Ryanair Plane Overshoots Runway at Prestwick

[Turbo5]

Mojocvh said:

Turbo5 said:

I thought thrust reversers are there for stopping in these conditions ?
I know some airlines that fly in frost free states in America only opt for plain exhaust rather than the thrust reverser (Embraer 145)but their counterparts in Europe and the colder states opt for the thrust reverser.

pmsl!!

I know some airlines opted for the plain exhaust The reason I gave is most probably not 100% behind the decision I slightly remember some airlines trying to get approval from the FAA to fly this type of plane without thrust reversers. The main reason is most probably runway lengths and stopping distances required and costs but majority opt for the Thrust reverser.
They are only a few airlines who went for the plain exhaust. It was a long time since I used to manufacture the Thrust reversers and Plain Exhausts on the Embraer 145. Which are pivoting door type thrust reversers.


Read the first paragraph it explains the effectiveness of the thrust reverser in wet and icy conditions.
http://www.aviationshop.com.au/avfacts/editorial/b...

[speedchick]

Cor I remember those plain exhausts!

[Papoo]

Turbo5 said:

I thought thrust reversers are there for stopping in these conditions ?
I know some airlines that fly in frost free states in America only opt for plain exhaust rather than the thrust reverser (Embraer 145)but their counterparts in Europe and the colder states opt for the thrust reverser.

Brilliant. But rubbish.

Simplified (though not that much), reversers are used to stop the aircraft quicker on the runway; 100+ tonnes at 140mph can have a fair bit of momentum, whereas runways tend to be of a finite length.

Reversers are not a 'handbrake' device to help you tuck round corners on a taxiway.

[petrolsniffer]

There goes the ryanair safety record! tbh they did pretty well for a low cost airline

[Eric Mc]

Birdstrike anyone?

Very few jet airliners DO NOT have thrust reversers.

The original Sud Aviation Caravelles (the ones fitted with Rolls Royce Avons) didn't have them. The later Pratt and Whitney JT8D engined Caravelles did.

And the BAe 146 used a deployable airbrake fitted to the tail cone instead of reverse thrust..

I certainly can't think of a modern jet airliner that doesn't have them.

[Papoo]

petrolsniffer said:

tbh they did pretty well for a low cost airline

I didn't know that lo-cost airlines were less safe.

[IforB]

petrolsniffer said:

There goes the ryanair safety record! tbh they did pretty well for a low cost airline

I can think of at least 6 other incidents where a RYR aircraft has ended up off the runway in the last few years. They haven't killed anyone, but to say they are blemish free isn't quite correct. That's not to say that they aren't an extremely safe airline, but they do have some silly incidents.

As for thrust reversers, they are used to help take energy out of the braking system. Aircraft brakes get very hot and it takes time to get rid of the heat that builds up in brake packs from slowing the thing down. When you have short turnaround times, then this can be a bit of a problem. Thrust reversers can help in this situation, though they aren't really reversers in the true sense. Jet engines produce quite a bit of forward thrust even at idle and thrust "reversers" help to minimise this rather than producing massive braking action. There are lots of different designs though and all have different characteristics and effectiveness.

[mattdaniels]

I always thought that RyanAirs trick for cooling the brakes was to taxi to the gate at wharp factor 10.

Still, let's not let this degenerate into a PPrune-esque Ryanair bash. Could have happened to anyone, obviously...

[IforB]

mattdaniels said:

I always thought that RyanAirs trick for cooling the brakes was to taxi to the gate at wharp factor 10.

Still, let's not let this degenerate into a PPrune-esque Ryanair bash. Could have happened to anyone, obviously...

Having heard a certain lady controller at STN calling "V1, Rotate" to a RYR crew as they taxied in, I have no idea how RYR ever got the reputation for taxi-ing quickly...

RYR crews won't get much of a bash from me. I know too many of them and trained quite a few too, so I know how good they are in most part. There might be the odd muppet, but that's true of any airline you fly with.

[IforB]

petrolsniffer said:

There goes the ryanair safety record! tbh they did pretty well for a low cost airline

Lo-cost does not mean lowered safety standards. As the old saying goes, if you think safety is expensive, try having an accident.

Lo-Co's know that a single major crash could finish them as there is already a very inaccurate public perception that cheap flights mean dodgy aircraft and crews. It just isn't true.

[Turbo5]

Papoo said:

Turbo5 said:

I thought thrust reversers are there for stopping in these conditions ?
I know some airlines that fly in frost free states in America only opt for plain exhaust rather than the thrust reverser (Embraer 145)but their counterparts in Europe and the colder states opt for the thrust reverser.

Brilliant. But rubbish.

Simplified (though not that much), reversers are used to stop the aircraft quicker on the runway; 100+ tonnes at 140mph can have a fair bit of momentum, whereas runways tend to be of a finite length.

Reversers are not a 'handbrake' device to help you tuck round corners on a taxiway.

Some interesting reading here for you. especially the 7th paragraph in the Background section.
Sorry for being an anorak on the subject but its my job.
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library...

[anonymous-user]

Turbo5 said:

Papoo said:

Turbo5 said:

I thought thrust reversers are there for stopping in these conditions ?
I know some airlines that fly in frost free states in America only opt for plain exhaust rather than the thrust reverser (Embraer 145)but their counterparts in Europe and the colder states opt for the thrust reverser.

Brilliant. But rubbish.

Simplified (though not that much), reversers are used to stop the aircraft quicker on the runway; 100+ tonnes at 140mph can have a fair bit of momentum, whereas runways tend to be of a finite length.

Reversers are not a 'handbrake' device to help you tuck round corners on a taxiway.

Some interesting reading here for you. especially the 7th paragraph in the Background section.
Sorry for being an anorak on the subject but its my job.
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library...

I don't think he's disputing your information about the Embraer 145 but the general usage of reverse thrust in an aircraft particularly when vacating at the end of an icy runway as was the case for the Ryanair aircraft in question.

[pushthebutton]

IforB said:

petrolsniffer said:

There goes the ryanair safety record! tbh they did pretty well for a low cost airline

Lo-cost does not mean lowered safety standards. As the old saying goes, if you think safety is expensive, try having an accident.

Lo-Co's know that a single major crash could finish them as there is already a very inaccurate public perception that cheap flights mean dodgy aircraft and crews. It just isn't true.

For the time being anyway...keep chipping away at T's & C's MOL????

[IforB]

pushthebutton said:

IforB said:

petrolsniffer said:

There goes the ryanair safety record! tbh they did pretty well for a low cost airline

Lo-cost does not mean lowered safety standards. As the old saying goes, if you think safety is expensive, try having an accident.

Lo-Co's know that a single major crash could finish them as there is already a very inaccurate public perception that cheap flights mean dodgy aircraft and crews. It just isn't true.

For the time being anyway...keep chipping away at T's & C's MOL????

Not really the place for this discussion, but I do think you have a very valid point. I have a feeling that there are some chickens coming home to roost at RYR and it is making me feel very uncomfortable.

[eccles]

IforB said:

pushthebutton said:

IforB said:

petrolsniffer said:

There goes the ryanair safety record! tbh they did pretty well for a low cost airline

Lo-cost does not mean lowered safety standards. As the old saying goes, if you think safety is expensive, try having an accident.

Lo-Co's know that a single major crash could finish them as there is already a very inaccurate public perception that cheap flights mean dodgy aircraft and crews. It just isn't true.

For the time being anyway...keep chipping away at T's & C's MOL????

Not really the place for this discussion, but I do think you have a very valid point. I have a feeling that there are some chickens coming home to roost at RYR and it is making me feel very uncomfortable.

Funny how people are quick to assume that the low cost goes as far as maintenance, yet their record is far better than BA who've been caught out quite a few times cutting corners and not sticking to correct procedures......

[IforB]

eccles said:

IforB said:

pushthebutton said:

IforB said:

petrolsniffer said:

There goes the ryanair safety record! tbh they did pretty well for a low cost airline

Lo-cost does not mean lowered safety standards. As the old saying goes, if you think safety is expensive, try having an accident.

Lo-Co's know that a single major crash could finish them as there is already a very inaccurate public perception that cheap flights mean dodgy aircraft and crews. It just isn't true.

For the time being anyway...keep chipping away at T's & C's MOL????

Not really the place for this discussion, but I do think you have a very valid point. I have a feeling that there are some chickens coming home to roost at RYR and it is making me feel very uncomfortable.

Funny how people are quick to assume that the low cost goes as far as maintenance, yet their record is far better than BA who've been caught out quite a few times cutting corners and not sticking to correct procedures......

Nobody mentioned maintenance. There's nowt wrong with that at RYR. I'm more concerned with their recruitment and flight crew composition. That is starting to scare the bejaysus out of me.

[khaosai]

Hi,

care to elaborate IforB.

[Papoo]

IforB said:

eccles said:

IforB said:

pushthebutton said:

IforB said:

petrolsniffer said:

There goes the ryanair safety record! tbh they did pretty well for a low cost airline

Lo-cost does not mean lowered safety standards. As the old saying goes, if you think safety is expensive, try having an accident.

Lo-Co's know that a single major crash could finish them as there is already a very inaccurate public perception that cheap flights mean dodgy aircraft and crews. It just isn't true.

For the time being anyway...keep chipping away at T's & C's MOL????

Not really the place for this discussion, but I do think you have a very valid point. I have a feeling that there are some chickens coming home to roost at RYR and it is making me feel very uncomfortable.

Funny how people are quick to assume that the low cost goes as far as maintenance, yet their record is far better than BA who've been caught out quite a few times cutting corners and not sticking to correct procedures......

Nobody mentioned maintenance. There's nowt wrong with that at RYR. I'm more concerned with their recruitment and flight crew composition. That is starting to scare the bejaysus out of me.

Is that in regard to our Eastern European friends, or their recruitment in general?

[IforB]

The recruitment of only cadet pilots as F/O's rather than experienced first officers. Contract pilots and the dropping of T&C's, silly things like seeing RYR crews sleeping in their cars before a duty to save on hotel bills as the company doesn't provide accomodation. The use of F/O's as line checkers, the growing list of incidents where there are CRM issues (the latest being the tailstrike in DUB) etc.etc.

I see RYR as trying to see how hard they can push things, which goes against my definition of safety management.

I might be wrong and there are many extremely good things about RYR and the way they go about their flying. Good and strict SOP's, modern machines, some fantastic crews etc.

I would never call them an unsafe airline, as it just isn't, however, I do see things that concern me as a cultural thing. When a skipper refuses to tell the company that his son has just died and ends up in an incident because he is worried about the response of his management, that makes me question things for the future.

I'm not a RYR basher. I applaud many of the things they do, but when the cost cutting starts to get into safety critical areas, then I start to worry.

[eharding]

IforB said:

I'm not a RYR basher. I applaud many of the things they do, but when the cost cutting starts to get into safety critical areas, then I start to worry.

One of the more worrying aspects is the huge pressure RYR commanders are under to reduce the amount of discretionary fuel they carry to the absolute minimum, or expect an interview with the beak.

The RYR (and, increasingly ex-RYR) captains I know are of the more hard-bitten variety, and take the amount of fuel they deem to be safe based on experience, and sod the bean counters - but that might not be true throughout.