Ryanair at Tallinn on Dec 22nd 2014, loss of separation on runway

fr336

http://avherald.com/h?article=47f48fe6&opt=0&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Call a late go around and you have to expect the aircraft to go wheels on, The Ryanair is in the flare and possibly throttled back it takes a few moments for the power to come back up and it was probably safer to touchdown like that rather than risk a tail strike.

Jack1985

Yikes! Basically continued to flare whilst the ATR just begun to exit the runway?? ATC imo should have instructed a go-around earlier.

Jack1985

Jack1985 wrote: »

Yikes! Basically continued to flare whilst the ATR just begun to exit the runway?? ATC imo should have instructed a go-around earlier.

Correct

notharrypotter

ATC imo should have instructed a go-around earlier.

And

Correct

Curious to see what basis for this assumption?

Growler!!!

But was the Ryanair cleared to land? The investigation is not why did it land with the other aircraft on the active runway but why did it land without clearence.

billie1b

Growler!!! wrote: »

But was the Ryanair cleared to land? The investigation is not why did it land with the other aircraft on the active runway but why did it land without clearence.

Agreed, my take from it is the g/a was iniated due to no landing clearance, you can hear her spool up a few seconds before touchdown, probably around the piano keys area of the RWY

notharrypotter

notharrypotter wrote: »

And


Curious to see what basis for this assumption?

Because it didn't work, ATR not clear when 737 touched down !! Or did I miss something?

Yes I could have FR bashed but I gave them the benefit of the doubt.

Several pilots have told me in this situation it's safer to put the wheels on than risk a tailstrike waiting on the power to come in.

notharrypotter

!! Or did I miss something

In the absence of supporting audio data you (and other posters) implied that ATC did not give an instruction to break off the approach.

But was the Ryanair cleared to land?

This is currently unknown based on the information available.

The clip has been edited as there is an instantaneous jump from the landing at 1:41 to the arrival without panning the length of the runway.
In light of this the clip should be viewed with caution.

Tallinn's Air Traffic Control confirmed on local Estonian TV news that the Ryanair Boeing did not receive landing clearance, the occurrence is being investigated by Estonian Authorities.

The data available do not permit to accurately claim the Boeing crew acted outside their clearances

Based on the article one can surmise that someone pilot or ATC initiated a go around.
And during this manoeuvre the pilot "landed" momentarily.

The occurrence therefore was rated an incident and is not being investigated

The linked article seems to indicate that the Estonian authorities view this as a non event.

So I feel its probably best to wait for further investigation(if any) to take place before we start giving our expert comments.

billy few mates

The linked article seems to indicate that the Estonian authorities view this as a non event.

A non event....?

I don't know about you but I wouldn't view this as a "non event"....

smurfjed

but I wouldn't view this as a "non event".

But where are you viewing it from? A passengers perspective or a pilots?

billy few mates

smurfjed wrote: »

But where are you viewing it from? A passengers perspective or a pilots?

An industry insider...

IngazZagni

billy few mates wrote: »

A non event....?

I don't know about you but I wouldn't view this as a "non event"....

If a go around is made at 50 feet it is not uncommon for the aircraft to touch the runway first. It's a 60 tonne aircraft afterall. Touching the runway is not the issue, it's a normal event to be expected as outlined in many manuals such as the boeing flight crew training manual for the 737ng.

Many airports give a "land after" clearance which gives the responsibility of continuing the approach to the pilot. However I doubt Tallin has these procedures in place.

There was an incident earlier this year at a major UK airport which had a plane "go around" at 50 feet and get way too close for comfort to the aircraft in front that was taking off. This is still being investigated.

I think many operators don't have a policy of when to go around if you haven't been cleared to land. This is probably something that should be looked into.

billy few mates

If a go around is made at 50 feet it is not uncommon for the aircraft to touch the runway first. It's a 60 tonne aircraft afterall. Touching the runway is not the issue, it's a normal event...

Clearly I understand that but I wasn't referring to the the fact that the A/C touched the ground as being the 'event', I was saying that the incident as a whole should not be viewed as a "non event" as suggested by @notharrypotter.....

notharrypotter

billy few mates wrote: »

Clearly I understand that but I wasn't referring to the the fact that the A/C touched the ground as being the 'event', I was saying that the incident as a whole should not be viewed as a "non event" as suggested by @notharrypotter.....

Based on the linked article the Estonian authorities have examined the occurrence.

One would suppose that they have access to the relevant audio and radar data.

Following the investigation of the competent authorities have deemed it a "non-event".

So a group of posters in Ireland know better?

man98

Someone once told me he'd had a near miss over in Montreal Mirabel with a plane about to take off. While I very much doubt any of us have much knowledge of what happened here, it really does depend on where the ATR was on the runway at the time when the B738 made contact with the runway. Judging by the Estonian investigation, I doubt there was much risk here. I would probably see it as not so much a non-event, but a learning curve (maybe the Estonian ATCs/ pilots on approach) will make sure runway is clear.

billy few mates

So a group of posters in Ireland know better?

While you might consider it a "non event" it's actually a Reportable Incident which warrants a 'Mandatory Occurance Report' (MOR), and a full investigation as per SI No.285 (2007)

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2007/en/si/0285.html

1. AIRCRAFT FLIGHT OPERATIONS

(1) Operation of the aircraft:

(a) Avoidance manoeuvres:

(i) risk of collision with another aircraft, terrain or other object or an unsafe situation when avoidance action would have been appropriate;

(ii) an avoidance manoeuvre required to avoid a collision with another aircraft, terrain or other object;

(iii) an avoidance manoeuvre to avoid other unsafe situations.

(b) Take-off or landing incidents, including—

(i) precautionary or forced landings,

(ii) incidents such as under-shooting, overrunning or running off the side of runways,

(iii) take-offs, rejected take-offs, landings or attempted landings on a closed, occupied or incorrect runway, and

(iv) runway incursions.

smurfjed

Did you ascertain that they went around because of the risk of collision or the lack of ATC landing permission? Do you think that they could actually see the ATR?

IngazZagni

billy few mates wrote: »

While you might consider it a "non event" it's actually a Reportable Incident which warrants a 'Mandatory Occurance Report' (MOR), and a full investigation as per SI No.285 (2007)

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2007/en/si/0285.html

What's the definition of an attempted landing? Where is the cut off point? There are many approaches all over the world which result in a go around due to an occupied runway, they are not all reportable though. Take a look at Gatwick for example or even Heathrow. Traffic gets super close to each other all the time and occasionally too close which will result in a go around. Traffic at these airports however are issued with "land after" clearances. What I can see here is that a go around was initiated before the aircraft landed but due to momentum of a 60 tonne aircraft it touched the runway which as I said earlier is normal.

Landing is ICAO defined as from the Flare till the aircraft vacates the runway.

The SI that has been quoted is from Ireland it's not relevant in Estonia, most likely it was reported/MOR'd and investigated but nothing as far as the Estonias are concerned will come of it. The Estonians have decided it was a "non event".

smurfjed

SI No.285 (2007)

I'm curious, are the SI's still valid? I thought that they were superseded by JAROPS?

GVHOT, if reported, then it would have gone to Ryanair, who would pass it to the IAA/AAIU and then the Estonians.

Growler!!!

JAROPS/EASAOPS are pan European, individual authorities can implement rules within their own jurisdiction. So the SI are very much valid, once in date of course.

smurfjed

So the SI are very much valid, once in date of course.

Thanks. I thought that the migration across to JAROPS covered all related SI's, hence the reason that this SI hasn't changed in 7 years

billy few mates

I'm curious, are the SI's still valid?

Yes, in fact the IAA website directs you to them...
https://www.iaa.ie/mor

The SI that has been quoted is from Ireland it's not relevant in Estonia....

Not sure if you're being serious or not but just in case...
The incident happened in Estonia, the A/C is registered in Ireland the crew are legally mandated to file an MOR regardless of where the incident takes place, end of story....

It's up to the IAA to decide what classification of an event this is but it's most certainly not a "non event".....

smurfjed

Yes, in fact the IAA website directs you to them...
https://www.iaa.ie/mor

Thanks...

(g) Go around producing a hazardous or potentially hazardous situation.

Is the only reference to a Go Around in that SI, therefore if the crew went around because of the lack of landing clearance, would you still consider it a MOR?

Growler!!!

smurfjed wrote: »

Thanks...

Is the only reference to a Go Around in that SI, therefore if the crew went around because of the lack of landing clearance, would you still consider it a MOR?

It may be a company SOP to report all go arounds (mine included). It's up to the safety manager to push it further up the chain. Maybe not an mor though.

ProfessorPlum

Deleted User wrote: »

Landing is ICAO defined as from the Flare till the aircraft vacates the runway.

The SI that has been quoted is from Ireland it's not relevant in Estonia, most likely it was reported/MOR'd and investigated but nothing as far as the Estonias are concerned will come of it. The Estonians have decided it was a "non event".

It most certainly is relevant. As an Irish registered aircraft, they are expected to operate within Irish Law, and report to the IAA, so regardless of what the Estonians thought of the situation, the IAA also have a regulatory function here. By the way, where does the quote that the Estonians decided it was a 'non event' come from? According to the AvHerald article, the Estonians regard it as an incident. Hardly a non event then.

Personally I would report any go around from a low level where there is runway contact. It's a baulked landing, and is a much more hazardous event than a standard go around. I think the issues that got the crew into that situation deserve looking at. Especially given the conditions at the time (snow on the metar iirc) I would be slow to assume the aircraft in front of me would necessarily make an uneventful exit from the runway.

smurfjed

Sorry I may not have been 100% clear when I responded, sorry for any misunderstanding it caused I'll try an explain.

smurfjed wrote: »

GVHOT, if reported, then it would have gone to Ryanair, who would pass it to the IAA/AAIU and then the Estonians.

It will have been reported first by the ATCO to his ANSP who will have investigated. ATCO's are also legally required to report all incidents.

Growler!!! wrote: »

JAROPS/EASAOPS are pan European, individual authorities can implement rules within their own jurisdiction. So the SI are very much valid, once in date of course.

I meant from the Estonian perspective sorry, Irish SI's will mean nothing to Estonian ATC. Obviously it's relevant to the Flightcrew.

billy few mates wrote: »

Yes, in fact the IAA website directs you to them...
https://www.iaa.ie/mor


Not sure if you're being serious or not but just in case...
The incident happened in Estonia, the A/C is registered in Ireland the crew are legally mandated to file an MOR regardless of where the incident takes place, end of story....

It's up to the IAA to decide what classification of an event this is but it's most certainly not a "non event".....

Sorry I clarified above.

Its actually Estonian ATC's responsibility to determine the classification its then up to the IAA to determine if they are happy with the report. Otherwise there would be investigators from all over the world crisscrossing it to investigate anything that happened to one of their registered aircraft.

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

It most certainly is relevant. As an Irish registered aircraft, they are expected to operate within Irish Law, and report to the IAA, so regardless of what the Estonians thought of the situation, the IAA also have a regulatory function here. By the way, where does the quote that the Estonians decided it was a 'non event' come from? According to the AvHerald article, the Estonians regard it as an incident. Hardly a non event then.

Again I clarified above, I was talking, and sorry I wasn't clear about it, from an Estonian ATC perspective, Irish SI's are not relevant to them otherwise ATC worldwide would have to be cognisant of every Law/SI worldwide.

The 'Non Event' quote came from an earlier poster hence my quote marks.

notharrypotter

The 'Non Event' quote

is mine.

It is based on the information available on the avherald website.

If anyone else had information on the occurrence that they wish to post it would be appreciated.

Again to reiterate based on the information currently in the public domain the competent authorities have deemed it a non-event.

The base regulation is EU42 of 2003.
It mandates the sharing of safety information.

As has been pointed out all Ryanair aircraft have Irish registrations then in the fullness of time the IAA will get the report from their Estonian counterparts.

If then the IAA feel that it warrants further action that will be well within their remit.

I will admit that I am fascinated by the level of expertise shown here.

billy few mates

Following the investigation of the competent authorities have deemed it a "non-event".

So a group of posters in Ireland know better?

Correct.

As has been pointed out all Ryanair aircraft have Irish registrations then in the fullness of time the IAA will get the report from their Estonian counterparts.

If then the IAA feel that it warrants further action that will be well within their remit

Incorrect, the crew will submit an MOR and the IAA will investigate it, the Estonians can hold their own investigation.

I will admit that I am fascinated by the level of expertise shown here.

Thank you.

IngazZagni

billy few mates wrote: »

Correct.


Incorrect, the crew will submit an MOR and the IAA will investigate it, the Estonians can hold their own investigation.



Thank you.

I'm perplexed. What exactly has happened here to warrant any investigation outside of Ryanair? The go around was initiated before the landing as defined by ICAO. (thanks GVHOT for clarifying that). So what am I missing?

Also a MOR is not submitted by the crew, it is submitted by the company. The crew would file an internal report for this, just like any other low level go around. It's then up to the company if it warrants any further action.

ProfessorPlum

notharrypotter wrote: »

is mine.

It is based on the information available on the avherald website.

If anyone else had information on the occurrence that they wish to post it would be appreciated.

Again to reiterate based on the information currently in the public domain the competent authorities have deemed it a non-event.

The base regulation is EU42 of 2003.
It mandates the sharing of safety information.

As has been pointed out all Ryanair aircraft have Irish registrations then in the fullness of time the IAA will get the report from their Estonian counterparts.

If then the IAA feel that it warrants further action that will be well within their remit.

I will admit that I am fascinated by the level of expertise shown here.

I'm not sure what Av Herald you're reading, but the one I read clearly states that the Estonian authorities regard the occurance as an incident.
An incident is not a 'non event'. It is a legal term with a defined meaning in aviation.

"An occurrence, other than an accident, associated with the operation of an aircraft which affects or could affect the safety of operation."

Not to harp on about the incident under discussion (because it's been done to death), but nothing bad needs to happen for an event to be an incident. Ithe potential for affecting safety is also taken into account. Which is why I would imagine the CAA recorded the event as an incident.

smurfjed

the occurrence is being investigated by Estonian Authorities.

The occurrence therefore was rated an incident and is not being investigated.

Prior to editing the report on the 27th, Avhearld used the term non-event rather than incident.

ProfessorPlum

smurfjed wrote: »

Prior to editing the report on the 27th, Avhearld used the term non-event rather than incident.

Ah perhaps that could explain it. Not like Simon to get it wrong.
Although it appears the poster is referencing the edited article.

notharrypotter wrote: »

Quote:
The occurrence therefore was rated an incident and is not being investigated

The linked article seems to indicate that the Estonian authorities view this as a non event.

billy few mates

It's worth mentioning that many companies have their own Occurance Reporting procedures in place so that incidents and events can be dealt with a local level instead of the authorities like the IAA having to micro manage every reported event. The authorities retain full oversight on these schemes and if necessary can step in and investigate incidents at a national (and international) level when required. Events like this can be reported (and dealt with) internally but the operator can also choose to forward them to the authorities if they wish through a voluntary disclosure type scheme and the authorities through regular auditing can also choose to take a closer look at some reports.
Even though companies have their own internal scheme there is nothing to prevent an individual from submitting an MOR directly to the authorities (although some companies might frown on this).
The important thing is that the event gets reported through whichever system so that people can learn from them, it's not a blame thing.