Ryanair B738 near Amsterdam engine failure
 

Bet they were gutted,,, night stop in amsterdam is what they will have been hoping for but Ryanair been such an organised outfit they got another aircraft out to them.

p.s. well done boys.

Did they charge the pax extra for landing at a 'premium' airport?

I can imagine the question being asked " why AMS ? " & not NRN (a RYR base) or EIN ( A RYR destination)
It is perhaps a question that shouldn't be asked of a Commander, but if the failure occured as stated @ F330 o/h AMS , I suspect it will be. :hmm:

I very much doubt that RYR would have forked out for hotels. Hostel maybe.

Captplaystation, from the point of engine failure, taking into account descent profile and ATC routing, AMS was the best choice. NRN and EIN would have been a tad further. I imagine that AMS have better B737 maintenance facilities too.

From F330 they would have needed extended routing to get the height off for ANY of these three I would humbly submit. As you say, maintenance is probably more comprehensive in AMS. None of the foregoing should be the overiding factor in a crew's decision, but they should perhaps be prepared for the inevitable Q if AMS was their & their decision alone.

When O'Leary introduces pay lavatories on Ryanair aircraft he will probably encourage such events to increase post traumatic toilet attendance. No, I am serious!

Oh. And the Boeing QRH says that the crew should land at the nearest suitable airfield. If you are over AMS, then AMS is likely to fulfill that requirement.

I think it's about time that the wording was changed from "nearest" to "reachable in the shortest time". From FL330 anywhere within 100nm which was suitable would be OK.

Unless the other donk quits? Happened before, both recently and a lot. Will happen again. Rather be FL330 over a nice big airfield with one, than 160 over the channel with none.

Who said they were over AMS when the engine failed? Anyway, who wants to divert to a piddly little airport out in the woods - with the minimum of emergency services and no proper maintenance facilities - all for the sake of a few minutes. I would argue that the decision to divert to AMS was appropriate both in the interest of safety (which would have no doubt been given 1st priority by the crew) and logistics (maintenance).

Agree there, the wording from Boeing in the QRH is a bit misleading. Just because the a/c was overhead AMS doesn't automatically make it the nearest most suitable airport. We're in a 737 here not a helicopter we don't just drop out of the sky. With descent rates etc you're probably looking at anything within an 80-100 mile raduis of your current position, and then you have to take in any number of other factors which determine it's suitability; facilities, runway, approach types, weather, FR base etc. I would suspct AMS was chosen due to availiabilty of loads of long runways with ILS approaches, would certainly be an attractive option to me!! :}
Well done fellas, good job jobbed I would suggest :ok:

Indeed Bunny. Suitable means suitable in the Boeing definition. Weather, runways, aids, minima etc.

If you were in charge of BA038, and by a trick of fate one engine quit over AMS in the descent to LHR and you thought....well only one hundred to LHR. Then the other one quit. Mid channel at FL 160?

Well done to the chaps. Good decision. I stick to my comments about o'leary encouraging this sort of thing and perhaps having a sliding scale of charges on the lavatories depending on the emergency. Without putting ideas in his head, perhaps mild food poisoning bacteria in the catering would encourage slot filling of the lavatories. I'll never know because I will never fly with them.

Great contribution to the thread dude. :yuk:

All the Ryanair-bashers who go on and on about "poor customer service" should take note of the fact that passengers got to Stansted only 4 hours and 30 minutes late.
"Full service" carriers would have had a job bettering that.