Ryanair, too low on..
 

altitude, not fuel.

Incident: Ryanair B738 at Memmingen on Sep 23rd 2012, descended below minimum safe height

Yeah, we got a memo from the boss last week asking us to descend to 450 were possible and press the ‘empty poop tank’ button before landing thus saving on toilet services and reducing turnaround time. Of course, we’ll be charging the farmer a website administration fee to cover the costs of fertilising his crops with prime poop.

@FLR-PSA

Well, hard times for loco...

BTW, does it also save money to take off without ATC clearence?

Incident: Ryanair B738 at Eindhoven on Oct 18th 2012, took off from wrong intersection and without clearance

mda/mdh
 

so it was a visual approach, what minima apply?

not enough information here, but if I need to go round from 10' radio if I want to, I believe I'm allowed to.

why did they go round? landing gate? EGPWS? ATC? loss of visual? who knows?

@hetfield

Yeah, we got a memo from the boss last week asking us to use as much runway as possible and not to hang around waiting for clearances at quiet airports if no one’s looking and no high-fare airlines are on approach. If Eindhoven complain we’ll just stop going there he said.

That's great. One should stand up to stop these moneymakers.

Have a look at the parameters on the diagram on Avherald. Pretty obvious to any jet pilot, I would have thought, especially if you understand the concept of a stabilised approach.

CFIT almost
 

These guys were descending at 3200 fpm descending through 1000 AGL at 211 knots with F5, gear down and speed brakes extended.

Hardly a stabilised approach by anyone's standard and it triggered a classic EGPWS Mode 2 warning.

They were less than 20 seconds from ground impact at that point. Pretty scary.

At 609' RA still 1.740 ROD and 211 kts, jezz....

Obviously the goaround was the right decission.

But why that late?
Pressure NOT TO WASTE fuel?

Do not know, maybe the guys were in control , we do not have all the facts.

But Going from min 3200 ft/m to plus 3800 in less than 20 sec, plus the noise , might have been a bit "scary" for the pax behind..

Diving and reducing speed at the same time, especially on a 737NG has never been a good combination.:E

Maybe they were a bit more preoccupied with finding the runway with the help of their ND, than looking outside and seeing the obvious terrain rising. It is quite an acute turn for a visual.

PURE SPECULATION though...

As I understand the BFU report

- [Initially cleared for an ILS approach to RWY 06 => incorrect; RWY in use was 06, the crew was cleared for an ILS approach on RWY 24, and..], the crew requested a visual approach to RWY 24 (this would save time in taxying to the gate, enabling them to compensate for their late arrival)
- weather was CAVOK
- the crew had expected radar vectoring for the visual approach but didn't get any
- a tailwind of 20-30 kts on the base leg was experienced

Terrain around Memmingen is relatively flat, in my opinion

No big deal
 

Arriving half way down the runway at V2+ 20 is reason for an anti Ryanair witch hunt............... Not a GA from an unstable approach!

Fact is that pilots are not paying enough attention to the high elevation of some airports. I see it quite often, even in experienced guys, they think they are safe and high at 3000' whereas this may only be 1000' or 1500' AGL in airports like MAD, RAK and in this Memmingen place..leading to rushed and unstable approaches.

ATC watcher
 

When you get a "Terrain! Terrain! Pull up! Pull up!"

The aircraft EGPWS thinks it is 20-30 seconds from projected impact.

Do RYR crews have to submit a report if they G/A?

In the end they did go around so at least one of them wasn't completely target fixated.

Not responding to GPWS alerts does in fact also happen to big reputable airlines, they just don't get reported publicly (a big German airline).

Question for EDMJ. How can the crew expect radar vectors for a visual approach? Surely the clue is in the title?

gorter, radar vectors for a visual are very common in certain parts of Europe. In Bordeaux ATC even offer it 9 out of 10 times if runway 05 is in use. You get positioned by ATC to a certain point whereafter it is up to you to find the runway and land.

I am not a RYR apologist (at all), but the guys went around and nobody lost an eye. There's nothing to see here.
Am I the only other person here who has had an approach that didn't go to plan?
AFAIAA, the EU OPS take on stabilised approach is that the company has to have an acceptable (to the authority) set of SOPs setting out the limits. In most companies that means a target of 1000 aal and limit of 500 aal.
Maybe someone can correct me, but it seems that, by stating any go-around below 1000 is worthy of an investigation, the German BFU is stepping outside it's remit, and should mind it's own business.
As I say, I stand to be corrected, but maybe I should plan to go-around from over 1000 feet next time DUS or MUC keeps me high and fast.

Surely this would give a tendency to be too high; rather than too low. It would certainly explain why they were heading for touchdown too far down the runway, set up a high ROD in an attempt to compensate then eventually went around from 450ft.

Maybe airline management pressure was a factor, maybe it was only a basic aircrew error, but whatever it was, it's another reason to stick to my personal policy of not flying with this airline.

.

This is demotion material where I come from.

A disgraceful display of continue on itis.....

To a previous poster: GA in RYR is mandatory report below 1000 agl optional above if there's reportable circumstances....

Just quoting from the report, don't ask me... :)

I'm with 16024. While I detest MoL's management philosophy and would have to be desperate to travel with his airline, show me the commercial pilot who has never misjudged an approach. There seems to a lot of sanctimonious claptrap going on here.
"Let the one without sin cast the first stone!"

Some (not so) pretty big breaches of airmanship here, with excessive descent rates both below MSA and below 1000' AGL - 1700+ down at 600 radio!!!??. At the 450' radio they were nowhere near the runway either. No doubt some serious goings-on in an office somewhere and I am certain RY will handle this incident properly. I would honestly expect demotion or dismissal for this episode (Vis Bearcat). What was PNF doing? Who was PF? A complete mental abberation?

However, there does appear to be some misinformation on this thread. Shy Torque - even as a rotating palm-tree driver you need to think about your comment 'rather than too low'!

No sign of 20-30kts on 'base leg' - or anywhere, come to that - all within 'limits'.

No sign of an intent to land half-way down the runway either.

Interesting wind plots if accurate, and they may have been experiencing a significant tailwind as they made their way in initially to 06.

As explained elsewhere 'Radar to visual' is by no means unusual.

As for 'sanctimonious claptrap going on here' - yes, we all can screw up approaches, especially visuals. It is when you quit that counts. Are you implying you would have done the same?

BOAC,

I based my comments on post#13 from EDMJ, who presumably has seen an initial report.

Have just reread the report and this was how the commander described it (page 68 of the Bulletin, 7th line, beginning with "Im (rechten) Queranflug...") , i.e.:

"On (right) base, which was very short, there was a tailwind component of 20-30 kts".

Interesting - BFU show 240/21 --->250/20 ie 90 off. Who is right?

Which 'report', EDMJ?

The preliminary report in the BFU September 2012 Bulletin (pages 65-75):

http://www.bfu-web.de/cln_030/nn_223...tin2012-09.pdf

In German only.

Visual approach. No big deal?
 

From what I can see there was no hand flying until AP disconnect at 16:39:37. Why were they flying the aircraft on the automatics when supposedly cleared for the visual approach? Kind of defeats the object of the exercise in my mind. Also this method of flying visuals with the automatics in usually leads to unstabilised and scrappy approaches.

It looks to me like they were coupled to a speed mode viewing the speed vs ROD + configuration in the attached report. This seems to have led to the high rates of descent developing as the drag increased followed by the inevitable GPWS invite to the CP's office. In order to get a handle on the exercise, plan well in advance, get the automatics off, followed shortly after by the FD when cleared for the visual. Not enough hand flying ability, to much reliance on the autopilot and some pretty scary rates of descent close to the ground.

Having said that, anyone can have a bad day.

Oh great summation, not!!! Trying using that reasoning to the 180+ lives behind these two numpties!

Was this daylight? I hope so, but where was the sun? It's not the first time crews have been caught out by low sun as they turn 180 degrees. But then again, thinking ahead for that is basic airmanship. However, without that factor, and assuming the ILS24 was the last wpt in the Legs page there must have been a lot of VNAV deviation data screaming at them about their predicament. This compensates for the high elevation of the rwy and avoids all the mental gymnastics if Altimeter v Distogo. What does beg the question is why wait so long to correct a bad situation getting worse. It was a bit of a no-hoper a long time before the G/A. An early realisation of that and a quick timely correction is what could have been a better decision. Did they G/A because of the EGPWS or because they were unstable at 500' agl. The fault with the latter is they seem to be in a very scary place at 500' agl. I'd like to know what their interpretation of all the VNAV and raw ILS data was, and what visual clues they had. Ultimately, what it all comes down to is lack of practice, both in Mk.1 eyeball approaches, which RYR decry, and a full understanding of how to use the automatics in ALL phases of flight. If they were descending >3000fpm on autopilot at F5 I wonder where the MCP speed bug was. I hope over the F5 bug. I wonder why they didn't level the a/c on base leg, get it to F40 and then go down. There was still V/S down while trying to slow down, close in. It ain't gonna work, not that close. Drag it up, but that requires having done it or seen it done before. It's not in the robotic trained monkey syllabus. Yes, they went around, but not from the correct point, only height.
To learn from this, for which I hope all RYR pilots do have the opportunity, we need to know much more detail facts, not only about what happened but why.
Remember AA in Cali. The what was easy to follow, it was the CVR that gave an insight into the why.

610 ft height but 4 miles out and off the centreline?
3200fpm at 1000ft height?

And people are defending them? It beggars belief.

"A superior pilot uses his superior judgement to avoid situations that would require the use of his superior flying skills"

Triple fail there then...

There can be no excuse whatever for passing 1000ft in that manner, none at all. That is the very latest at which a g/a should have been initiated.

Automatics still in? - my guess - seen it - been there - is they were maxed out - possibly with energy management - possibly spatial awareness (which was pretty much absent I venture to suggest) and hand flying was simply beyond their capability. It does not bespeak a crew in their comfort zone. = g/a

The really worrying thing is that they didn't throw this away back on base turn because when they run this through the sim it will be a butt-clencher from 5000ft onwards - The picture at the point of 609' and 1700fpm will be simply terrifying. This is essentially a pilotless aeroplane flying itself into the ground over 10 miles or so.

It certainly illustrates why you don't carry excess speed to lose height close in.

This will no doubt turn into a first-rate training demo of supreme lack of judgement and no doubt the Ryanair trainers will make full use of it in future.

Rat5 has hit the nail too re parachuting in on F40 and fly by numbers training that doesn't allow for airmanship. OH bugger! I've said it again! Sorree.

I'll get my coat.

1000' RA at 210kts with almost 3300fpm rate of decent? Then they continued down to 600'RA at 1700fpm before eventually deciding to throw the approach away? This approach should have been thrown away LONG before their actual go-around. A pat on the back for going around when they did? Bollocks, a black cab with no biscuits for continuing as far as they did. :=

The unforgivable sin of these crew is the over 3,000 fpm sink rate at 1,000 AGL. That is absolutely unacceptable and it shows an extremely poor judgement and attitude on their part.

Unless there was some form of loss of control, automation mismamagment, mishap, etc... Then it is adifferent story. But if they hand flew the visual like that, intentionally, they are surely sending CVs right now because I don't think they are very merciful in RYR.

Here we go again anything to do with Ryanair and ye are off, wonder how many pages will this one go, as I said before the people on this board are totally anti Ryanair, time to give it a break no one was hurt :ugh:

No, I think this time we are all anti-incompetence.

The RYR bit is irrelevant. There was no chance of getting in, therefore they should have gone around at 1,000ft.

End of.

BOAC, I was trying to understand how they got in that situation. It now seems they didn't even make the runway, so it was worse than I first thought.

I'll still accept an overdue apology, even from a plank wing driver. ;)

@ 16024 & scotbill

Did you have a look at this report from post nr 1?

Those guys were:
-at 450' RA at 4NM from the threshold
-at 420' above RWY elev. at aprox. 4 NM from threshold with a V/S of -1740 fpm and at 211 kts
-at 913' above RWY elev. at aprox. 6NM from threshold with a V/S of -3280 fpm

This is not just an approach that didn't go to plan, as you put it, but a major f@&§up!

Were you sitting in that cockpit? Otherwise I can't believe that anybody is defending these guys.

There is something strange about those parameters. Gear down, flap five, the NG will not hold 210kts at 3200fpm. Those parameters show that he decelerated from 216kts to 211kts with a stowed speedbrake and an increasing rate of descent peaking at 3200fpm.

Hmmmmm :confused: