Ryanair in 2014

Join this forum to discuss the latest news that happened in the world of commercial aviation.

Moderator: Latest news team

Post Reply
RTM
Posts: 365
Joined: 07 Apr 2013, 00:27

Re: Ryanair in 2014

Post by RTM »

Inquirer wrote: Why are we talking Airbus and Avros here, when the plane involved in this accident was a 737?
My appologies for my part in that. But I can only let his "facts" go so far...

I never contested the airbus figures btw, they are correct.
Inquirer wrote:Finally, a question raised already: rather than try to be smart and look stupid like they did now, why not just take the easy option and put the company's own chocks in? Would have been quicker and ultimately also less costly than calling technicians, debating with them and ultimately taking the wrong decision to assume the plane would be just fine like this, wouldn't it?
Stupid questions don't exist, only stupid answers...
My guess is that it is a weight issue, on top of the fact that you would never really need them under normal circumstances. In this case the circumstances are not normal, and very exeptional actually. It is impossible to carry around all kinds of equipment just in case. And even if you would, there will allways be something you didn't count on...
So why carry around something you may never need, and chocks aren't lightweight to be honest.

sean1982
Posts: 3260
Joined: 18 Mar 2003, 00:00
Contact:

Re: Ryanair in 2014

Post by sean1982 »

tolipanebas wrote: 2- From the supplementary procedures in the Boeing FCOM:
If the airplane will not be attended, or if staying overnight at off-line
stations or at airports where normal support is not available, the flight
crew must arrange for or verify that the following steps are done:
Pressurization mode selector .............................MAN AC F/O
Outflow valve ...............................................CLOSE F/O
Wheel chocks ...............................................Verify in place C or F/O

CIA is not an off-line station or an airport where normal support is not available. It's been an FR base for 9 years with engineering and Operations support available. What else do you suggest panebas? A gpu and an airstarter in the hold as well :roll:

RTM
Posts: 365
Joined: 07 Apr 2013, 00:27

Re: Ryanair in 2014

Post by RTM »

sean1982 wrote:CIA is not an off-line station or an airport where normal support is not available. It's been an FR base for 9 years with engineering and Operations support available. What else do you suggest panebas? A gpu and an airstarter in the hold as well :roll:
Well actually, reading his reply, he just says that the pilots should make sure the plane is chocked. If they did that, no blame on them. If they didn't, they will have to answer for ttheir descicion... And just because engineering said it will be allright, will nog be enough if the FCOM is so explicid.

sean1982
Posts: 3260
Joined: 18 Mar 2003, 00:00
Contact:

Re: Ryanair in 2014

Post by sean1982 »

No, it says it can be insufficient which also means it CAN be sufficient and only if you are in an offline station you need to take special precautions which CIA is not.
Last edited by sean1982 on 11 Jun 2014, 20:10, edited 2 times in total.

RTM
Posts: 365
Joined: 07 Apr 2013, 00:27

Re: Ryanair in 2014

Post by RTM »

It says not to rely on the parking brake.

And it is true CIA is not an offline airport, but you can argue wheather it should have been treated as such under the given circumstances. I actually think it should have been.

sean1982
Posts: 3260
Joined: 18 Mar 2003, 00:00
Contact:

Re: Ryanair in 2014

Post by sean1982 »

Ground handling was on strike, not engineering

The accumulator will hold for a minimum of 8 hours. Who says there was no agreement with engineering that the system would be recharged every 3 hours?

The whole point is that there were no chocks available, so whether you consider it to be offline or not is irrelevant. You cannot foresee everything that is about to happen, especially when assuming you're flying into a base.

Where do you draw the line of what needs to be carried into the hold? A gpu? An airstarter? An engineer with 1000 spare parts? A spare crew? :roll:
Last edited by sean1982 on 11 Jun 2014, 20:15, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
tolipanebas
Posts: 2442
Joined: 12 May 2004, 00:00

Re: Ryanair in 2014

Post by tolipanebas »

Already in the NORMAL PROCEDURES pilots are explictly warned by Boeing not to assume P.prake alone is enough to prevent airplane movement, Sean1982. Simple as that. If you still do, you already commit a violation, regardless whether or not you get the bright idea to also have a look at the SUPPLEMENTARY PROCEDURE, which might have been a good idea too in this case, given the plane isn't guaranteed to receive the normal support IN CIA, station or not, because of the strike.

sean1982
Posts: 3260
Joined: 18 Mar 2003, 00:00
Contact:

Re: Ryanair in 2014

Post by sean1982 »

sean1982 wrote:Ground handling was on strike, not engineering

The accumulator will hold for a minimum of 8 hours. Who says there was no agreement with engineering that the system would be recharged every 3 hours?

The whole point is that there were no chocks available, so whether you consider it to be offline or not is irrelevant. You cannot foresee everything that is about to happen, especially when assuming you're flying into a base.

Where do you draw the line of what needs to be carried into the hold? A gpu? An airstarter? An engineer with 1000 spare parts? A spare crew? :roll:

User avatar
tolipanebas
Posts: 2442
Joined: 12 May 2004, 00:00

Re: Ryanair in 2014

Post by tolipanebas »

sean1982 wrote:The accumulator will hold for a minimum of 8 hours. Who says there was no agreement with engineering that the system would be recharged every 3 hours?
You don't want to get it, don't you?
Regardless what the system technically can do, Boeing EXPLICITLY mentions in their NORMAL PROCEDURES:
"Note: Do not assume that the parking brake will prevent
airplane movement"
Which basically means you can't even rely on it for 1 single second to leave the plane alone. Period.

Either the ryanair flight crew had to stay in the cockpit to manually apply brake pressure in case the plane started moving, or ryanair's technicians had to take over from them all throughout the night; everything less than that, is a delibarate violation of the FCOM if they left the plane alone like this.

The simple solution is to have some chocks in the back office, of course... Never seen those????
Last edited by tolipanebas on 11 Jun 2014, 20:27, edited 1 time in total.

sean1982
Posts: 3260
Joined: 18 Mar 2003, 00:00
Contact:

Re: Ryanair in 2014

Post by sean1982 »

Like I said ages ago, its not even clear yet that the crew left the airplane unchocked or if they were removed afterwards.

But explain this: if parking brake pressure releases because of a depleted accumulator then how would somebody in the flightdeck be able to apply brake pressure????

User avatar
tolipanebas
Posts: 2442
Joined: 12 May 2004, 00:00

Re: Ryanair in 2014

Post by tolipanebas »

sean1982 wrote: But explain this: if parking brake pressure releases because of a depleted accumulator then how would somebody in the flightdeck be able to apply brake pressure????
Ever heard of an APU?
It's not just able to cool your cabin, you know...

RTM
Posts: 365
Joined: 07 Apr 2013, 00:27

Re: Ryanair in 2014

Post by RTM »

How about this then... Doesn't have to be an offline airport... Since support was on strike, it was not available, end these procedures apply.
tolipanebas wrote: 2- From the supplementary procedures in the Boeing FCOM:
If the airplane will not be attended, or if staying overnight at off-line
stations or at airports where normal support is not available, the flight
crew must arrange for or verify that the following steps are done:
Pressurization mode selector .............................MAN AC F/O
Outflow valve ...............................................CLOSE F/O
Wheel chocks ...............................................Verify in place C or F/O
Also, I think off-line is a very clever word choice by Boeing. And a perfect example for the, by someone denied, influence of legal team members in the writing of manuals.
Under normal circumstances, CIO is considdered an on-line station. But something that is on-line, can, as we all know, go off-line. And by the absence of support in this case, that would apply, especially since it is seperately mentioned as a condition. So basically, this item is telling the crew twice to put chocks in place.

sean1982
Posts: 3260
Joined: 18 Mar 2003, 00:00
Contact:

Re: Ryanair in 2014

Post by sean1982 »

Support was not on strike, ground handling was AND THERE WERE NO CHOCKS
I'm gonna stop feeding the trolls :roll:

RTM
Posts: 365
Joined: 07 Apr 2013, 00:27

Re: Ryanair in 2014

Post by RTM »

Ground handling is a major part of the support. So since this is missing, no NORMAL support was available. Again the legal team wording... ;)

There will allways be something that can be used as chocks. I have chocked aircraft with ballast bags for instance, be creative, but if not, don't leave the aircraft.

User avatar
RoMax
Posts: 4454
Joined: 20 Jun 2009, 16:32

Re: Ryanair in 2014

Post by RoMax »

No chocks available, so unable to use them and that's a valid reason for you Sean? OMG :o
Like RTM said, if no real chocks are available, be creative or don't leave the aircraft behind. It is a violation on the FCOM, simple as that. Boeing says not to rely on braking power allone, they did. CIA may be an "on-line" station in normal conditions, it was not because chocks were not available and ground handling on strike, that's not considered full support available at an on-line station.

airazurxtror
Posts: 3769
Joined: 17 Nov 2005, 00:00

Re: Ryanair in 2014

Post by airazurxtror »

Ryanair issued its first ever bonds yesterday, raising €850m (£687m) to help finance its order for 180 new Boeing planes.
The seven-year, euro-denominated bonds were eight times oversubscribed.
Chief financial officer Howard Millar said the bonds, which would pay holders 1.875 per cent, offered the firm a significant discount to financing costs from other sources of around 3.8 per cent.
“This is way ahead of anyone else. It’s a significant competitive advantage,” Millar told Reuters yesterday.
IF IT AIN'T BOEING, I'M NOT GOING.

JAF737

Re: Ryanair in 2014

Post by JAF737 »

tolipanebas wrote:
sean1982 wrote: But explain this: if parking brake pressure releases because of a depleted accumulator then how would somebody in the flightdeck be able to apply brake pressure????
Ever heard of an APU?
It's not just able to cool your cabin, you know...
Now it starts to be really funny!
What do you actually mean by that, tolipanebas? :-)

Desert Rat
Posts: 1137
Joined: 08 May 2007, 09:38

Re: Ryanair in 2014

Post by Desert Rat »

I think he means batteries ON. APU start. APU elec power from APU GEN. Electrical pump. Recharge Accu.

Right?

RTM
Posts: 365
Joined: 07 Apr 2013, 00:27

Re: Ryanair in 2014

Post by RTM »

Desert Rat wrote:I think he means batteries ON. APU start. APU elec power from APU GEN. Electrical pump. Recharge Accu.

Right?
That would be a safe guess, I think...

Flanker2
Posts: 1741
Joined: 05 Dec 2012, 23:15

Re: Ryanair in 2014

Post by Flanker2 »

I'm sad that we must read so much non-sense written by people who claim to be pilots.
tolipanebas wrote:sean1982 wrote:
But explain this: if parking brake pressure releases because of a depleted accumulator then how would
somebody in the flightdeck be able to apply brake pressure????


Ever heard of an APU?
Yes, the parking brake releases after the accumulator is depleted and Mr. Tolipanebas is going to calmly do the fire warning test and start up the APU.
In the meanwhile the aircraft is rolling and rolling and BAM! It goes much faster than you think.

I think that there is a faster, much more obvious option in the above described scenario, and it's a bit concerning that a pilot wouldn't mention it instinctively... it's called the DC pump. :roll: :roll:


Also, the note in the parking procedure is interpreted conveniently in the wrong way by Tolipanebas, obviously. So even interpreting a simple FCOM note seems to pose a challenge...

I'm surprised no one noticed this:


tolipanebas wrote:
Inquirer wrote:Would be interesting to hear from lysexpat or any other Boeing pilot if indeed Boeing allows you to leave the plane behind without chocks in their handbooks?
As an ex-737 pilot, let me answer that question for you unambiguously: NO.

1- From the Normal Procedures - Amplified Procedures in the Boeing FCOM:
"Note: Do not assume that the parking brake will prevent
airplane movement. Accumulator pressure can be
insufficient."


(...)

Not much room for pilot interpretation, is there? :roll:
Tolipanebas conveniently removes the "accumulator pressure can be insufficient" in subsequent postings.

This note is a reminder to check and monitor the brake pressure and not assume that such pressure is available any time you set the parking brake or leave it set for a defined period of time.
It's not saying that the parking brake is an unreliable means of securing the aircraft. In fact, the B737 Classic Maintenance Manual says that the parking brake is the method of securing the aircraft until chocks are in place.

Chocks should be placed ASAP, but ASAP is different from immediately, when chocks are not available for whatever reason. So until the chocks are available, you secure the aircraft with parking brakes, which on the B737NG last a minimum of 8 hours on a full charge of the accumulators.

It's the captain's responsibility to make sure his aircraft is properly secured, yet as so many things, this is a task that is always delegated, so as Tolipanebas conveniently said in a deicing debate, "you must trust the people whom you delegate to to do their jobs properly. You can't run around as a captain making sure each and every time". His words, not mine.

In addition, we don't know the circumstances of the accident... for all we know, some disgruntled handlers may just have pulled the chocks to prove a point, and may have gotten more than he had bargained for.


As I said, Tolipanebas, you will only embarass yourself further, so I kindly suggested and still suggest to not embarass yourself any further, as it will only expose holes in your Swiss Cheese that are going to make people start asking questions and doubting yourself.
You may have been taught to not trust your parking brake for whatever reasons, but it does not justify your accusations towards FR procedures in this particular case, as you have no reliable information nor cues as to what happened, and you're filling the blanks of your knowledge with half-truths.

Also, as I already said, it also has happened at BRU that aircraft could not be secured with the chocks owing to lack of chocks. So who knows maybe this happens at your won airline too? Also, supposing that this was just a dumb acccident, without insinuating anything I would like to ask you how sure you are that the airline you work for hasn't had its share of "bad luck"?

The only thing I can tell you for sure is that when it's Ryanair, it's all over the news much sooner than the rest. Journalists are supposed to be impartial, but it's all plain politics as usual. Crews and staff aren't as attached to Ryanair, so they'll be much quicker to spread the word about each and every single incident.
Despite that, I find that it's relatively quiet relative to the size of their operation.

Post Reply