A close one for Ryanair

Fully Established

A Ryanair Boeing 737-800, registration EI-DAC performing flight FR-3214 from Manchester,EN (UK) to Memmingen (Germany) with 135 passengers and 6 crew, was on a visual approach to Memmingen's runway 24 turning onto but overshooting the extended runway centerline at high vertical descent rate. While attempting to align on the extended runway centerline, the aircraft still descending at high rate of descent, the aircraft descended below required minimum height of 1000 feet AGL about 4nm ahead of the runway threshold. Following an EGPWS warning "CAUTION TERRAIN!" the crew levelled off reaching a minimum height of 450 feet AGL and began to climb the aircraft, climbing through 460 feet AGL the crew received a "TERRAIN! TERRAIN! PULL UP! PULL UP!" EGPWS alert and initiated a go-around. The aircraft landed safely on their second approach.

In their monthly bulletin Germany's BFU rated the occurrence a serious incident and opened an investigation reporting the minimum safety height was 1000 feet AGL however the aircraft descended to 450 feet AGL before beginning to climb again, in response to the "Terrain! Pull Up!" warning the crew initiated a go-around, all of the sequence happening within seconds. The BFU used information off the Quick Access Recorder, radar data by DFS (German Air Traffic Control provider) and crew testimony for their report.

Ryanair reported on Dec 4th 2012, that the crew did not receive a "Caution Terrain" message, never levelled off but initiated the go-around prior to the "Terrain! Pull up!" EGPWS warning. There is no minimum height applicable to this type of approach. The incident was reported to the relevant Authorities less than 12 hours after the event, all data have been provided. In a subsequent phone call on Dec 4th 2012 Ryanair's chief pilot stated that the crew initiated the go-around prior to the "Caution Terrain" (confirming the Caution Terrain message disputed by Ryanair's press officer in e-mail before) and "Terrain! Pull Up!" message, that followed the Caution Terrain message almost instantly, and voiced concern that the sequence of events as portrayed by the BFU report create the impression the crew ignored warnings, something which is not at all tolerated within the company, rather than the crew preemptying the warnings.

Fully Established

Why are Ryanair running scared now threatening another website with legal action over the above report if nothing was wrong .Surely people have a right to be made aware of airline safety and also to be able to comment on such.

Klunk001

Fully Established wrote: »

Why are Ryanair running scared now threatening another website with legal action over the above report if nothing was wrong .Surely people have a right to be made aware of airline safety and also to be able to comment on such.

People do have a right. Can you elaborate on the first piece in relation to legal action ?

Fully Established

Klunk001 wrote: »

People do have a right. Can you elaborate on the first piece in relation to legal action ?

There is further information available on two other aviation websites .

pclancy

I don't see them running scared, I see them wanting a factual description of what happened to be presented to the worlds media and the travelling public.

There are questions as to why such an unstable approach wasnt aborted earlier, but I think the way its being reported and the way it will be picked up by the media are not quite accurate.

Tenger

Klunk001 wrote: »

People do have a right. Can you elaborate on the first piece in relation to legal action ?

Another well known website which publishes info on aviation incident publishes the German version of events. This website doesn't judge incidents merely reports them. They have been threatened with legal action as someone posted defamatory remarks under the factual article.

This is the same website that publishes the report on the FR fuel maydays in July of this year. In that article they did not infer unsafe SOPs at FR (which is what many media organs focused on) and indeed mentioned the other 2 airlines that also had fuel emergencies that night.

I do see the logic of FR stating that the defamatory comments may impact on the perception of the FR safety culture. However the conflicting statements from FR and their chief pilot raise concerns over how this incident is being examined in FR.
(Also the FR CEO's previous comments that they could survive a major hull loss don't help the preception of 'safety' in that company)

pclancy

Fair enough, I'm not arguing that the approach was a bad one, that they should have gone around well before they did and that there should be an proper investigation etc. But I've seen so many incidents dogged to death by an incompetent journo that I've become very cynical about the media's intentions when something like this pops up, hence I try take all these reports with a pinch of salt before reading deeply into them.

Bearcat

Aviation Heralds response

"We hold the opinion, that taking such legal action does absolutely no good to the airline involved and actually severly destroys their reputation."

Fully Established

pclancy wrote: »

Fair enough, I'm not arguing that the approach was a bad one, that they should have gone around well before they did and that there should be an proper investigation etc. But I've seen so many incidents dogged to death by an incompetent journo that I've become very cynical about the media's intentions when something like this pops up, hence I try take all these reports with a pinch of salt before reading deeply into them.

I am sure you will understand the website that Ryanair has threatened is a very reputable non biased and factual with its reporting of incidents , I would not put incompetent and this websites administrator in the same sentence . Is it because they were within 20 seconds or less of having a controlled flight into terrain that has bothered Ryanair , this could backfire on Ryanair trying to silence the media . One thing I noticed on the other site is they also had a plane depart Eindhoven without clearance this too could have been far worse , has their training department changed ? Or why are we seen more Ryanair planes in this sort of light .

pastorbarrett

Can anybody shed light on this incident in layman's terms? If I understand correctly, the aircraft came in too fast, 'too late' in respect of the position where it should've made impact? Can people speculate as to how catastrophic this may or may not have been?

MuffinsDa

Fully Established wrote: »

has their training department changed ?

Training Department?! Ryaniar?!

MuffinsDa

meridiangroup wrote: »

Can anybody shed light on this incident in layman's terms? If I understand correctly, the aircraft came in too fast, 'too late' in respect of the position where it should've made impact? Can people speculate as to how catastrophic this may or may not have been?

From my limited knowledge a standard landing should be around 200-400 fpm V/S. So imagine a landing 10-15 times harder than the hardest landing you've ever had - that's if it hit the runway. Granted, they could have rotated at the later minute maybe...

Flier

600 - 700fpm at touchdown is what you're aiming for, and most airlines have rules that prohibit rod >1000fpm on approach below 100ft agl (or at least it's a mandatory go around). If you saw C4's 'the plane crash', they were aiming for a rod of 1500fpm at touchdown 'cos they wanted the crash to be catastrophic but survivable. So that should give you an idea of how far out of kilter this situation was.

John_Mc

Flier wrote: »

600 - 700fpm at touchdown is what you're aiming for, and most airlines have rules that prohibit rod >1000fpm on approach below 100ft agl (or at least it's a mandatory go around). If you saw C4's 'the plane crash', they were aiming for a rod of 1500fpm at touchdown 'cos they wanted the crash to be catastrophic but survivable. So that should give you an idea of how far out of kilter this situation was.

Not being pedantic, but definitely not 600-700ft at touchdown. On the approach it would range 600-800 depending on speed. At touchdown, hopefully only less than 100-200

In layman terms, the approach to land wasn't stable. They were too high and too fast, which is a bad combination because to lose altitude fast you will increase speed due to gravity.

They were using speedbrakes (surfaces which deflect up on the wing) to combat this problem but it was obviously pointless.

The real issue here is the commanders decision to continue the approach a long way past where it should have been aborted.

Flier

Sh1t - forgot to flare. Again!!

Zonda999

If Ryanair took issue with the AVHerald report, i'd like to see what they made of this "report"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2245767/Ryanair-plane-carrying-141-passengers-Manchester-nearly-crashed-Germany-pilots-tried-new-manoeuvre-make-lost-time.html

Look at the picture they have of the Ryanair aircraft they used too, a B737.200, when Ryanair haven't operated those since 2004.. They surely went to the effort of putting that in there as opposed to using a picture of Ryanair 738, seeing as there almost 300 of those..

bluecode

The Mail article used the word 'plunged'. Never saw that coming. :rolleyes:

On the other hand the reader comments are similar to the Av herald's. I suppose the mail will now receive a similar letter threatening them with court action. No doubt Boards will follow and PPRuNe and every other forum and online site with reader comments.

They can't sue them all.

Actually the people to blame for all this are Ryanair management starting with O'Leary and working it's way down the chain. All his managers seem to ape his attitude and their utter disdain for their staff and customers is no secret. From the way the pilots and CC are treated to the way customers are treated. They've made enemies now. The Spanish are out to get them and it's hard to find anyone who likes Ryanair even those who use them regularly. It's hard to find a staff member who'll tell you they love to work for Ryanair.

They've gone too far and as a result every single incident no matter how minor is reported as a near disaster. The irony of the low fuel incidents in Madrid is that it demonstrated that correct and safe procedures were followed. But Joe Public thinks they nearly ran out of fuel.

It's said that all publicity is good publicity. Up to a point and I think Ryanair has crossed that point. They have lost the PR battle in terms of safety despite the fact that they are in all probablity safer than many better known airlines. Once the public perceive Ryanair as unsafe, people will pay more to fly for other airlines. They will lose customers. One serious accident and they will lose a lot of customers.

O'Leary for all his business acumen has somehow managed to produce an Irish company that has a reputation for unfriendliness, a company that tries to rip people off, a company that doesn't even pretend to value it's customers. A company that treats the people who work for it as mere commodities. A company that insults some of it's most important workers on a daily basis. A company that now is seen as unsafe to fly with by many people.

I never understood why Ryanair had to be so actively hostile and arrogant to virtually everyone it comes into contact with. It really doesn't cost anything to be friendly. There is no need for much of nonsense you get with Ryanair.

Imagine if not only Ryanair offered competitive fares but also was popular with it's customer base and had a loyal employee corps. Nothing could stop it growing.

It's puzzling.

Really Ryanair management should begin to rein in their attitudes and try and mend a few fences. Being nicer costs nothing. But it may already be too late.

PapaQuebec

bluecode wrote: »

The Mail article used the word 'plunged'. Never saw that coming. :rolleyes:

On the other hand the reader comments are similar to the Av herald's. I suppose the mail will now receive a similar letter threatening them with court action. No doubt Boards will follow and PPRuNe and every other forum and online site with reader comments.

They can't sue them all.

Actually the people to blame for all this are Ryanair management starting with O'Leary and working it's way down the chain. All his managers seem to ape his attitude and their utter disdain for their staff and customers is no secret. From the way the pilots and CC are treated to the way customers are treated. They've made enemies now. The Spanish are out to get them and it's hard to find anyone who likes Ryanair even those who use them regularly. It's hard to find a staff member who'll tell you they love to work for Ryanair.

They've gone too far and as a result every single incident no matter how minor is reported as a near disaster. The irony of the low fuel incidents in Madrid is that it demonstrated that correct and safe procedures were followed. But Joe Public thinks they nearly ran out of fuel.

It's said that all publicity is good publicity. Up to a point and I think Ryanair has crossed that point. They have lost the PR battle in terms of safety despite the fact that they are in all probablity safer than many better known airlines. Once the public perceive Ryanair as unsafe, people will pay more to fly for other airlines. They will lose customers. One serious accident and they will lose a lot of customers.

O'Leary for all his business acumen has somehow managed to produce an Irish company that has a reputation for unfriendliness, a company that tries to rip people off, a company that doesn't even pretend to value it's customers. A company that treats the people who work for it as mere commodities. A company that insults some of it's most important workers on a daily basis. A company that now is seen as unsafe to fly with by many people.

I never understood why Ryanair had to be so actively hostile and arrogant to virtually everyone it comes into contact with. It really doesn't cost anything to be friendly. There is no need for much of nonsense you get with Ryanair.

Imagine if not only Ryanair offered competitive fares but also was popular with it's customer base and had a loyal employee corps. Nothing could stop it growing.

It's puzzling.

Really Ryanair management should begin to reign in their attitudes and try and mend a few fences. Being nicer costs nothing. But it may already be too late.

Excellent post!

Bearcat

PapaQuebec wrote: »

Excellent post!

Ditto.

highlydebased

According to AVherald Ryanair are no longer threatening them with legal action

FWVT

Is there a reason for the secrecy in naming the Avherald site in the op? When something is copied and pasted from a site the link should also be included.

pclancy

As I predicted, this incident has now been elevated by the tabloid journos to "Ryanair are dangerous" stage and they've insightfully stuck the Spanish fuel incidents and a loss of cabin pressure incidents (though completely unrelated) into the bottom of the article to drive home their professional opinion that Ryanair are dangerous and therefore spreading fear into the minds of average Joe passenger and igniting the wrath of Ryanairs legal team. All to sell papers and advertising space. They know as much about aviation safety as my granny.

What utter bollocks from aviation journalism. Again. It does no good for anyone.

This "close call" was caused by one person and one person alone. The captain of that aircraft. Whether he or the first officer were PF I haven't read but he/she was the person in command the person that should have abandoned the approach long before they did.

Nobody made that pilot make that judgement that day except themselves.

The crew made bad decisions and should be held accountable for their actions. They broke several of Ryanairs SOPs and rules by carrying out this approach and letting it get so unstable, any pilot with half their wits about them would have gone around ages before these two did. Do people really think they pushed on with this approach just to save face or money? Do you not realize tis very simple to come up with plenty of reasons for a late arrival and not get any stick from anyone? Lots of Ryanair aircraft leave the stand late every day and their crews make perfect approaches, these two pilots ****ed up, plain and simple, but its Ryanairs fault as much as its Boeings fault.

I've been posting on here for over ten years and spoken to many, many Ryanair pilots. None that I've spoken to would risk their own lives to save a few dollars of fuel or make the gate on time. This idea that they are all racing around the skies at top speed, running on vapours, making risky approaches and hurtling down taxiways just to make money is BULL****. These are professional people folks, ones that have studied hard and paid deeply for their wings, and I don't see them quitting Ryanair in droves or screaming to the papers every week about their terrible lifestyle. On the contrary, the majority seem perfectly happy with their lot and just get their heads down and get on with it.

This was clearly a crew error, the continual moaning of "Ryanair are meanies" has got REALLY old on this forum and in the media. If you don't like them, don't fly them. This incident could have happened at any airline.

pclancy

bluecode wrote: »

Really Ryanair management should begin to reign in their attitudes and try and mend a few fences. Being nicer costs nothing. But it may already be too late.

I totally agree with this. It is too late from a PR point of view. Being cold and hard on everyone to build up your airline may have worked well from a business development point of view, but its generated a culture were many people don't like Ryanair and they're not even sure why. The newspapers have picked up on this and love the chance to slam any incident with terrifying headlines and reports from passengers of near death.

Klunk001

bluecode wrote: »

The Mail article used the word 'plunged'. Never saw that coming. :rolleyes:

On the other hand the reader comments are similar to the Av herald's. I suppose the mail will now receive a similar letter threatening them with court action. No doubt Boards will follow and PPRuNe and every other forum and online site with reader comments.

They can't sue them all.

Actually the people to blame for all this are Ryanair management starting with O'Leary and working it's way down the chain. All his managers seem to ape his attitude and their utter disdain for their staff and customers is no secret. From the way the pilots and CC are treated to the way customers are treated. They've made enemies now. The Spanish are out to get them and it's hard to find anyone who likes Ryanair even those who use them regularly. It's hard to find a staff member who'll tell you they love to work for Ryanair.

They've gone too far and as a result every single incident no matter how minor is reported as a near disaster. The irony of the low fuel incidents in Madrid is that it demonstrated that correct and safe procedures were followed. But Joe Public thinks they nearly ran out of fuel.

It's said that all publicity is good publicity. Up to a point and I think Ryanair has crossed that point. They have lost the PR battle in terms of safety despite the fact that they are in all probablity safer than many better known airlines. Once the public perceive Ryanair as unsafe, people will pay more to fly for other airlines. They will lose customers. One serious accident and they will lose a lot of customers.

O'Leary for all his business acumen has somehow managed to produce an Irish company that has a reputation for unfriendliness, a company that tries to rip people off, a company that doesn't even pretend to value it's customers. A company that treats the people who work for it as mere commodities. A company that insults some of it's most important workers on a daily basis. A company that now is seen as unsafe to fly with by many people.

I never understood why Ryanair had to be so actively hostile and arrogant to virtually everyone it comes into contact with. It really doesn't cost anything to be friendly. There is no need for much of nonsense you get with Ryanair.

Imagine if not only Ryanair offered competitive fares but also was popular with it's customer base and had a loyal employee corps. Nothing could stop it growing.

It's puzzling.

Really Ryanair management should begin to reign in their attitudes and try and mend a few fences. Being nicer costs nothing. But it may already be too late.

Excellent article.

I know it took me to fly with another budget airline (UK based) to see how customers should be treated.
I had one bad experience with a certain, cough, low budget airline in relation to my one piece of hand luggage. It fitted in their cage but I was still charged for oversize luggage and made put it in the hold.
There was no point complaining, as they didn't want to listen. My checked in luggage, wife and kids were waiting for me on the plane in a distressed state. I bit my tongue , paid the money and made my mind up it would be the last time I would fly with them.
What goes around comes around.

phonypony

Good ole Daily Mail:

'At one point, the plane was just 450ft (150m) above the ground while dropping at a rate of 500ft/sec, according to the interim report.'

hmm...

'...when the jet was at just 480ft from the ground. A second later, the plane reached its lowest flight altitude of 450ft'

So, a more realistic 30ft/sec then....

It's a shame some people will take such sensationalist rubbish journalism as gospel. Had the airline just left AVHerald be, it may not have seen the light of day.

castie

A Ryanair plane carrying 141 people from Manchester came within seconds and feet of disaster at a German airport after the pilots tried to make up lost time on their landing, according to an official air safety report.

This is bordering on hilarious.
According to the report they were trying to make up lost time on their landing and so came within seconds of disaster?

In April, passengers on board a Ryanair flight from Milan to East Midlands Airport told of their terror when a Ryanair jet plunged 20,000ft after a loss of cabin pressure.

How in gods name can you print that....

John_Mc

castie wrote: »

This is bordering on hilarious.
According to the report they were trying to make up lost time on their landing and so came within seconds of disaster?

How in gods name can you print that....

It's not wrong though. 500ft with a descent rate of 3000+ ft/min is seconds from disaster.

Flier

pclancy wrote: »

This "close call" was caused by one person and one person alone. The captain of that aircraft. .....

Nobody made that pilot make that judgement that day except themselves.

The crew made bad decisions and should be held accountable for their actions.

...these two pilots ****ed up, plain and simple...

Seriously, this is the kind of attitude that the aviation industry has come a long way from over the last few decades, thankfully. It is why we have CRM, confidential reporting systems, and 'no blame' policies. I have yet to see an accident or serious incident that is caused by one factor, one person or one crew.

pclancy wrote: »

..None that I've spoken to would risk their own lives to save a few dollars of fuel or make the gate on time...

These are professional people folks, ones that have studied hard and paid deeply for their wings,...

True, so why do you think this crew did it??
Just two 'bad eggs' on the day?

phonypony

Milan Cobian wrote: »

I trust your exposure to flying is minimal if you consider a descent rate of 1800 fpm at 450' agl to be "realistic."

1800ft/min is certainly more realistic than the 30,000ft/min suggested by the article. I wasn't suggesting at 450 feet AGL this was in any way safe or normal, just pointing out the mathematical error.

BrensBenz

castie wrote: »

This is bordering on hilarious.
According to the report they were trying to make up lost time on their landing and so came within seconds of disaster?


How in gods name can you print that....

But but....freedom of the press, i.e. freedom to invent, spin and print whatever they like. See reaction to Leveson!
That said, I worked on helicopters for eleven years but I struggle with the jargon in above posts. One of the easiest things we can do is to scare people. Daily Mail (and others) see gaps in their readership's general knowledge, fill those gaps with this cr@p AND manage to sell it....to us!

And wholeheartedly agree about Ryanair's customer hostile image. This further encourages dumbed-down journalism....which we will continue to buy.

MoeJay

pclancy wrote: »

This "close call" was caused by one person and one person alone. The captain of that aircraft. Whether he or the first officer were PF I haven't read but he/she was the person in command the person that should have abandoned the approach long before they did.

Nobody made that pilot make that judgement that day except themselves.

The crew made bad decisions and should be held accountable for their actions. They broke several of Ryanairs SOPs and rules by carrying out this approach and letting it get so unstable, any pilot with half their wits about them would have gone around ages before these two did. Do people really think they pushed on with this approach just to save face or money? Do you not realize tis very simple to come up with plenty of reasons for a late arrival and not get any stick from anyone? Lots of Ryanair aircraft leave the stand late every day and their crews make perfect approaches, these two pilots ****ed up, plain and simple, but its Ryanairs fault as much as its Boeings fault.

I've been posting on here for over ten years and spoken to many, many Ryanair pilots. None that I've spoken to would risk their own lives to save a few dollars of fuel or make the gate on time. This idea that they are all racing around the skies at top speed, running on vapours, making risky approaches and hurtling down taxiways just to make money is BULL****. These are professional people folks, ones that have studied hard and paid deeply for their wings, and I don't see them quitting Ryanair in droves or screaming to the papers every week about their terrible lifestyle. On the contrary, the majority seem perfectly happy with their lot and just get their heads down and get on with it.

This was clearly a crew error, the continual moaning of "Ryanair are meanies" has got REALLY old on this forum and in the media. If you don't like them, don't fly them. This incident could have happened at any airline.

Flier wrote: »

Seriously, this is the kind of attitude that the aviation industry has come a long way from over the last few decades, thankfully. It is why we have CRM, confidential reporting systems, and 'no blame' policies. I have yet to see an accident or serious incident that is caused by one factor, one person or one crew.

True, so why do you think this crew did it??
Just two 'bad eggs' on the day?

There is an increasing trend worldwide of incident/accidents occurring when crews elect to take visual approaches instead of a published (and possibly lengthy) procedural approach. Many of the airports that these happen at are places without all-singing, all-dancing navigational aids and are in close proximity to terrain.

If, as pclancy suggests, all flight crew operate to such high standards so as to not "risk their own lives to save a few dollars of fuel or make the gate on time" why are crews making such decisions? Are you suggesting that there is never an external commercial consideration?

Given the way the airline industry has gone in relation to the relentless pursuit of cost, it naturally falls that aircraft commanders are reminded that decisions they make can dramatically affect the cost (read: profit) of a particular operation.

As has also been pointed out (no so elegantly), there is a neat line of responsibility that ends at the licence-holder at the front of the airplane when things do happen, and this can suit very nicely for investigative (blame?) purposes. Regulators have little interest in looking at the operators when they have this situation.

Where an operator is a net cash generator for the regulatory authorities, who is it easier to go after?

Are we actually supposed to think that flight crews have just decided to take the riskier option when presented with a choice with no external influences?

Tenger

pclancy wrote: »

As I predicted, this incident has now been elevated by the tabloid journos to "Ryanair are dangerous" stage and they've insightfully stuck the Spanish fuel incidents and a loss of cabin pressure incidents (though completely unrelated) into the bottom of the article to drive home their professional opinion that Ryanair are dangerous and therefore spreading fear into the minds of average Joe passenger and igniting the wrath of Ryanairs legal team. All to sell papers and advertising space. They know as much about aviation safety as my granny.

What utter bollocks from aviation journalism. Again. It does no good for anyone.
.......

Unfortunately the tabloids will always go with the drama. No reason to try to connect decomps with this incident.

I love the "we plunged 20K ft after decompression" story....no mention that by doing so they followed SOPs and saved the pax.

This crap happens regardless of airline.

pclancy

Flier, I have no idea why the crew did it or why good CRM didn't come into play a lot earlier in the incident or how things got so unstable. Do you? Would you not apportion at least some of the blame to the people up front that day rather then those back at head office?

In retrospect I think that it was unfair of me to suggest that the crew are entirely to blame and I retract that statement, obviously external commercial factors DO influence SOME pilots to the point that they will let things get so out of hand that a normal landing becomes a very close call with disaster.

But I still feel and I'm sure most will agree that its the commanders responsibility to command their aircraft safely and that the buck stops at their stripes as to decision making when in the air. I've had several PMs from Ryanair pilots on either side of the fence, some that hate their job and their life and can't wait to get out, others who are happy with things as they are and are equally annoyed by bad press/PR mix.

So now I'm not really sure what to think except I'm glad I'm not a pilot.

Flier

pc TBH I have no idea why this incident happened. Yes, the crew made mistakes - that's obvious. They ended up in a situation that they should never have been in. But blaming the two guys at the pointy end does nothing to prevent the same thing from happening tomorrow. There are always other factors, be it commercial, training, tech, whatever. Neither am I (or did I) blame 'those back at head office'. But something went on that led to that crew putting themselves, the rest of their crew, their passengers and the aircraft in serious jeopardy. Unless we can take a step back and look at all the factors honestly, figure out why two professional airline pilots allowed themselves to get into that situation, then we are no wiser. And no safer.

castie

John_Mc wrote: »

It's not wrong though. 500ft with a descent rate of 3000+ ft/min is seconds from disaster.

I mean where they say the report said it was because they were trying to make up lost time!
They make it out that the offical report states the cause of it as being "making up time".

smurfjed

the cause of it as being "making up time".

In a way it was, the crew elected to use RWY 24 as the after landing taxi distance to the apron was shorter, they expected radar vectors to the final approach as this was the norm on their previous flights to this airport and shown in company briefing, they were given a procedural joining instruction from ATC, this would have brought them over the airport, then track outbound prior to turning left to intercept the ILS, rather than do that, they elected to go visual as the flight path was shorter. The result was an extremely poor approach.

To answer the question about who was flying, The PIC reduced the speed to 220 kts

but its Ryanairs fault as much as its Boeings fault.

Why blame Boeing? From what i read in the report the aircraft was fully serviceable.

BFU report...http://www.bfu-web.de/cln_032/nn_1198882/EN/Publications/Interim__Reports/IR2012/I1__Report__12__EX002__B737__Memmingen,templateId=raw,property=publicationFile.pdf/I1_Report_12_EX002_B737_Memmingen.pdf

smurfjed

Bearcat

It makes grimacing reading.

pclancy

smurfjed wrote: »

Why blame Boeing? From what i read in the report the aircraft was fully serviceable.
smurfjed

I was of the opinion that blaming the operator was as much use as blaming the manufacturer in this case when my opinion was neither was at fault.

MoeJay

Who is at fault?

http://www.aaiu.ie/node/151 (reading of the report required)

http://www.aaiu.ie/node/191

http://www.aaiu.ie/node/198

And note the commentary from this report [my emphasis]:

http://www.aaiu.ie/node/158

"Situational awareness and vigilance, together with anticipation of increasing exposure to risks and hazards need to go hand-in-hand with general monitoring and implementation of normal operating procedures. While routine is also essential in establishing the framework of safe operation, it is also possible to succumb to complacency. The modern day commercial aviation concept of repetitive short sector flights with rapid turnarounds, coupled with the commercial pressures associated with ground handling at high activity airports makes for a continued high pressure environment for the flight crews."

Who is responsible for the so-called "modern day commercial aviation concept"?

Bearcat

Moejay , your pulling incidents out of the bag here dating back over 8 yrs.

I think this page is more apt.......http://www.aaiu.ie/node/401 . Latest foreign reports relating to Irish registered aircraft.

MoeJay

I appreciate the link; given the relative size of Irish operators, the largest (in terms of number of aircraft) even with the same rate of incident occurrence will have a greater actual number.

What strikes me is the recurrence of a particular type of incident (that is strangely absent from other reports) which still points back to the commentary from 2005 which identified the "high pressure environment" - my question is given the identified environment in which crews operate, is there not a correlation between that and the incidents that take place, or is it purely down to individual crews? The same question can (and probably should) be asked of any operator, by the way.

The question still stands: Who is responsible for the so-called "modern day commercial aviation concept"?

Who is responsible for the creation of the "high pressure environment"?

Fully Established

pclancy wrote: »

I was of the opinion that blaming the operator was as much use as blaming the manufacturer in this case when my opinion was neither was at fault.

How was the manufacturer at fault here ,i understand the flight crew were the ones responsible for the decisions made and nearly causing an accident for such wreckless decisions ,but i also believe the company has a part to play in part for this.These Ryanair flight crew operate under intense pressure from management including the amount of fuel they take where they can divert to and making up for lost time ,if you need to see proof have a look at Ryanair aircraft taxying speeds at airports compared to other airlines whose crews dont have the management spying over their every move which in turn subconciously has Ryanair Pilots under more pressure than need be .

APM

Fully Established wrote: »

,if you need to see proof have a look at Ryanair aircraft taxying speeds at airports compared to other airlines whose crews dont have the management spying over their every move which in turn subconciously has Ryanair Pilots under more pressure than need be .

Ryanair pilots taxi at the speeds recommended by Boeing in the 737NG FCTM (Flight Crew Training Manual)....max of 30kts in a straight line on a taxiway and 10kts into the turns (50kts backtracking an active Runway) If they don't the OFDM onboard knows about it and they will be quite quick to alert the Captain after the flight.

If Boeing say its okay to do it then where is the problem?

pclancy

Fully Established and Smurjed both took me wrong....I was not saying Boeing are at fault in any way at all, my point was I didnt think Ryanair themselves were at fault either.

Fully Established

As i pointed out in an earlier post about stress of being a " low cost pilot " here is some good reading about the daily life on the line. No prizes for guessing which airline this is.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/115133965/Life-on-the-Line

Fully Established

APM wrote: »

Ryanair pilots taxi at the speeds recommended by Boeing in the 737NG FCTM (Flight Crew Training Manual)....max of 30kts in a straight line on a taxiway and 10kts into the turns (50kts backtracking an active Runway) If they don't the OFDM onboard knows about it and they will be quite quick to alert the Captain after the flight.

If Boeing say its okay to do it then where is the problem?

Thats good that you include the word MAX for the speeds , are these speeds wet or dry speeds ? Because the 737NG FCTM states the MAX speeds does that mean you must acheive these speeds when taxying ?

Tenger

As with everything in aviation.......safety limits should not be seen as targets.

APM

Fully Established wrote: »

Thats good that you include the word MAX for the speeds , are these speeds wet or dry speeds ? Because the 737NG FCTM states the MAX speeds does that mean you must acheive these speeds when taxying ?

Max speeds are of course max and then as airmen we would impose our own limits suitable to the conditions. In Modlin last week I didn't see the groundspeed achieve anything more than 5kts. With regards to 10kts into corners, I don't think it matters wet or dry. 10kts is a fast walking pace.

Likewise in Dublin/Stansted/Madrid in a queue we ain't taxiing any faster than the guys in front of us. Most taxi routes in the airfields we fly to aren't long enough to reach the 30kts very often anyway.

I think this thread is going off on an unnecessary tangent. Unless you'd like to tell us what speeds your airline taxi around? I'd be interested to know other published limits?

As I said, we have our limits and we don't go speeding around the place like you were saying. Bar one recent taxi incident in the last couple of years (which happened at very slow speed) I can' think of any evidence you have to backup that Ryanair taxi around at reckless taxi speeds.

stoneill

bluecode wrote: »

The Mail article used the word 'plunged'. Never saw that coming. :rolleyes:

On the other hand the reader comments are similar to the Av herald's. I suppose the mail will now receive a similar letter threatening them with court action. No doubt Boards will follow and PPRuNe and every other forum and online site with reader comments.

They can't sue them all.

Actually the people to blame for all this are Ryanair management starting with O'Leary and working it's way down the chain. All his managers seem to ape his attitude and their utter disdain for their staff and customers is no secret. From the way the pilots and CC are treated to the way customers are treated. They've made enemies now. The Spanish are out to get them and it's hard to find anyone who likes Ryanair even those who use them regularly. It's hard to find a staff member who'll tell you they love to work for Ryanair.

They've gone too far and as a result every single incident no matter how minor is reported as a near disaster. The irony of the low fuel incidents in Madrid is that it demonstrated that correct and safe procedures were followed. But Joe Public thinks they nearly ran out of fuel.

It's said that all publicity is good publicity. Up to a point and I think Ryanair has crossed that point. They have lost the PR battle in terms of safety despite the fact that they are in all probablity safer than many better known airlines. Once the public perceive Ryanair as unsafe, people will pay more to fly for other airlines. They will lose customers. One serious accident and they will lose a lot of customers.

O'Leary for all his business acumen has somehow managed to produce an Irish company that has a reputation for unfriendliness, a company that tries to rip people off, a company that doesn't even pretend to value it's customers. A company that treats the people who work for it as mere commodities. A company that insults some of it's most important workers on a daily basis. A company that now is seen as unsafe to fly with by many people.

I never understood why Ryanair had to be so actively hostile and arrogant to virtually everyone it comes into contact with. It really doesn't cost anything to be friendly. There is no need for much of nonsense you get with Ryanair.

Imagine if not only Ryanair offered competitive fares but also was popular with it's customer base and had a loyal employee corps. Nothing could stop it growing.

It's puzzling.

Really Ryanair management should begin to rein in their attitudes and try and mend a few fences. Being nicer costs nothing. But it may already be too late.

Excellent - this should be sent to MOL and Ryanair!

phonypony

APM wrote: »

10kts is a fast walking pace.

That's some pair of legs!!

smurfjed

Unless you'd like to tell us what speeds your airline taxi around? I'd be interested to know other published limits?

We have the same max taxi speeds.

smurfjed