My point exactly Beernice (@#57). The culture you describe is one of threats. Judging from posts elsewhere on this BB that corporate culture seems prevalent in all that this company do, from the top down.

You seem to have some problems in reading the posts.

They're not very good at those either.

Just a couple of comments:

They were High above an ILS GS, and presumably a VNAV profile, then they were Low on the ILS GS and VNAV profile and all without slowing down significantly. This means they descended through the GS. Does this imply the GS was not armed? After all, the A/P was engaged. The a/c went through the LOC from both directions. Therefore if APP was armed the LOC would have been captured allowing GS to be captured.

The statements from RYR seem to claim the AV article was objectionably inaccurate. I would like them to be very specific about what. Rather than trying to deflect attention with various claims, spurious or not, I'd like to hear from them the absolute truth. That way the will really deflection attention and close down this discussion. If OFDM data is correct I, and all RYR pilots, want to learn something from this. Let everyone be open about this event. I always thought the idea of OFDM data was to enhance safety and not witch hunt; to share the data and lessons learnt. Until we see certified accurate data acceptable to RYR & AV & IAA & BFU then speculation will abound.

Could be a medical problem. My last flight was an unstable approach, flown by the FO, but with no comment from me. When I saw the FDR printout I realised that, after thirty-nine years in the business, I'd lost it. The result was a nervous breakdown, medical retirement, and I've not flown since. Stranger things have happened.

Um they got it wrong. (we all do sometimes) & they went around at 500 ft so whats the problem?:cool:

One has to hope some of these posters are pulling our plonkers and not actually serious. If they are, I hope they are not responsible for passengers' safety:eek:

shaun ryder, I did not say fatigue was "the" cause but may be A factor. This was not to meant in any way to make "excuses" for this incident but it is a fact that fatigue can affect judgement as well as skill.

Does make a chap wonder somewhat....
(p.s bet you miss wewol days:ok:)

Amen..........

Nice attempt at spin there. I don't think anybody has implied that the go around was wrong.

I thought Ryanair couldn't care less about the public's perception but the recent aggressive pursuits seems to indicate they have become a bit sensitive.

Pretty obvious to me they weren't doing an ILS, nor had a LNAV route in the box. It was a Visual Approach via a wide right base, so none of the above (capturing) would be expected.

The lesson I get from this is the problem that can be created by using the automatics to turn visual base, especially when higher-energy. One needs to devote more time "controlling" the beast (looking at VS, speed) than actually looking at the big picture: where am I, do I want to be here; what do I have to do to fix it/give it away. Good learning scenario...

Heres what happens when you don't go around:

Air Europa at Lanzarote

Air Nostrum at Barcelona

:=

I was berated not too long ago by a PPRuNe mod over a previous post I wrote about Ryanair and safety. I therefore welcome the opportunity to put the record straight. I can only assume this was not in fact dangerous in any way, but a totally normal approach for them. As any Ryanair pilot will tell you, it is entirely normal to have a rate of descent in excess of 3200 ft/min 1000' above the airfield. Indeed, the previous 5 pages of comments are merely tittle tattle from disaffected pilots who were unsuccessful in their attempts to join such an illustrious organisation. There clearly is no cause for concern here, because we are told there is not, and that should be good enough. Clearly there was no breach of SOPs either, just an unfortunate misunderstanding, for which we are all extremely grateful. And mercifully, there is no writing on the wall, because it would be offensive to many to suggest there is. I am both heartened and reassured that all is well and that safety was clearly not an issue at any point.

i can see why the PR dept is getting involved..must be worried in case the red top papers get hold of this incident : 'aircraft plunging towards ground' ,'seconds from disaster' ,'pax screaming'....etc etc

Meerkat:=

They say sarcasm isn't a desirable trait, I have to disagree this post made my day.

Now I have to go back to the subpoena in US court thread, lets have a drink first.

Cheers
Whip

I disagree.

In a visual with APFD you have to scan instruments as much as without it. But without it you can adjust flight path more accurately and react more promptly in case of a cessna crossing your proyected path or something.

You guys are nuts accepting uncontrolled VFRs swanning around in your airspace, especially when you're trying to get the thing on the ground. Jets and bugsmashers don't mix!

The claims by RYR in the Avherald are OK.

But this does not imply that there is no problem if you make unstable approach as long as you go around in time, :=

those excessive and hopless sink rates at such low height are unacceptable and very dangerous. Even if you can go around or even stabilize befor 500 ft.

AVHERALD STILL WITHOUT PUBLICITY?????
 

How is it that they don't have any sponsors, banners and that stuff???

I can't believe it. It is a very popular website!