Does Ryanair really land hard as people say?

[james_2k 36]

it doesnt.

[FromTheFlightDeck_Sim 6]

It could also just be the difference between a 737 and the A320. After all, the A320 is a newer aircraft and it's probably better equipped for landings.

Isn't the 737 a bit lower compared to the A320?

[nealmac 260]

Isn't the 737 a bit lower compared to the A320?

No idea mate. I was just throwing it out there, as I thought it may or may not be a factor.

[james_2k 36]

aircraft all have different suspension, same as cars.

[el_kab0ng 29]

Aren't airlines required to certify their autoland systems at least once a year? I've been told this process can result in a pretty hard landing as well, although it would make up only a fraction of the hard landings everyone here seems to experience.

[lzamm 143]

Now THIS is definitely a hard landing:

 

http://avherald.com/h?article=49fb9d1b&opt=0

[lencarne 6]

 

 

One more thing, I can't be definite, but as far as I know, Aer Lingus usually fly with a cost index of 40 whereas Ryanair uses 6. I have no idea if this has any bearing on landing performance.

 

They probably dont have enough fuel for a go around lol

[Jude Bradley 659]

I fly from Dublin to various airports in the UK (and back) on average about once per week. I use Ryanair and Aer Lingus in equal amounts. I'll always take an Aer Lingus flight if I can. I can say with absolute certainty that Ryanair have harder landings. As for the reason, I don't know, but people have pointed out some good theories above. I particularly like the one about leaving the runway at the earliest possible taxiway, it would make perfect sense from a Ryanair point of view as they pride themselves in their quick turnaround and "on time" flights (even though they try to make out that the flight time is much longer than it actually is). I also like the theory about the younger and less experienced pilots, but in all honesty I often see a lot of older pilots as well, and they also make hard landings.

 

Aer Lingus on the other hand are a different type of airline. They're always more expensive, but they are far more relaxed in the cabin, and they don't spend the entire flight trying to sell you smokeless ciggies and scratch cards. And their landings are definitely much smoother.

 

It could also just be the difference between a 737 and the A320. After all, the A320 is a newer aircraft and it's probably better equipped for landings.

 

One more thing, I can't be definite, but as far as I know, Aer Lingus usually fly with a cost index of 40 whereas Ryanair uses 6. I have no idea if this has any bearing on landing performance.

Agreed, it could be that Ryanair pushes their pilots to do more manual landings than Aer Lingus does, but it could also be their individual training technique.

[THibben 16]

I spent most of my career in Boeing Flight test.  I was a test engineer and flew on the test flights of the second 737 built.  As I recall the 737 is certified to land at up to 10 fps.  Believe me that is rather firm.  After a series of those I decided to stand during the landing...grin .

 

Tom

[Yosserhughes 0]

They sure do! Flew to Birmingham with them recently,as we were about to land I had my head resting on the panel beside the window..Saw the runway coming up towards me really fast and moved my head just before the plane thumped down on the runway...Everybody on the plane was shocked...Coming home that same evening we were just about to turn on to the runway and obviously the pilot misjudged and had to slam on the brakes..The plane banked over and same thing everybody was talking about it...

[Airline2Sim 489]

Having chatted to some of our guys about this (one ex-RYR), it appears that there are two main factors behind landings with the harp on the tail seeming a little firmer than most:

 

1) the -800 is famously not the easiest thing to grease, unlike the older classic 737 models. Apparently the -200 was the sweet spot and Boeing's nipping and tucking for the NG ruined the handling - also see the MD-11 and Q400 for more...

 

2) RYR are very 'touch down zone' focussed. They operate to a huge variety of destinations in all kinds of weathers and some of them are marginal in length or a little primitive in the nav aid department, or both. They want you to get it down, regardless of runway length.

[hogu_gtfr 0]

Undertrained pilots, they think that they will learn over time. They have taken people with less than 50 hours of registered flying.

[hogu_gtfr 0]

What if they bought an A380 or a 747

[Chock 17,769]

Ryanair use reverse thrust as much as they can, rather than wheel braking to slow their 737s down, because they don't give a toss about wear and tear on their engines since they lease them and will happily wear them out and swap them on a regular basis; their rather frequent TBO figure does not affect the overall deal they have for the engines they use, so it's no skin off their nose to use the thrust fro stopping and save on brake and tire wear. This might have a bearing on what people experience with their landings, which in combination with them planting stuff down hard in order to get the wheels to spin up quickly upon touchdown and reduce the scrub wear on the tires, will have people noticing the way they make their touchdowns.

Having said that, you get what you pay for with Ryanair. I don't have a problem with them, I've flown with them a few times and it was unashamedly cheap and cheerful and never pretended to be otherwise, but it was perfectly adequate. Most of the complaints people make about Ryanair are because they have a misplaced sense of entitlement: They want a Rolls Royce for the price of a Ford Fiesta and complain when they don't get that.

Edited December 5, 2018 by Chock

[G-RFRY 1,712]

I have never flown Ryanair but I remember a case in Alicante when they landed without clearance from the tower as they were low on fuel the airline got fined, carrying more fuel cost more and they were below the recommend reserve.