Yeah, right

It could have been a case of some sort of automation problem or fackup, followed by the real fackup, the two guys heads down trying to sort it out with the airplane sinking at over 2,500 fpm.

that could explain the very low height at that distance from the runway and the high sink rates. I don't understand how a crew seeing what is going on keeps it going until they manage to stop the sink with a buffer of less than 500 ft to terrain.

The GPWS warning, was it conventional or EGPWS?

This is a classic case of poor judgement followed by presonitis. The mere fact that this aeroplane was being flown on the automatics after the pilots accepted a visual approach suggested that they were both out of their depth as soon as they elected to go it alone. They were in no way prepared to accept this clearance. They opted to fly a visual manoeuvre through the autopilot and ended up hanging on to the tail of their aircraft.

This business of taking a visual clearance and then half heartedly flying it with the autopilot or flight director is nonsense. If you haven't the confidence to fly the aircraft with your own hands then take radar vectors.

visual approach with A/P...
 

obviously did not happen in this case,

but some "preaching" about various transgressions of F/D usage are perhaps personal preferences.

makes perfect sense to me.

of course brain must remain engaged.

several times, i have been able to cut significant distance out of a full procedure by asking for a visual approach and using the A/P to manoeuvre the aircraft to intercept the loc and glide on final approach.

it is not rocket science but again, brain must remained engaged and some distance ahead of the aircraft and situational awareness must be present as well.

FD's, A/T's, A/P's, LOC's and G/S's can be useful tools but pilot must be smarter than the tools he or she is using.

I would say you are probably in the wrong profession.

We could merge a lot of threads that have at the core the same problem, basic handling skills. Is it really that hard to look out the window and plan accordingly?

I wish 411A could be here to get involved...

Should be written in stone over the door of every training school and pilot's crewroom.

First lesson in any Jet TQ course. " the best computer on the a/c is between your ears."

Considering the requirements for anyone to be on a jet TQ course I find it amazing how many need a Japanese brain to do the most trivial of calculations. Sad. Tragic, unacceptable.

Signed: an old grump.

Confidence - Post# 111
 

"If you haven't the confidence to fly the aircraft with your own hands then take radar vectors."
Maybe if you lack this particular confidence, you should be sitting in an office somewhere, pontificating about other people's deficiencies - which seems to be a fairly common happening, especially on this forum!:ugh:
Prober

But why? The reason we request visual approaches is so that we can hand fly the aircraft down to the runway isn't it?

:=

Thanks for the concern, but I enjoy keeping my hand in. I do despair though at the number of FO's and Captains, who get maxed out at the prospect of hand flying an approach without any form of automation to back them up. Often citing their desire not to exceed any of the company parameters, give me a break...The truth is, some of these guys lack the confidence to operate the equipment without the aid of the autopilot.

Pontification over!

No, it's so you can make an approach visually for economic and expeditious reasons.

You can also hand fly under vectors, on a procedure and on an instrument approach (can't you?!). All of which ultimately end up at the runway.

It matters not which kind of approach you are undertaking you may hand fly or not.

Not quite. Being vectored by a controller on to a runway, is not the same as positioning the aircraft yourself for a landing, takes a bit more thought on the pilots part you might find. God forbid, you might have to think about pitch and power? Hand flying under vectors? Not the same, usually with the FD being driven by the NHP, just following a flight director I think, not worthy of a medal.

Are we not discussing the fact that this was a botched visual approach flown on the autopilot? Splitting hairs about how to position on to an ILS to save fuel and time is not the issue.

My question was simply why request a visual if you are not going to hand fly it.

I'm saddened Racedo is hiding under his plinth re this thread.

Shaun, you need to get out into the world a little more. Where I operate, visual approaches are flown with all the automatics in, day in day out, saving hundreds of grand a year in fuel and flight time. Sometimes with LNAV and VNAV, sometimes in VS.

It's no big deal at all, and for the reasons stated they are quite appropriate, including cutting short an ILS. Using the autos reduce workload at lats initially while you work out what you are doing.

That said, and as I said before, you do need to keep on top of the aeroplane. The automatics will lead you astray eventually, and that is what seems to have happened here. For the critics of those who "need" the automation, they are generally a product of their company's operating philosophy or indeed rules, so it's not solely their fault that they can't or won't fly with less than full automation. The trick, of course, is to know we to use what.

Quotes of the thread:
:D :ok:

If this had involved Swaziland Airlink, the pride of the kingdom, I think this thread would have been a bit shorter. Ryanair certainly attracts it's fair share of scrutiny. RYRs LoCo approach (no pun intended) to business, their loud-mouth CEO, and now also their seemingly agressive legal stance all make sure people will continue to talk about them, and scrutinize everything they do (Disclaimer: I have never flown with ryanair, but I would not hesitate to do so if I had to. I'm not a RYR "hater", I have no reason to doubt their professionalism as an airline, and I believe their safety management system is appropriate)

So let me add to the noise.


BFU report.

16:39:20 EGPWS "Sink Rate" - which was 3240 ft/min at 1319 ft above ground. Bank angle 25° to starboard.
16:39:37 AP was deactivated
16:39:40 EGPWS "Caution Terrain" - sink rate is now 500 ft/min, at 480 ft. Bank angle 35° port.
16:39:41 450 ft, lowest height above ground reached
16:39:42 EGPWS "TERRAIN, TERRAIN, PULL UP" at 460 ft, 600 ft/min rate of climb, bank angle 7° port

http://s11.postimage.org/uu2pdrf8z/bfu_RYR.jpg
images

BFU's account of what the PIC said: (my translation)

Takeoff in Manchester had been delayed 25-30 min, so flight crew decided to land on rwy 24 because of the shorter taxi distance. They prepared for ILS approach to rwy 24. They also spoke about a possible visual approach, in case anything wouldn't go according to plan. They were then cleared for a procedure approach (sic). PIC wasn't prepared for that. RYR documents indicated one could expect radar vectors, and he had always been given radar vectors on previous approaches. After the airport was in sight, they decided on a visual approach, and were given clearance. They descended at a high sink rate and speed of approximately 250 kts to 4000 ft.

[I'll translate the rest of the PICs account later if anyone wants]

Isn't it? Gee I didn't realise! You think you deserve a medal if you hand fly a visual approach?

I answered your question Shaun. A visual approach saves track miles and, therefore, time and money. You can hand fly them or not it doesn't matter.

Why don't you try this next time. When you're getting vectors turn the FD off and hand fly. God forbid you might have to think about pitch and power and complying with heading, altitude and speed instructions all at the same time. Takes a bit more thought than simply flying a visual approach, you might find.

- who are you suggesting was "Short of fuel....?"

Be careful how you answer and back it up with facts or you may well be getting a 'letter'.

What was the landing fuel on the jet during the time of the go around in comparison with the legal minimum Iaw ops1?

Who authorised this fuel at dispatch?

What will be done to ensure that this event doesn't happen again?

let's not get paranoid about "letters" :suspect:

I think Hetfield was simply asking a question, as indicated by the question mark. Avherald wrote "The crew advised they had only 5 minutes of holding fuel and requested estimates for the holding time, then advised they would need to divert to Bratislava [...] FR-8414 was vectored towards Bratislava [...] Climbing through FL110 flight FR-8414 requested priority, was told the airport [Budapest] would be open for them".

Some might say thats putting your balls on the chopping block Mr Spandex.

I get you, but unfortunately some ops manuals state this practise is not permitted until you are cleared for a visual approach (no descent restriction, to avoid confusion). So raw data under radar control might not be such a good idea after all.

- yes.let's? Hetfield's thinly disguised 'hint' they were 'short of fuel' is exactly what all this kerfuffle is about.

Let us be quite clear.

There is no indication from what we know that the fuel situation was incorrect IAW EUOPS.

I suspect none of us take 'extra fuel' to Budapest in case the tower bursts into flames.

It looks to me like a well-handled unusual situation totally unworthy of anything other than a ''telling of the tale'. No hints. No trolling. Simples?

How about a little extra fuel to handle an unforeseen problem at destination, ie icing system failure or gear snag?