Ryanair pilot assesses snowy braking action!
 

Still cant believe it!

Sunday saw LPL SNOCLO due to heavy snow showers and the airport not being able to clear the runway.

To everyones amazement a Ryanair Captain managed to persuade ATC to let him have a ride in their car in order to 'test' the braking action himself!!!

Even now I still cant believe that:

A. He actually did it; how on earth can a professional pilot make a judgement on the braking efficency of a 737 on a snowy runway that hes trundled along in a car!!!

B. That ATC let him do it in the first place

C. none of his colleagues stopped him!

PS he was the ONLY movement in LPL that day!!

Did the car have a JBI meter?

After the television documentry on Ryanair does this not sum them up.

Or is this commercial pressure??

Would have been very interesting if the aircaraft had a problem on departure and had to abbort.

The CAA would have had a field day but in the end where are Ryanair registered.

Or is it just the lusk of the Irish.

Do you have the facts or are your statements suppositions? Were you there to personally witness his colleagues reactions... or again is this supposition? Can you substantiate the local conrollers position, or again... is that a supposition too?

KTT
I cannot see the problem at all... from your post. All he did was hitch a ride in ATC's wagon... that way he got to see the depth / type of snow first hand. He was thus more informed than anybody else about the conditions.
You have not said what he did with the information he gained - just a very loose implication that because he was the only movement that day, he based that on his ride with ATC :oh:
If we follow your logic, if I am the only person to divert because of adverse weather, I am "useless" if everybody else carried on / got in. The "sheep" instinct is very dangerous - my hat goes off to him for actually using his initiative in asking for, and getting the ride.... what happened thereafter I do not know from your post :hmm:

KTT, if the captain ascertained that the B.A. and snow depth (maybe why he went out) were satisfactory he was indeed using his initiative to maximum advantage.

Again, as is so often the case with FR, we just don't have the facts. While I have NO love for FR, sometimes they - or more specifically their pilots - are "not guilty". In fact, the competence of FR pilots is far from being the issue of interest (and concern).

Although I admit that bashing on FR seems pretty common here, this happening raises my eyebrow...

Imagine what have happened, if the aircraft had a problem during T/O! A T/O at a closed airport from a legal standpoint is veery questionable! The fact he "tested" the braking action with a car is no excuse, it is a ridiculous way and would have never been legally accepted.

My question: Would anyone of YOU commence a T/O under these situation? Sounds like a lot of commercial (or private) pressure...

No idea what the situation was, so cannot comment.
However, if I knew the snow depth and type, calculated the relevant performance figures, it permitted me to go, and I was happy, I would go. It would be almost negligent not to.
Seems another thread based on the fact because something to do with FR is "different" it must be "dangerous" "outrageous" etc.
NoD

A few facts about last Sunday:-

ATC did not allow the pilot to use ATC's car to view the runway.

The airport opened at about 1pm Sunday.

That particular movement was NOT the 'only' aircraft movement that day.

ATC does not have any powers to deny the pilot's request to view the
runway. They are not police officers.

No side-taking, kick the tyres, plain FACTS.

In days of yore, (groan) the braking action at a lot of airfields was assessed by driving a Land Rover onto the runway, and standing on the brakes with a mu meter?..or whatever. One thing is for sure, I would prefer to see for myself what conditions were like on the runway in some remote airfields.

Where the tires actually tracked was important to me, if I was to get a meaningful reading.

I recall being at ( a lonely regional) with a load of pax that had nowhere to go in thick snow. Breaking action did not respond to the urea treatment, until the last bag! We just got the reading we wanted to be legal. Nice as the folk were, I was glad that it was I, that actually took the reading. And no, I didn't cheat.

(The only really hairy thing that night was the F/Officer walking along the top of the wing with a broom. An heroic effort, but one that I would not have let him do had I known.)


Things have changed hugely now, and most of you will cry ‘thank heavens', but as implied earlier, in the early days, there was probably more learned ‘in the field' than would be allowed now. And hey, a lot of what you are taught as theory now, was learned the hard way by the post war bunch.

What absolute tosh!

We've had requests at LGW from aircraft commanders in the past to inspect the runway in adverse weather conditions, one I recall from a highly respected charter operator. We would never refuse this reasonable request, indeed I would regard it as good airmanship to do so if it adds to the data on which to make an informed decision.

I'm not an FR fan as such but it sounds perfectly reasonable to me. I believe this sort of FR-bashing takes away the credance of legitimate concerns about the carrier's performance. In other words, keep your powder dry for when it really matters.

Cheers,
TheOddOne

We are rapidly approaching the point where only qualified Aviation professionals will be allowed to post on PPRuNe and Boy am I looking forward to that day .....

I remember such use of a Land Rover in a distant place on a snow covered
gravel runway. The airfield radio guy, a farmer who worked part-time at the airport reported the "braking action as pretty good". During landing, while skidding all over the place, we saw some deep tire tracks in the snow. An inspection of said Land Rover, revealed snow chains on every tire! The guy had ripped through the snow into the gravel with the chains! No such luck on our old battered Fokker 27

o/c

Some of the posts here by amateurs are absolutely outrageous. It is a perfectly valid action for a Captain to go out and inspect the runway himself and assess according to the guidelines in his manuals whether an operation is viable. I have done it myself more than once and done several inspections to get the overall assessment of contamination, and found it acceptable, and had absolutely no problem. Aircraft performance tables include special contaminated runway data within strict guidelines.

I'm appalled at some of the uneducated and incorrect criticism of a pilot doing his job. The fact that most of the 'facts' in the original post are apparently incorrect is an indication of the validity of the criticism of the Captain! If there'd have been any hope of those posters being honorable and apologising for their criticism, I'd have demanded a retraction for the nonsense they've spouted! If you don't understand what you're talking about, why step in with dreadful criticism like that?

Just in case some editing goes on, and the thread gets "confusing" ;) I'll preserve the original post from 'kick the tires:

I have just had the image come to mind, of two 748s parked across a road at Portsmouth. The second crew was not informed of the poor braking action, "...because it might have upset the Captain."

I was in Doncaster a few weeks back , with snow falling and settling on the runway. The 'Ranger' (Airfield Ops) came up to my flight-deck and informed me that the braking action was 'pretty good' as he had just driven along the runway applying his brakes in line with where the main gear would be. I asked what the friction co-efficient was, to which he replied that he hadn't got a reading and it would take 15 minutes for him to get one. I politely asked if he would like to start the process, to which he replied 'well the easyJet has just gone and he was alright'.:rolleyes:

fellow flyers:

I have not flown in europe, so my view is from the new side of the pond.

If this guy really went out on the runway in a car, more power to him.

I went to the control tower once to make sure the visibility was taken in a proper fashion...one airport in the USA requires 5 miles visibility to do the approach...as I was taking off I needed to know if I could get back in. I couldn't see ONE mile, but the company guy was happy to " call it 5".

we waited .


AS to closing an airport/aerodrome. Airports are seldom really closed because of weather. Usually, in the USA,it is up to airport managers to decide to close an airport, NOT ATC. ATC on some occasions may act on airport manager's behalf and " close " an airport when an accident has happened and the crash fire rescue teams could not respond to another accident. Certainly the airport can be closed to groom the runway...however this is usually done only after a US "nil" braking action report.

While people will throw around the term " closed" instead of saying, ''the airport is below operational minimums and we have elected to divert'' is closer to the truth.

on snowy days I have walked out to a good vantage point to look over the runway and like they say, " one picture is worth a thousand words".


Had an aborted takeoff happened, and the plane went off the end of the runway, this action of "checking" the runway would have been on more arrow in the quiver of this pilot's defense .

regards
jon

''the airport is below operational minimums and we have elected to divert'' is OK if talking to those in the know. But for PAX "Closed" is as close to the truth as they need.

Or a rope to hang him - depending on the circumstances.

About 18 or 19 years ago, the Captain I worked with rode in an airport car on the departure runway at White Plains, NY. It is still a short runway.

Why do people assume that the Ryanair Captain planned to make his decision to operate, based only upon a ride in a car? He must have had other information. He might have had the option to taxi on the runway as he checked the brakes on the way to the first exit and return for takeoff, in order to make his final decision.

On the other hand, for many years, airline crews at a busy midwestern airport de-iced by the beginning of a departure runway. A few years ago I asked Tower whether anybody knew what the braking action was. The Tower Controller said "we don't know". It was quite normal for B-737s, DC-9s, F-100, MD-80s, B-727s, A-320s, B-757s etc to depart without having a current braking action report from a jet. This runway is mostly used only for departures.
From what I remember, nobody else ever requested a braking action report OR another runway: was this the "sheep mentality"? For the newer pilots or laymen/amateurs, keep in mind that a turboprop or recip aircraft can usually slow down very well using only ground fine or prop reverse-with little wheel braking needed.

Pilot Pete
You summed up the situation exactly. It really is about time that pilots started viewing their action with the thought in the front of their minds "What would I tell the accident investigator".

SORRY GUYS BUT IN MY HUMBLE OPINION THE CAPT OF THIS A/C HAD NO BUSINESS BEING DRIVEN OUT ONTO THE SNOWY/ICY RUNWAY. AFTER LIVING AND WORKING IN SNOW ALL MY LIFE YOU CANNOT MAKE A CREDIBLE JUDGEMENT OF RUNWAY CONDITIONS FROM THE FRONT SEAT OF A LAND ROVER. THERE IS ONE HELL OF A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SLAMMING ON THE BRAKES ON A LAND ROVER IN SNOW THAN TRYING TO ATTEMPT A T/0FF IN THESE CONDITIONS IN A HEAVILY LADEN B737-800.
ESPECIALLLY WHEN YOU HAVE TO ABORT--NOT SMART.:cool:

Monton

Isn't that what everyone is saying? At some airports that is exactly how the B/A is measured! A braking car is not really representative of a 150 ton jet. Additonally the MU meter readings often produce variable and misleading results in wet snow and slush.....Going out to view the runway - good airmanship IMHO.:ok:

No reason why a captain should not go out, have a look and use what is seen as part of the decision making process.
Do recollect similar situation when Land Rover skidded into blade of snowplough, captain broke thumb, flight cancelled. Decisions made easy:D

I really think if people are going to sound off about this, they should say from what viewpoint they are speaking! I am a retired medium/widebody pilot with getting on to 20,000 hours. It is an accepted part of BA procedure for the pilot to go out and inspect the actual runway conditions. It is not done from the back seat of a Landrover. It entails several different sampling areas and assessing what lies under the snow and how deep snow and slush is. Unless frequent operations are already taking place, it is a valid and reliable procedure for someone who knows what they are doing and what they are looking for, and is well catered for and fully described in the contaminated take-off performance books on the aeroplane. It is a procedure that has shown no sign of unreliability. Those very people who know nothing about this and see fit to make comment will be the loudest people to complain when all ops are halted at the first sign of a snowflake! The aim of the game is to keep public transport flowing.

Please would people who know nothing about it or aircraft performance stop interjecting! We have quite enough flight simmers/self appointed aviation experts sounding off with opinions here as it is. That idiotic first post takes the biscuit. Who are you KtT? Do you know it is not for ATC to forbid a runway inspection or close airfields?- ATC passes on the weather for the pilot to make his own judgement. I'm glad Ryanair did operate, and safely- he took the care to assess for himself and come to a safe decision. He also followed company procedures presumably, just as they are BA procedures too! Kinda makes your thundering look a bit daft doesn't it?

I was always taught that good decision making comes from gathering all the information available, assessing the options open to you and then deciding on the most appropriate option based around the situation you face. If you can't comply with the rules then your decision is made for you.

Unfortunately, your decisions may subsequently be disected by people with greater knoewledge and experience, under no time pressure and with many more resources available to them, so you had better bear this in mind when assessing the risks and coming to your conclusions.

Braking action measurement may well be flawed, but it is the best info I can get regarding the runway state and the associated risks should I need to reject. A ride in a car may well allow me to have a closer look, get a feel for what the car behaves like under braking etc, but it is not an exact science, so I will stick to my company procedures, which comply with JAR-OPS and request a braking action report. If that throws any doubt upon the suitability of the surface then I won't be going anywhere until such time as something has changed for the better.

I always think how I can justify my decisions in a court of law (should I be lucky enough to survive) and that sometimes helps with the go/no-go decision. I am lucky to work for an employer that genuinely says "if you are in any doubt, DON'T DO IT".

Another point is that in the UK we are not as experienced at true Winter Ops. Luckily we have a sister airline in the group based in Scandinavia, where obviously Winter Ops is their forte and we have been briefed and amended some of our SOPs based on their greater experience. This captain may well be Scandinavian for all we know (there are a lot of them about in UK/ Irish aviation these days!) and may well have much more experience than the likes of cautious old me.

The main thing is KEEP IT SAFE, within the rules and your own limitations, your crew limitations and any other factors which influence your ability to do so. There has been no evidence thus far that has convinced me that this fellow professional hadn't done just that.

PP

What will you tell everyone?
 

Well, if there is a fatality, it is a scene of crime, so start with what are you going to tell the police. Then the accident investigators might be able to interview you. Then you will be interviewed by the court in the manslaughter proceedings, public enquiry, coroner's inquest etc. Oh, and your employer's insurance company and their lawyers are going to be pretty interested too, as they have to pay for it.

I have observed, as a passenger in a Ryanair aircraft, being loaded in a thunderstorm across an open ramp, and then taking off when the runway was flooded. What was wrong with that? Well the airport had no method of being able to tell the pilot of the depth of water and of the braking action. I know, I had just finished asking such questions of ATC/airport operator. Was it a good decision? Well, if the crew had factored in the loss of lift from the high rate of rainfall, and had taken into account the rejected take-off stopping distances for decision speeds as well as the additional tyre drag for acceleration, then OK. Was I comfortable, NO.

There are huge problems in relation to the application of Annex 3,11 and 14 to modern aircraft operations. ATC might not have the power to stop an aircraft from going, but the airport operator does, in such weather conditions. The airport operator may decide to close the airport.

Is taking a look in a vehicle a good idea, yep, why not? Should it be the only basis of decision making, no. The aircraft operator is required to audit the airport. Therefore, the company should have decided under what conditions of slush depth (where no Mu meter reliable readings can be taken from certain types of apparatus) and so on, were acceptable. All that the aircraft commander has to do is to look up the airport specific table, compare the facts and the criteria and make a decision.

Do the airlines provide you with the criteria? Do they provide you with practical slush assessment training on your ATPL theory courses? Does your safety management system state where you have individual responsibility and where the company has responsibility in this area? If you are unsure in this area, then you might have difficulty in the event of an accident.

MONCTON FIR,
I respect your post. However since you have had a lot of experience in adverse weather I would say you have been surrounded by people who have good knowledge of adverse weather also; ATC, Airfield OPS etc.
Here in the UK, Airports tend to shut at the first sign of snowfall. Runways are given as WET WET WET when really they are only damp or even dry sometimes.
I flew into a airfield this week that was giving medium/poor on the taxiways. Only until we landed and saw the taxiway, it was infact dry and the information was old depsite being on the latest ATIS.
We are NOT used to serious adverse weather in the UK. I believe the Capt has every right to go and inspect a taxiway or runway if he or she so wishes.

Pilot Pete
 

Pete me old mate,

While it may be true that you and your company don't do much winter stuff, remember that some UK and Irish companies operate scheduled services to all sorts of cold and snowy places and have a great deal of experience with contaminated runways and winter ops.

I think it may be fair to say that UK airports are not as adept at handling snow and slush as the northern europeans and this may lead to a certain amount of frustration by crews, hence the runway inspection, but the prevailing weather in the UK hardly merits the investment in snow monitoring and clearing equipment and training that our northern colleagues rely on continuously for 3 months every year!!

Roll on global warming.

No. 9

on the day in question, as soon as the snow clearing team had finished clearing the runway they had to start all over again because of the intensity of the snow showers.

How is anyone able to determine that the braking action is 'MED/POOR' (allowed) as oppose to POOR (not allowed)?? They arent and therefore safety is erroded/non-existent.

Such an assesment is one persons variable that HAS to be left to instruments.

Its totally different to a crew taxiing out to a runway and making an assessment of visibility, when for instance no RVR reporting is available; count the lights and you have an exact figure. Riding in a car on a runway and saying, yeh thats ok, is not an exact science!

Yeah, completely agree. I think my comment was a bit too 'UK General'.

Couldn't agree more, hence my asking for a BA reading when given info from this source and perhaps the captain in question was using this info to compliment other info he had?

I must admit I cannot quite see the value in it though, because if the airport are saying BA is POOR, hence nobody going anywhere and you go out in the car and make your own judgement that it's not that bad, I can't see how you could justify going anyhow. The lawyers would have a field day in the event of an incident. I personally think I would only use a personal observation to get Airfield Ops to carry out a further test if I felt it had improved since their last report (presumably of conditions which meant T/Os were not occuring), or more likely to downgrade an airfield report where I felt the conditions appeared to be worse than ATC were passing.

Anyhow, does anyone have the SA Wx at the time in question, especially ATC passed BA reports?

PP

Thats the whole point - the BA vehicle was u/s and no (offical) runway conditions were available!:ugh:

[quote=kick the tires]

To everyones amazement a Ryanair Captain managed to persuade ATC to let him have a ride in their car in order to 'test' the braking action himself!!!

I'm still trying to work out exactly which ATCO it was that went out in our car on the runway. 2 reasons why this post is crap:

1: We (ATC) don't do the runway inspections. Anyone who has been at Liverpool will realise why, given the position of 'airside' to the new tower.

2: The only car that we (ATC) have at our disposal is an 'S' reg Ford Fiesta, with no markings, or orange lights. Not likely to be much use on an active runway full stop. Never mind one covered in a blanket of snow.....:rolleyes:

[QUOTE=chipsncheese 2: The only car that we (ATC) have at our disposal is an 'S' reg Ford Fiesta, with no markings, or orange lights. Not likely to be much use on an active runway full stop. Never mind one covered in a blanket of snow.....:rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

Perhaps I am being remiss in lumping everyone under the banner of ATC. Sorry. But you, as do all, obviously know that LJLI has more than an S reg Fiesta at its disposal.

But you have answered the whole issue really ..."never mind one covered in a blanket of snow"
Why do you think the other dozen or so aircraft waiting to depart called it a day?

The Ryanair captain sounds like the sort of man who gets out of the flight deck to check his own wings for snow and ice rather than accept someone elses report.

Why not carry out a visual inspection of the runway if you can!

Seems a reasonable request to me. UK Airports are restricted in the information they can supply as regards braking action on contaminated runways. In most cases you will find the reports are based on an assessment by an Ops/Ranger Vehicle. CAA Regs prohibit the use of Friction Measuring devices in Slush, uncompacted wet snow and standing water greater than 3mm depth. Furthermore they cannot be used when the air temp is less that PS02C.

FODCOM30/2005 and AIC61/1999 are useful docs.

Airports should be capable of providing sufficient data regarding the surface state and its suitability for aircraft operations - but if in doubt why not take a look for yourself! All credit to the FR pilot!.

You have obviously never operated in North America. Landing on snow covered runways is not unusual. One has to be aware of what contamination is actually there. This is not done with glibly sitting in a skidding car. It is getting out and kicking the snow to see what is underneath and assessing depths. Something I have done more than once. I also inspected my own wings or had another pilot do it if I had any doubts as to upper wing ice. It's how you act like a professional!

Of the other dozen aircraft calling it a day, I would be inclined to wonder whether they made any attempt to personally assess the situation if their Ops manual so permits or whether they may have followed a herd instinct and ducked the decision! But to slate the Captain like you did was wrong.

seems many of you have a lot of experience on contaminated runways -

could you please have a look to the question I have posted under the other thread "Wet Runway performance" for 737-pilots - thanks for your help

Some time ago we were taxing on the Runway for Take Off that was reported to be slippery with medium to good and some slush.

We did not believe them and insisted on a runway check.

Then the braking action was reported to be poor and contaminated with double the value that was reported first.

As far as I can see and understand Ryanair I think it's fair to say that, Ryanair is probably not the easiest airline to work for, but it surely is a character-building environment.

In other words it’s a no bull!!!! company and the positive side of it is that you do not accept any bull!!!! from others including ATC.

Just because a runway is covered with contamination, it doesn't mean necessarily that braking and steerage is non existent. In a Classic 747 we were on final approach to a JFK completely covered in snow with heavy deposits on the runway. A preceeding landing DC-9 was asked for BA and his reply was 'nil'. The Captain and I looked at each other in horror and switched the autobrakes to Max. When we touched down, there was a pause while the wheels spun up, and then the brakes came on. It felt like we were going to go through the windscreen it was so strong- thrown forward like those astronauts in Apollo 13 when the main engine cut out. That is why peoples' assessments are not reliable and the only reliable way in the absence of a Mu reading is to get out there and see what there is and measure it.