Bad Landing Ryanair FR448 DUB-LPL 3rd Feb - Possibly Injured

sturll

GH wrote: »

100% wrong. They use reverse thrust on ALL landings.

Having flown hundreds of times both long and short haul i can assure you that you are wrong.

wdyw

rawy wrote: »

Hi.

After a day thinking about what happened, reading comments on here & reading other fourms about Ryanair Landings with 737-800s I will just be sending a letter to Ryanair to say how uncomfortable the landing was.

The lockers didn't open & I now understand that ryanair don't tend to use reverse thrust on slow down, they use brakes more on the 737-800. And that particular model of plane is well known in avaiation circles for firm landings.

Thanks for your comments guys!

Rawy

While we all hope your back gets better soon, you don't want to believe too much you read online on standard practice in the airline industry. Saying Ryanair doesn't noramlly use thrust reversers indicates that neither you or the webpage authors don't fully understand when and why they are used or not used.

MrsTinks

Probably pointless as the OP have made a decision but I have to say I've flown a LOT with both Ryanair, SAS, BA and a number of other carriers - anything from "ickle" 20 seaters up to HUUUUUUUGE transatlantic doubledeckers - I fly Ryanair because I have no choice - every landing is an experience If you want smooth landings pay three times the price and go with a non budget airline - rarely find a BAD landing with them - Ryanair... always scary/harsh/bumpy etc.

Ryanair pilots (and Easyjet to a degree I understand) are shunned by a lot of other pilots (and this is from a friend who IS a pilot for a "main stream" airline) because they don't approve of their flying or landing. I can't comment on if that is lack of skill (I'd hope not!) or some weird fuel saving scheme by Ryanair
Ultimately I think any landing you walk away from is a good one - and my first indicator of a REALLY bad one would be wearing the contents of the usually over loaded over head compartments

Other than that - get well soon

Trollydolly_2

Please do let me know if you get anywhere with this as I do approx 4 - 6 landings every working day and some of them are rather hard landings.
Ooooh imagine if you got compensation for your one bad landing how much compensation I could get for hmmmmmm lets round it down to 1 out of 6 landings for lets say 15 days a month so thats 180 bad landings a year. Lets say I get approx oooh who knows £1000 per claim so thats £180,000 for the last year alone!!!!! Woop Wooooop
Please please do pm me with your "result"!!!!!!!

bert&ernie

Trollydolly wrote: »

Please do let me know if you get anywhere with this as I do approx 4 - 6 landings every working day and some of them are rather hard landings.
Ooooh imagine if you got compensation for your one bad landing how much compensation I could get for hmmmmmm lets round it down to 1 out of 6 landings for lets say 15 days a month so thats 180 bad landings a year. Lets say I get approx oooh who knows £1000 per claim so thats £180,000 for the last year alone!!!!! Woop Wooooop
Please please do pm me with your "result"!!!!!!!

Very amusing. Doubt you'd be so amused if you suffered an injury that stopped you making any more landings, or working at all for that matter - might have to make that £1000 last!

Wings_of_Ambition

MrsTine wrote: »

Ryanair pilots (and Easyjet to a degree I understand) are shunned by a lot of other pilots (and this is from a friend who IS a pilot for a "main stream" airline) because they don't approve of their flying or landing. I can't comment on if that is lack of skill (I'd hope not!) or some weird fuel saving scheme by Ryanair

A lot of pilots shun the budget operators because the pay and working T&C's are pretty bad. It's nothing to do with safety. If these airlines were less safe, the CAA wouldn't allow them to fly. To be able to fly a Ryanair aircraft, you have to pass just as many tests and licences to the same standard as if you were to fly for any other airline.

CFC

rawy wrote: »

regards the be thankful you didn't crash comments... I thought I paid ryanair to fly me from A to B......

..... I understand the difference between a good landing & a bad landing

Nah, you don't.

Good landing - you walk away
Bad landing - you don't.

That's the difference.

dealsearcher

Well I have over 10,000 hours of flying experience mostly on jet airliners, including the 737. The 737-800 is a longer version of the 737-300 I flew. One of the problems you get is if the pilot misjudges the flare height and flares too low. With the main wheels being behind the centre of pressure the act of flaring rotates the main wheels downwards, when the aircraft is already descending. This will cause a heavy landing if the pilot flares too low. The longer the aircraft the worse this can be.

Wind shear is another possibilty where the headwind suddenly reduces and the aircraft lands heavily because it has lost airspeed. Wind shear can be forcast but the only way to deal with it is to add about 5 knots to your approach airspeed. You only notice windshear when the airspeed suddenly drops.

Sometimes if the conditions are poor (strong crosswind, runway contamination - snow, etc.) then the pilot may aim for a firm landing which would be safer than a 'greaser' when the wheels don't get a firm grip.

A combination of these factors can lead to the landing you describe. However if the overhead lockers didn't open and the masks didn't come down then the landing would not have been that heavy. Of course if you already have a bad back then this kind of landing is indeed anoying and can feel worse than it was.

Reverse is almost always used on landing. It is only not used if there is a preexisting problem with the reverse thrust. Then there is a reduction on the landing and takeoff performance calculation. Frequently the pilot will use idle reverse for noise considerations. Passengers may not notice it in that case - because it is a lot quieter.

WiseInvestor_2

alicefaethepalace wrote: »

you don't need to know how to fly a plane to know a good/bad landing

I absolutely disagree. Airlines don't use 'smoothness' to determine the quality of a landing - how could they since feel is subjective?

Approach speed, configuration, touchdown speed, touchdown point.... these are all measurables and Pilots are trained to get them right. If conditions on the day push any of the above beyond strict limits the Pilots will abort the approach. If those conditions are forecast to persist (eg. strong winds) they will decide whether to hold off before making another attempt (eg. a passing storm) or divert to another airfield with safer conditions. Indeed, in wet conditions Pilots are EXPECTED to make a firm touchdown to break through the surface water on the runway - failure to do so can render the wheelbrakes ineffective and may induce a dangerous skid.


Incidentally, Reverse Thrust is not all or nothing - it's a graduated procedure not unlike squeezing the brake pedal in your car. Jet Pilots will ALWAYS use some amount of Reverse Thrust if only as a back-up in case of wheelbrake failure. On more modern aeroplanes Reverse Thrust signals to the onboard computers that the Pilots intend to stop rather than make another Take-off.


Still think you can judge a good/bad landing?

neilbond007

i have to say i love the direction this thread has gone!