR (especially on one engine) would be far more suitable.

MODs I suggest you lock this thread before it descends into farce which it almost has.

.......... have now managed to get into double digits with engine failures, for various reasons, in various flight phases, on jet powered aircraft - some leaving me on one engine.......... unless you're on fire or with serious vibration I wouldn't necessarily call it an emergency.

......... my view, FWIW, is don't rush, order a cup or tea/coffee, get as much info on your failure as possible, take advice but be very careful of advice from the ground - soak up the big picture and do what makes you comfortable and yes, consider the commercial implications when all other things are equal. Whilst doing all of the above as well as checklists etc you might as well use the time and miles going towards a better airfield as going around in circles above the departure point. Save the hair on fire dirty dive back in for being on fire....... and even then perhaps not.

Sounds like the Ryanair guys did a professional job.

It all depends on how the company, your company, defines "nearest suitable airport".

On one type in my company it can be the case that the nearest suitable airport is the destination. It can also be the case that it is the departure airport, or anywhere else inbetween. And, of course, commercial options are taken into this consideration.

The ECL for this particular type also includes the phrase "Land Immediately" (Or words to that effect). This implies that you should...well...land immediately. Commercial considerations go to the back burner and all that really matters is that you can get on the runway and stop.

On the other type there is only the phrase "Land at Nearest Suitable Airport". This means land immediately.

The company has gone to great lengths to make sure people transferring between the two types are aware of this difference.

So to summarise, land at nearest suitable airport can mean either:
- Land immediately or,
- Land at the nearest suitable airport, the nearest suitable airport may not be the nearest suitable airport.

Can anyone tell us what the Ryanair/Boeing ECL says for engine vibration? Land immediately or land at the nearest suitable airport.

Engine High Vibration Checklist does not tell you to land in any case. The final note in case you cannot keep the vibrations below 4 units reads:

If the VIB indication does not decrease when the thrust lever is retarded, check other engine indications. If other engine indications are normal, no further action is needed.

Not even a pointer to the Engine Failure or Shutdown list, although it would be a normal consideration during FORDEC or DODAR, whatever you use.

"Some days, you should stay in bed."

I submit that a lot of the posters on this thread should stay in bed most days. They should not be (and probably are not) involved in flying multi-engined jets.

To cavil about landing at a more suitable airport a mere 89 miles away beggars belief.

Well done to the crew concerned. All in a days work.

damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Nearest suitable...I was based at DCA for a long time. (washington national/regan national). You takeoff...blow an engine and if you are getting vectors for return, with a downwind to the west, you are closer to KIAD (dulles airport). so, which is the nearest suitable>?

Almost every briefing was: if we lose one on takeoff, we'll get vectors to dulles. the only time we didn't do that was : if we lose one on takeoff and dulles is below minimums we'll get vectors to Andrews Air Force Base (where air force one lives0>

You have to do what you think is the best course of action at the time. But if you are going somewhere cuz they have better company mx, you might find your ticket gone for awhile.

good luck

and as long as an engine is producing some thrust...keep it running if you can safely do so.

Well as a retired 2 & 4 engine plane jockey - 18,000 hours - I haven't noticed a post that says a twin engined airplane will if it loses it's 2nd engine become a glider. I agree with the decision of the BA LAX flt continuing to MAN but a a twin? Land at the nearest suitable airfield. No time to go to court to argue the issue. Common sense really. Depends why the 1st engine failed as to what is the 'Nearest suitable airport'. No time for elf & safety here. COMMON SENSE combined with airmanship. Simples.:ok:

:ugh::}The most basic of flt training Folks...Simulate an engine failure on T/O (in a C-150 or PA-28) and 9 out of 10 students look for and find a distant field that looks good...only problem it's too far away...

Excerise over now, and the end result is my students always came to realize that the answer to the ??? "Where can you land" is ALWAYS on whatever is below you...not some distant field...if not suitable then work outward from there, but be prepared to sacrifice the A/C to save yourself...

BTW, don't know about other Ops Manuals, but most airlines I've worked at have a bit in them that say the Capt should consider landing overweight vs. holding and dumping fuel...

In other words, get the thing on the ground, not embark on a cross-country oddessy with and unknown problem...

So nice to fly a single engine, at least you don't have to ask and answer this kind of question ...

Ryanair procedures and briefs include a fair amount of Bla Bla Bla, add to that a CC N.I.T.S brief ,and you have already covered most of the 89nm to Girona.
Beziers-Girona is over in the blink of an eye in this situation, barely enough time to complete QRH items,get the charts out, & complete all the other aforementioned items.

As for terrain, the arrival is to the East of the really high ground if landing straight in on on RW 20, if any doubts, you just head towards Begur & make the approach from there.
Sound decision :D :ok:

So why doesn't it say Land Immediately?

Mind you, it's all suggestive in my opinion. Capt to interpret based on current situation.

To avoid people landing at an unsuitable airport.

The C500 VP-BGE crash of 30/03/2008 is a case in point. The crew experienced vibration, inadverently shut down the engines and failed to make it back. If it stays in the air, keep it there, sort out the problem and then decide on the best course of action. It seems to me that is precisely what the Ryanair crew did and did it well.

The task, and thus difference between descriptions is essentially one of risk assessment.
If the current situation involves a higher level of risk than normal, e.g. engine fire, then some additional risk can be accepted for an immediate landing.
However, this judgement should not disregard higher risks in the attempt to land, e.g. you could accept a reduced landing distance safety margin (short runway), but perhaps not exceed the recommended crosswind. In the first instance the pilot retains control of the landing situation whereas in the second s/he probably does not. Caution, we all think that we are better than we actually are – particularly when stressed by a serious emergency.

For situations involving minimal additional risk for continued flight, e.g. single engine flight after engine shutdown / surge, then no additional risk need be considered in planning to land at a nearby airport. Also, within a small margin, not necessarily the closest airport could be chosen. The choice must be justifiable after the fact (what if) and thus might exclude an ‘economic’ choice; although such a choice coupled with fuel burn / weight reduction could be acceptable. Again beware of human bias – wish think; justifying something to yourself is often easy, but it is not the same as having to explain the decision to an accident investigator.