Ryanair on RWY 28 on 15th Feb

happy_head

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2283617/Ryanair-just-screwed-What-Dublin-Airport-flight-controller-told-airline-plane-forced-jets-abort-landing.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

Before people have a go at me, I'm not a Ryanair basher!! Just wondering does anyone have an idea of what time this occurrence took place on the 15th of Feb? Just spotted it in the news today, would love to hear the ATC recording of it but need to know an approximate time to enter into liveatc archive. Cheers

phonypony

happy_head wrote: »

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2283617/Ryanair-just-screwed-What-Dublin-Airport-flight-controller-told-airline-plane-forced-jets-abort-landing.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

Before people have a go at me, I'm not a Ryanair basher!! Just wondering does anyone have an idea of what time this occurrence took place on the 15th of Feb? Just spotted it in the news today, would love to hear the ATC recording of it but need to know an approximate time to enter into liveatc archive. Cheers

Have a gander at the Dublin Spotters thread

happy_head

phonypony wrote: »

Have a gander at the Dublin Spotters thread

Thanks Phonypony, didn't think of looking there!

boboldpilot

Oops, doing a 180 on an active runway is pretty dumb. Smack on the wrist at least. This is not down to Ryanair procedures. Entirely down to the crew. I've actually never heard of it before.

Peregrine

Surely you would tell the controller before making a 180 on an active runway? Did they?

I couldn't understand why they said they had to make a 180 rather than exit at Bravo 7

Shamrock231

Must have been unfamiliar with the airport, listening to the recording, when asked why they did a 180 instead of leaving at the end they said because they had to brake hard. Say what???

In all seriousness, not a serious incident, more of a screw up/silly mistake, we all make 'em, sometimes there's just no knowing why.

IngazZagni

boboldpilot wrote: »

Oops, doing a 180 on an active runway is pretty dumb. Smack on the wrist at least. This is not down to Ryanair procedures. Entirely down to the crew. I've actually never heard of it before.

It's actually pretty common to do a 180 on an active runway especially in many airports that Ryanair operate to. It's not necessary to do this in Dublin however and why they didn't vacate at the end is a mystery to me. Just agreeing with the controller at the end causing a runway inspection made things worse. So yeah a cock up alright but safety was never an issue here. Of course if this were another airline would the daily mail report it? I don't think so. Remember the Monarch runway incursion at Dub? It was much more serious but nope it didn't get a mention on that paper. Agenda much..

Milan Cobian

To perform a 180 and backtrack on a runway is not a silly momentary lapse, it's a deliberate manoeuvre that requires attention and thought. And it always requires an ATC clearance, regardless of the airport. At the very least, to do it on runway 28 at DUB, would have required a total loss of situational awareness and the disregarding of all or any knowledge of the airport. Essentially, backtracking without clearance is the same as a runway incursion and is therefore classified as a serious incident.

John_Mc

Surely they reviewed the runway exit strategy as part of the approach briefing? It's a fairly conventional runway with plenty of exits on the right

Suasdaguna1

Shamrock231 wrote: »

In all seriousness, not a serious incident, more of a screw up/silly mistake, we all make 'em, sometimes there's just no knowing why.

Yes not a serious incident where damage was done but serious enough in its own context. Cost EIN I reckon 3 tons of juice with their two go arounds, one go around from short final.

You do a 180 after landing in LHR, LAX, ORD, JFK and disregard the normal procedures of vacating at the normal exits......a blow torch will be held to where the sun don't shine from the relevant authorities. Likewise the airline gets a bollocking.

Yes nothing happened but him/her in the lhs ignored all the preamble in the approach charts re minimum runway occupancy time.

castie

"While Aer Lingus flight EI-249 had not been cleared to land, the flight was less than a minute from touchdown when the crew was forced to abort."


Something not quite right about that.....

APM

castie wrote: »

"While Aer Lingus flight EI-249 had not been cleared to land, the flight was less than a minute from touchdown when the crew was forced to abort."


Something not quite right about that.....

Nothing at all wrong with that. He can't be cleared to land until the Runway is no longer occupied. This never happened here and therefore no landing clearance was issued

castie

With less than a minute from touchdown?
I would expect if I was on a plane with less than a minute to touchdown I am pretty close to the ground already.

Peregrine

castie wrote: »

"While Aer Lingus flight EI-249 had not been cleared to land, the flight was less than a minute from touchdown when the crew was forced to abort."


Something not quite right about that.....

Not at all, it's normal to receive landing clearances much later than 1 minute before touchdown. I'm not sure if it's common at Dublin though but I imagine it would be at busy periods.

Sometimes clearance is only given maybe 100ft off the ground but they might be advised to expect a late landing clearance..

Irish Steve

castie wrote: »

With less than a minute from touchdown?
I would expect if I was on a plane with less than a minute to touchdown I am pretty close to the ground already.

Depending on the final approach speed, 1 minute is probably somewhere about 2 miles from the runway and about 750 Ft above ground, so plenty of time to be sorting out a missed approach.

late landing clearance can happen after the aircraft is inside the airfield boundary, and even rarely after the aircraft has crossed the threshold but is still in the air.

If low visibility procedures are in use, then the scenario changes, in the case under discussion, the crew of the inbound aircraft would have been able to see that there was an issue, so the go around instruction was merely the verbal confirmation of something they would have been expecting as a result of seeing the 180 and the aircraft still on the runway.

The backtrack was probably a momentary brain fade, it happens to all of us at some stage or another, the "trick" is to try and have them when as few people as possible are watching or listening,

This one was unfortunately very visible and very public, and is now also being examined in minute detail by all sorts of people both inside and outside of the industry, which is not comfortable for the people directly involved.

LeftBase

castie wrote: »

With less than a minute from touchdown?
I would expect if I was on a plane with less than a minute to touchdown I am pretty close to the ground already.

The controller alerted the aircraft to the fact that the RYR was still on the runway and this is a round about way of saying "expect a late clearance or go around". It's not uncommon at busy times in airports to be told to "continue approach" and hold out for a landing clearance all the way to minimums.

Milan Cobian

"While Aer Lingus flight EI-249 had not been cleared to land, the flight was less than a minute from touchdown when the crew was forced to abort."


Something not quite right about that.....

1 minute to landing is about 700ft above the ground. In a busyish airport, clearance to land at 700ft is an early landing clearence. In busy airports receiving clearence below 200ft, ie less than 20 seconds before touchdown is not unusual. You can go-around anytime, including after touchdown, until the thrust reverses have been opened.

The backtrack was probably a momentary brainfade

Probably not. It's not a straightforward manoeuvre that's takes a few seconds; it requires deliberate actions and takes time. There are two pilots in the cockpit, both would have to have gone along with it and there was plenty of time after deciding to do it to change the plan and do something sensible.

Flier

Absolutely agree with the above. Doing a 180 on the rumway would be a highly unusual manoeuvre, which should have been briefed for before the approach. Given that Dublin 28 has taxiway for exit at the very end of the runway, there is never a reason to do a 180 (unless the taxiway is closed), so there is no reason to have briefed it. Having decided to turn 180, it is, to say the least, remarkable that ATC was not informed. Way more than a brain fade there. I really have no idea why the 2 pilots in that cockpit decided that it might be a good idea. It certainly wasn't.

Alaba320

Anyone know if there was ever a follow up to this incident? At the time, media reported that the IAA were investigating. Just wondering if there was an incident report released.