Does Ryanair really land hard as people say?

[fluffyflops 1,858]

On 12/6/2018 at 12:22 PM, simbol said:

Do you think this is due to lack of experience? in other words new pilots, etc. or do you get this from experienced pilots as well?

S.

No they are incapable of making decesions and want someone to hold their hands.  We get call upon call in occ asking us what the hold over times are, to which we always reply 'its in the winter ops manual, go read it' 

[ErichB 3,642]

11 minutes ago, tooting said:

The issue has been in gla / edi for example when they are gunning down the ils at 180 knots and there's regional twin props around it makes it a ball ache for the tower controller 

We had a skipper at Luton when I was at easyJet that used to show off to the new f/o's about how great the, 319/320 was that you could hammer it down the ils at 180 to 200 knots and then slam the gear down at 5nm to be just about stable for the landing.  The fo's used to talk about it on the bus to the car park with us in ops, and we had a girl leave occ to work in the tower at Luton and she told us this guy used to pee them off in the tower doing this type of stuff.  Luckily I belive he moved to another European base. 

 

 

I'd have thought the compliance with requirements around this type of thing would be mandatory unless safety was compromised.  Seems like a bit of a ego sandpit in reality by your account. (in edi/gla anyway)

[fluffyflops 1,858]

4 minutes ago, ErichB said:

Seems like a bit of a ego sandpit in reality by your account. (in edi/gla anyway)

That's the point I'm making. 

Same bloke once operated an empty sector from Turin to Luton, my mate was the f/o on it and he had littery just qualified from CTC and had done his final line check the week before. 

They departed out of Turin, at 5000 feet the skipper gets up says to my mate, 'you have control' and gets out of the flight deck to the cabin of the empty aircraft to chat up the 4 cabin crew. 

He then entered back into the flight deck ON THE DESCENT  at 12000 feet.  My mate who brand new had the fly the aircraft pretty much the whole way while he was sharking the crew in the cabin. 

That evening my mate called me in a right state asking should he of reported it to the base captain.  He never did in the end, too scared of the repercussions. 

Edited December 7, 2018 by tooting

[skelsey 765]

11 minutes ago, tooting said:

The issue has been in gla / edi for example when they are gunning down the ils at 180 knots and there's regional twin props around it makes it a ball ache for the tower controller 

We had a skipper at Luton when I was at easyJet that used to show off to the new f/o's about how great the, 319/320 was that you could hammer it down the ils at 180 to 200 knots and then slam the gear down at 5nm to be just about stable for the landing.  The fo's used to talk about it on the bus to the car park with us in ops, and we had a girl leave occ to work in the tower at Luton and she told us this guy used to pee them off in the tower doing this type of stuff. 

So had ATC issued an actual speed restriction?

If not then... well, seems a bit rich to then complain what they really wanted was for the aircraft to fly a particular speed...

[JRBarrett 3,070]

On 12/6/2018 at 9:02 AM, jon b said:

I'm sure(I hope) it's a rhetorical question, what is probably meant is, has engineering arranged for deicing yet? and if not why not. Deicing requests are usually an engineering function initially, as part of the engineer's preflight inspection. 

With ice there is no grey area, it's zero allowed on the  upper wing surfaces, if you have to ask the question there is no question. There are times when experience comes into play, for example if there's a small patch of frost over the wing tanks you know that most likely adding fresh "warm" fuel will melt the frost, saving a large bill for deicing, but you have to weigh that up with the ambient temperature and how long until departure etc. Make the wrong call you still end up with a bill, plus a delay as well.

In our corporate operation located in the northeastern US, the only situation where pilots would solicit the opinion of ground crews in the deice truck, would be whether or not to use type IV fluid after doing an initial application of heated type I fluid.

The scenario where this would arise would be where the air temperature at the surface is above freezing, but still cold enough for precipitation to fall as snowflakes. Those of us working in the bucket of the deice truck are in the best position to see if any flakes that contact the wing or upper surface of the tail are melting on contact after the heated type I fluid has been applied. If we report that the flakes are melting, the pilot may choose to forego type IV anti-icing fluid. There are typically no departure delays at our airport, so the aircraft can be on the runway quickly after leaving the deice pad.

If the temperature is below freezing then there is no question. We apply both type I and type IV fluid, and give the crew the time that the first surface application of type IV was made so that they can calculate their holdover time.

[fluffyflops 1,858]

I think the tower thought 'what's this muppet doing there's no need to do that speed down the ils'.  Needless to say the residents down by the brache and in Hightown that heard the dude hammering it with the speed brakes up. 

(Many moons ago when I lived in Luton close to the airport you would hear a really noisey airbus coming it and I'd look out of flat window and it was always wizzair gunning with the speed brakes up) 

Anyway He's was known to the tower because he had a thick accent and the girl whod worked in OCC knew his voice and knew  he was an word not allowed and probably mentioned it to them

 

Edited December 7, 2018 by tooting

[FDEdev 955]

6 minutes ago, tooting said:

I think the tower thought 'what's this muppet doing there's no need to do that speed down the ils'.  Needless to say the residents down by the brache and in Hightown that heard the dude hammering it with the speed brakes up. 

Quite a bit of nonsense and hearsay in your last few posts. That said, 180-200kts on the ILS and extending the gear at 1500ft isn't anything special, neither in an A320 nor a 737 etc.

FYI, most turboprops can easily match (and exceed) 200kts on the ILS. Due to the lack of weight, the high drag with the props full forward and the power levers at idle, they can reduce the speed later and more quickly than e.g. an A320.    

Edited December 7, 2018 by FDEdev

[fluffyflops 1,858]

3 minutes ago, FDEdev said:

Quite a bit of nonsense and hearsay in your last few posts. That said 180-200kts on the ILS and extending the gear at 1500ft isn't anything special, neither in an A320 nor a 737 etc.

FYI, most turboprops can easily match (and exceed) 200kts on the ILS. Due to the lack of weight and the high drag with the props full forward and the power levers at idle they can reduce the speed later and more quickly than e.g. an A320.    

Maybe he was going faster then but the bloke in question was well known for doing it.  So much so the story got back to us in Ops and we wouldn't normally know or care about that sort of stuff. But this guy there was a different story each week about him until he left the base

Edited December 7, 2018 by tooting

[BlueStar 323]

20 minutes ago, skelsey said:

So had ATC issued an actual speed restriction?

If not then... well, seems a bit rich to then complain what they really wanted was for the aircraft to fly a particular speed...

There are a lot of airports I go into where ATC will assign 180 KIAS until 5 miles on a regular basis.  

Grace and Peace,  

[skelsey 765]

31 minutes ago, Bluestar said:

There are a lot of airports I go into where ATC will assign 180 KIAS until 5 miles on a regular basis.  

Grace and Peace,  

Of course, absolutely. That's my point -- if ATC had issued a 180 to 5 or 160 to 4 speed restriction and the guy was flying faster than that and messing up the spacing, then fair enough...

...but if they hadn't issued a speed restriction of any description, then I don't see how they can turn round and complain that the speed the pilot subsequently chose to fly messed up their plan!

[BlueStar 323]

54 minutes ago, skelsey said:

Of course, absolutely. That's my point -- if ATC had issued a 180 to 5 or 160 to 4 speed restriction and the guy was flying faster than that and messing up the spacing, then fair enough...

...but if they hadn't issued a speed restriction of any description, then I don't see how they can turn round and complain that the speed the pilot subsequently chose to fly messed up their plan!

At five miles I will be in final landing configuration unless there is an ATC restriction. Part of my landing briefing is to draw a three mile arc at 5 miles (usually the FAF) and as the aircraft enters the arc put the gear down and at five miles gear, flaps, slats, spoilers armed and final speed  set and obviously stabilized. If not it's a go around.  

It has been my experience that if not stabilized at 5 miles, nothing good happens trying to get stabilized. 🙂

Grace and Peace, 

[FDEdev 955]

16 minutes ago, Bluestar said:

It has been my experience that if not stabilized at 5 miles, nothing good happens trying to get stabilized.

Stabilized at 5NM?  If you are trying to do that at a large airport and you are e.g. flying a low weight A320 at Vref +5 = 116kts, ATC will most likely tell you to go around…

With most airlines you need to be stabilized at 1000ft in IMC and 500ft in VMC.

All depends on the airplane used. I always struggled with a heavy 767-300ER to cope with a 'keep-160-to-4' restriction. 

[Speedbird1996 0]

As was mentioned on the first page, I believe a lot of it is down to trying to make a quick turnaround - I flew with Ryanair on a History trip to Berlin back when I was taking my GCSEs in 2011, and it was fascinating to watch this in action at Berlin Schonefeld - Ryanair's 737s would either try to land as close to the first taxiway as possible, or as close to the taxiway that was closest to their gate, then the planes would make for the gates as quickly as possible - it was quite impressive to watch!