Ryanair flight landed at Manchester airport with six minutes of fuel left, flight log suggests

[-]

thatCdnplaneguy@reddit

Wasn’t this only 220kg of fuel left after the aircraft was shut down, not after landing? Heard it r an the APU for hours waiting for a gate and ground servicing.

[-]

pjakma@reddit

RuinAir would like for that to be the narrative I'm sure - that it ran the APU for "hours" after landing. Whether it's true or not...

[-]

Shark00n@reddit

Bro we don’t go on narratives in aviation. Either it’s the truth or it’s not

[-]

pjakma@reddit

The truth will come out, sure. What makes it to the press in the mean time need not always be true.

[-]

Or you could just read the article. ‘One person on board recounted what is thought to have been a two-hour attempt to make a safe landing, saying the plane made two attempts to land at Prestwick, before heading for Edinburgh and finally Manchester.’

[-]

BarFamiliar5892@reddit

Well one definitely true statement is the plane landed and everyone walked away. Exact same as every other Ryanair flight in history.

[-]

Puzzled-Celery-172@reddit

I think Ryanair knows that the cheapness of it's flights makes everyone jittery that they must cut corners, so they're very diligent when it comes to all safety related issues. 40 years of flying an not a single fatal incident.

Also, like many budget airlines, their fleet is made up of relatively young jets, and they're all of the same type to reduce maintenance costs.

Additionally, aviation is one of the safest forms of transport because of a transparent safety process. This particular incident may never be back in the news, but the AAIB will publish their report publicly, and the findings may be used to adjust processes, guidelines, training for all airlines, not just Ryanair.

[-]

mildOrWILD65@reddit

A 737 burns between 90 to 180 kgs per hour when the APU is running.

Lowest amount of arrival fuel onboard on a 737 I ever saw was 2450 kilograms, at the gate. 220 is just insane!

[-]

brickne3@reddit

How much is that in liters? I find it hard to conceptualize fuel in kg.

[-]

vamatt@reddit

Think a little more than a bathtub full.

I have personally lifted more than 220kg

[-]

masklinn@reddit

2450 kilograms, at the gate. 220

Internet tells me the density of avgas at room temp is about 0.8kg/L.

So 72-144L/h on APU, standard 2000L, this plane arrived at the gate with 160L.

[-]

assingfortrouble@reddit

FYI that jets burn jet fuel (which is similar to diesel) whereas avgas is closer to gasoline.

[-]

mildOrWILD65@reddit

Jet A is nothing like diesel. It's a highly refined form of kerosene.

[-]

masklinn@reddit

Thanks. Density seems to be about the same (wiki says 0.804 for jet A-1 and 0.820 for jet A) so the numbers come out about the same.

[-]

MmmSteaky@reddit

2450kg after taxi-in? SWA says: “hold my dipstick.”

[-]

mildOrWILD65@reddit

No MEL. I was pretty surprised, to be sure. Can't recall if it was irrops that night but, yeah, definitely made me raise an eyebrow.

[-]

MmmSteaky@reddit

SWA’s minimum planned arrival fuel is 2000kg, whether it’s an NG or a Max. (Which is even less endurance on the -800, as compared to the -700.)

Understand: per FAA-approved company policy, that’s deemed to be a perfectly allowable quantity of fuel planned to be remaining on landing roll, not blocked in at the gate.

(Which, to be sure, is still more than the regs require, but …yeeesh.)

[-]

mildOrWILD65@reddit

Yeah, we typically see between 2700 and 3600 kgs arrival FOB at the gate, sometimes more. Occasionally the arrival FOB is greater than the departure FOB which, I suppose, indicates tankering but I can never figure out why, we don't have fuel shortages or delivery issues.

I'm not a dispatcher but I can view the release details and there's a lot of planning goes into determining proper fuel loads. The flight OP references must had some extraordinary circumstances in flight to land with so little.

[-]

MmmSteaky@reddit

I’d a venture a guess it was a combination of poor planning and very bad luck. It’s rarely one or the other alone.

[-]

iome79@reddit

Landed with 350kgs

[-]

hayder94@reddit

I was flying that day to the UK ( same company) it was heellish conditions, quite bad everywhere in the UK and Ireland, ended up taking Toulouse as alternate, even north of France was unsuitable as alternates. And BTW I saw the tech log it was 220 kg of fuel on stand, not on landing as the article says, which is still mind-blowing or course

[-]

brickne3@reddit

My friend's kid likes watching videos of planes landing and taking off. They were actually highly entertaining that day, especially the landings.

[-]

hayder94@reddit

Not for us!

[-]

Slythela@reddit

What was your scariest flight? I get the feeling that turbulence is a pretty standard affair, so what else?

[-]

mayhemtime@reddit

Flying to the UK and ending up in Toulouse is like the biggest win ;)

[-]

ScottOld@reddit

Or if you are just an AV geek.. would love to see the pod of beluga

[-]

hayder94@reddit

Yup I was kind of laughing when imagining explaining to the passengers how we ended up in Toulouse, I think I would have a riot on board. Try explaining a safety related decision to passengers who are inconvenienced...

[-]

M2DaXz@reddit

After a few approaches with storm weather most passengers are simply happy to be safely back on the ground.

[-]

Lopsided_Laugh_4224@reddit

Like carrying Manila, Ho Chi Min, Bangkok or Taipei for Hong Kong in typhoon weather.

[-]

candycane7@reddit

Toulouse ?? Where were you flying from?

[-]

hayder94@reddit

Portugal

[-]

PlannedObsolescence_@reddit

When there's extreme weather, often the best alternate is surprisingly far away. You want to be outside of that weather system entirely, and also need to consider how many other aircraft will also need to divert to their alternate - so picking wisely means less contention with diversion slots.

[-]

neverlost64@reddit

After three failed attempts to touch down, the pilots of Ryanair flight FR3418 issued a mayday emergency call and raced to Manchester, where the weather was calmer.

Analysis of the log suggests the plane left Pisa with reserve fuel, as commercial flights are required to do

One person on board recounted what is thought to have been a two-hour attempt to make a safe landing, saying the plane made two attempts to land at Prestwick, before heading for Edinburgh and finally Manchester

Can't really blame Ryanair or their pilots when you read the article.

[-]

FlippingGerman@reddit

The paranoia around fuel in planes is excellent. It’s something like “what if we have a headwind, have to wait at the airport for half an hour, miss a few landings and divert to another airport” all at once.

[-]

pierrecambronne@reddit

I don't think with that weathjer Edimbourgh could be considered a valid alternate.

That's a

[-]

Cultural_Thing1712@reddit

Yeah Ryanair has an outstanding safety culture despite its pennypinching appearances. Crew also used mayday fuel which is also a good sign of a healthy environment at the company.

You don't get to 6k flights a day and 40 years in operation without an accident if you have a bad safety culture.

[-]

ratonbox@reddit

Accidents are expensive nowadays. Safety is cheaper.

[-]

n134177@reddit

Words of wisdom.

But do you have any suggested readings about it? Or could you point me out to some data?

Just a nerd genuinely asking.

[-]

Sltre101@reddit

Mentor pilot on YouTube is a training captain for them and he shows some absolutely excellent traits. I was on a Ryanair flight earlier this year and we had a small technical issue, the captain showed the exact same behaviours as he has spoke about when it came to keeping us all in the loop - showing it’s a culture and not a one off.

[-]

SkyHighExpress@reddit

With respect, I always prefer pilots who don’t have a YouTube side hustle but that’s just me

[-]

sofixa11@reddit

Why does it matter to you if the pilot has a side hustle or not?

And in any case, he has taken a break from flying and is full-time on YouTube now.

[-]

SkyHighExpress@reddit

It doesn’t matter, it’s a preference. Guy is just a dude with a YouTube channel and people think he is more knowledgable than those who go about their job without aiming for stardom

[-]

mbcook@reddit

Oh that’s who he works for?

[-]

General_Albatross@reddit

Not any longer, bit he did for many years. I think he took you tube as full time job earlier this year

[-]

mbcook@reddit

Yeah I think you’re right. I only remember him referring to “my airline“ or “the airline I work for“ in the videos I saw. He never actually named it. So I didn’t know what it was.

[-]

General_Albatross@reddit

In one incident he mentioned that he flew this particular aircraft back in the day and then it had Ryanair logo.

[-]

mbcook@reddit

Oh that’s right I remember that video but I wouldn’t have thought to look for that.

[-]

clarksworth@reddit

that explains all his shitty thumbnails of late

[-]

sofixa11@reddit

Nah, he has had a professional thumbnail artist for some time now. Unfortunately it's the name of the game, the YouTube algorithm requires such weird thumbnails to recommend videos, so if you want any new watchers you have to play the dumb game. That's why most "professional" channels have thumbnail artists.

[-]

BarFamiliar5892@reddit

I love that channel! And as someone who knows nothing about aviation I'm glad to hear he's actually legit.

[-]

aqaba_is_over_there@reddit

Without a deadly accident. They lost an airframe due to a hard landing caused by a bird strike. Some injuries but no deaths.

[-]

Ok-Chance-5739@reddit

That's an incident.

[-]

yourlocalFSDO@reddit

By definition not an incident

[-]

Apprehensive_Cost937@reddit

Still an accident, legally speaking.

[-]

Ok-Chance-5739@reddit

Sure. Aviation is full of strange definitions.

[-]

Apprehensive_Cost937@reddit

People were injured and the aircraft was damaged beyond economic repair.

If this was on the road, you'd call it accident, too.

[-]

Deucer22@reddit

Well that still seems completely reasonable.

[-]

Reid_coffee@reddit

You’re kidding right? That’s just inexperience. Those pilots should have done a barrel role to avoid those birds!

[-]

OarsandRowlocks@reddit

They should have deployed engine intake shields before the strike and then retracted them afterwards

[-]

Hairy_Ad5141@reddit

Or just teleport around them!

[-]

Gullible-Hose4180@reddit

Just bank the plane to evade the birds. Smh, I've played 1000s of hours of MS flight sim, never had a single bird strike. Definitely skill issue

[-]

Difficult-Implement9@reddit

😂😂😂 I'd say Split S!!

[-]

truearse@reddit

Without an accident

Non disclosures are heck of a good way to censor incidents

[-]

purplehammer@reddit

Aye mate because it's real easy to hide a fucking plane crash 🤦🏻‍♂️

[-]

ron_mcphatty@reddit

Outstanding safety culture is right, but it’s also a requirement when flying in the UK. Plenty of airlines are not allowed to fly here because they don’t meet the standard.

Also, the crew are required to declare Mayday on reaching minimum fuel, and report themselves for doing so. The investigation will check that the crew and all the ATC involved followed all the rules and that Ryanair’s own procedures are safe enough.

I’m not sure 3 go-arounds at Prestwick is right, 1 or 2 would probably tell the crew enough to get on with diverting, but bad weather days are the worst and we all learn from everyone else’s decisions, good or bad. Ultimately they landed the plane, so good on them.

[-]

BeneficialGarbage@reddit

2 at Prestwick, 1 at Edinburgh then Manchester for the successful landing

[-]

Nok1a_@reddit

Ryanair should not exist and should be dismantle the day something bad happens everyone will cry and look for someone to blame... I do not touch that fkcing airline at all fuck them and fuck the asshole of the owner if were up to him, you would not have toiltes or you would have to pay for toilets, and you will be standing like in a bus

[-]

Mesa_Dad@reddit

I used to fly home - UK to Ireland - in the late 80's / early 90's and pay £150 then. I did get a "free" sandwich though. Ryanair - as much as you obviously disapprove of them - didn't charge anything like that.

If you don't like them go to another airline and pay their prices.

[-]

Nok1a_@reddit

I dont use ryanait, and when I used to fly in the 80's/90's food was free and cuttlery was metallic, not to mention was no stupid rules of water/food , you could bring whatever you wanted

[-]

ImageSame844@reddit

Liquid restrictions were not set by airlines

[-]

ImageSame844@reddit

It changed a lot after pandemics, but before that there was a period of time when there was no alternative airline to certain destinations.

[-]

AwayYam199@reddit

Let's cut it closer next time, okay?

[-]

eye-0f-the-str0m@reddit

Coming soon, a new ticket pricing model tied to fuel reserves.

For just $49.99 would you like to add Fuel PLATINUM? This carries an extra 1 hour fuel for your flight, for uses like diverts, weather or other air traffic delays.

For just $79.99 would you like to add Fuel SUPER ELITE? This carries an extra 2 hours fuel.

[-]

OmegaPoint6@reddit

If only some of the passengers select it do the others get pushed out of the emergency exists if they exceed the base allocation?

[-]

eye-0f-the-str0m@reddit

If you read the terms:

If your plane diverts, and uses emergency fuel, you'll be charged $150 per hour on a pro rata rate.

[-]

ImageSame844@reddit

Dont give Ryanairs any ideas 😂

[-]

MrClavicus@reddit

This

[-]

SillyFlyGuy@reddit

Jettison passengers, lighten load, fly longer.

[-]

Dezzie19@reddit

That shit might fly in dumbass USA but in Europe we are a bit more intelligent.

An aircraft will take off with a very good estimate of how much fuel is required for the flight including possible diversions as carrying too much fuel actually burns too much fuel.

[-]

13nobody@reddit

What continent is Manchester in?

[-]

Dezzie19@reddit

It's in Europe but this yank dumbass is talking dollars, American gobshite.

[-]

ottoisagooddog@reddit

Do you work in aviation?

[-]

sigga_genesis@reddit

US airlines require at least two alternates, one close, one long, in the US and at least 1hr of reserves after flying to the furthest alternate. The regs are less stringent, but if you follow the minimum regs, you'll kill someone

[-]

ottoisagooddog@reddit

That may be police in some airlines, but it is NOT what the FAR prescribes, which are: Destination + farthest alternate + 45 minutes of cruise at normal fuel consumption. Source: FAR 121.639

In my experience, airlines will give you at least two alternates, but you will only be refueled to get to the farthest one.

EASA regulations require even less fuel than FAA, that’s why I call bullshit on the guy I replied.

Still, pilot discretion should and does apply.

[-]

admiralross2400@reddit

To be fair...it's meant to be a 2 hour flight and it was up for 4 and a half...they tried Prestwick twice (I think) then Edinburgh before heading to Manchester.

They were definitely sweating on their way to Manchester though

[-]

IAmJakePaxton@reddit

I know right! 6 minutes is a lifetime, especially when we are talking about fuel available on the plane you're on.

[-]

takinie44@reddit

That's a nice and surprisingly accurate way to put it!

[-]

Narwhale654@reddit

Some people can run a mile and a half in 6 minutes

[-]

creedz286@reddit

Yeah, if you dont use it then you lose it.

[-]

SoManyEmail@reddit

Couldn't they just leave it in the tank for the next flight?

[-]

jbethel811@reddit

The comment was satirical, but yes, this is what they do.

[-]

SoManyEmail@reddit

As was mine

[-]

NothinsOriginal@reddit

It’s like you healthcare Flex Savings card, right?

[-]

PerhapsInAnotherLife@reddit

Reminds me of the episode on Seinfeld with the dealership and going past empty.

[-]

Easy-Zebra-1747@reddit

They will be asking for a whip round before landing

[-]

Status_Ad_9641@reddit

I fly a DA40 so that’s 3 times as much Jet-A1 as I ever have. These 737 pilots don’t know they’re born.

[-]

alethea_@reddit

This was discussed in length by pilots on the previous reddit post here (someone's family never was on that fight).

General gist, mayday should have been declared and it was horrifically unsafe how low they were on fuel. Ryanair also forces pilots to run on lean emergency fuel standards.

[-]

hayder94@reddit

I'm a captain working Ryanair, that's far from the truth, Ryanair doesn't pressure use in any way for fuel decisions. In fact quite the opposite, we get regular emails regarding significant weather and they always say to take as much as we can.

[-]

Drunkgummybear1@reddit

Yeah it seemed to be the standard shitting on Ryanair rather than anything factual as far as I could see.

[-]

yabucek@reddit

Bizzare how much people hate Ryanair in this sub just because it's low cost and successful.

In reality though it's one of the safest airlines worldwide. Been operating thousands of flights a day for decades now with zero fatalities and only one one hull loss due to a bird strike.

So clearly they're doing the safety part right, regardless of what anyone thinks of their cost cutting in other departments.

[-]

Chuckolator@reddit

Canadian here. This spring I went on a multi-leg European trip and it made the most sense to take a Ryanair flight in the middle of the trip. I was expecting things to be a lot worse than they were. Flight was comfy and great, would fly again. Don't get the hate at all if you're traveling light.

[-]

Drunkgummybear1@reddit

Hope you had a great time!

They really are great at what they do - get you (close to) where you need to go for cheap. I use them a couple of times a year for weekend trips where I'm just taking a small bag and I rarely have issues. Sometimes delays, sure. But 9/10 that has been because of poor weather having a knock on effect. When I've got a free weekend, I'll go and take a look at their cheapest flights. Can't really complain too much when you're paying £100 max round trip to some really cool places across Europe.

[-]

Chuckolator@reddit

Aye, my London to Budapest flight was about 50 quid ticket price, although I did end up having to pay more because I didn't understand the check-in system (which I still think is stupid as fuck but my Euro friends seemed to not think anything of it so maybe it's a normal thing over there) and I think if I were based in Europe I would make use of them a LOT to see all sorts of different countries. One of my Budapest friends actually cancelled a trip so she'd be at home when I was in town, because she paid so little to book it in the first place it wasn't really a big deal.

[-]

masthema@reddit

Their marketing makes it look like they save pennies wherever they can. And that's true - except for safety. But you kind of have to be in the know to be aware of that caveat.

[-]

happyhorse_g@reddit

Part of their marketing is to lower expectations so that they can say "you get exactly what you pay for". So it's not surprising attacking them is so common and acceptable. Reputation is an added luxury. But the facts speak for themselves - they are a very safe airline.

[-]

alethea_@reddit

Interesting, that seemed to be the consensus on the other thread.

Thanks for the insight!

[-]

hayder94@reddit

It's a misconsection for most people, because of it being a low cost and our boss being a big mouth idiot, the reality is Ryanair doesn't skimp on safety and training, just look at the numbers, been operating since the 80s, at the moment more then 6000 flights per day, and no accidents... Don't get me wrong, the airline had plenty of problems, but safety and training is not one of them, even engineering, everything gets fixed as fast as possible, it's extremely rare to fly with something INOP, even though the max is a piece of shit.

[-]

Capital-Alarm-8608@reddit

Your boss is a breath of fresh air I would rather say

[-]

Hour_Tour@reddit

I seem to remember a time, maybe 10ish years ago, where multiple Ryanair flights kept asking for priority due to fuel, enough that at least one CAA gave them a bollocking and it ended up in the press?

So while it's not true today, the rumor comes from somewhere.

[-]

Apprehensive_Cost937@reddit

It was in Madrid, around 10 years ago. Three Ryanair aircraft declared a fuel emergency, and one of those landed with just below final reserve. Everyone knows it was Ryanair, because of their infamous media presence, but nobody ever mentions a LAN A340 that had an engine flameout due to running that low on fuel :)

I’ve got a few friends working at Ryanair, everyone says they are encouraged to plan fuel very conservatively on days like this, as common sense would dictate anyway.

[-]

Level390@reddit

Quick question then, I've often noticed ryr flights diverting almost immediately when something happens at the destination airport that doesn't allow landing while other airlines spend longer waiting around for things to improve. Why is that?

[-]

Apprehensive_Cost937@reddit

There's less incentive for LCC carriers to try and land, especially at outstations, since the only flight affected is that one (and perhaps the return).

The network (hub) carriers on the other hand operating connecting flight, so if the airplane can't land, and divert, then those passengers won't travel on the connecting long haul flights as well, and will have to be accomodated somehow to get to their destination.

What goes into the decision making is also what the aircraft is doing for the rest of the day. Sure, you can take loads of fuel and hold for 3 hours, but even if you manage to land, all of the flights for that aircraft are also delayed for 3 hours or more, which then triggers EU261 compensation.

[-]

Mossy375@reddit

Regarding "they always say to take as much as we can", what about this?

"A memorandum signed by Shane McKeon, deputy chief pilot and base captain at Stansted, and dated December 19, 2011, reiterates that pilots should only take on board the minimum as per the "plog" (planning log/flight plan).

"All of you are aware of our ongoing efficiency drive, particularly regarding fuel. The 'plog+300kgs' issue in particular has highlighted how further efficiencies are achievable and the number of 'excess fuel carried with no explanation' letters issued has fallen. There remain a small number of commanders who appear to have difficulty with operating with 'plog+300' or less.""

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/three-ryanair-mayday-calls-go-out-on-same-day/26886838.html

[-]

Alarming-Contract-10@reddit

You wanna reference a 14 year old memorandum instead of a current pilots first hand account? This is why the world is the way it is. God damn.

[-]

legrenabeach@reddit

The world is the way it is because people downvote and silence people who ask reasonable questions without answering them.

[-]

Mossy375@reddit

I'm just asking about it. I'd like to know if there were other memorandums after, if there were meetings after these incidents, what's changed, and so on. Are questions not allowed here?

[-]

no-name-here@reddit

mayday should have been declared

Per the OP article, "Ryanair flight FR3418 issued a mayday emergency call"

[-]

alethea_@reddit

Also I didn't read this article and was working of memory of the previousnpost a week or two ago. I even said, "from this other post..." :)

[-]

SpoonNZ@reddit

The incident only happened last Friday, I don’t think you saw a post about it “a week or two ago”

[-]

alethea_@reddit

My most sincere accuracy apologies, the post was 4 days ago.

https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/1nzet3a/flight_a_family_member_was_on_landed_with_just/

[-]

SpoonNZ@reddit

Ahh yes that one probably doesn’t have much information on mayday being called because it’s about a guy’s cousin who was on the plane

[-]

Ok-Foundation1346@reddit

Bit of an odd one.

I'll preface this by saying I don't trust the accuracy of the article as it states "...but wind speeds of up to 100mph meant they were unable to land." That seems like a misprint or ignorant exaggeration, especially given that the Met Office say the highest wind speeds during storm Amy were in the region of 70 knots, but let's not dwell on that.

I can't find the data for this particular flight, but it seems the Ryanair usually operates it with a B738, which my reading suggests has a maximum crosswind landing limitation of 25 knots. Between 1800 and 2000 on October 3rd the METAR for EGPK would indicate that the crosswind for runway 30 (which seems like to have been the runway in use) would have been around 27 knots, so in theory it shouldn't have been attempted unless ATC was reporting significantly different winds.

EGPH was looking much better, with wind blowing almost straight down runway 24 at around 35 knots gusting to 45. Sounds like it would have been possible to land there but if they were ballooning in the gusts and couldn't get stabilised it makes sense to go with a second alternate, especially as EGCC had winds down the runway again and was between 17 and 25 knots, which would have been much more favourable.

It'll be interesting to see if any of the popular YouTubers such as Mentour Pilot pick this up and analyse it. I'd really like to get an in-depth breakdown of the decision-making process the pilots would have worked through. At first glance there's a whiff of "get-there-itis" in this story. If nothing else it serves as a good example of why flights are required to carry a set amount of contingency fuel plus a final reserve.

[-]

nodspine@reddit

There was a Viva Colombia A320 (before they got eaten by Avianca) that once landed with like 200lb of fuel left.

[-]

icanfly_impilot@reddit

Im a bit surprised they departed in the first place; were the winds forecasted to be that gusty or did it just become windier than expected?

[-]

Apprehensive_Cost937@reddit

An airliner will nearly always depart, even when the weather at destination isn't suitable to land according to forecast. In that case, we need to ensure two alternate airports have suitable weather, and take fuel to reach the furthest one of the two.

[-]

icanfly_impilot@reddit

I’m a CA at a legacy carrier - well aware of general likelihood of departing. In this case it seems no airports within a reasonable timeframe were suitable as a result of the winds, which is why I wonder if they were forecasted to be that bad in the broader area or if the conditions were not forecasted.

Landing with 350kg of fuel is absolutely ridiculous.

[-]

ScottOld@reddit

Yea I had a flight to Paris when there was thunderstorms over Paris, only delay for an hour was for landing clearance, the next flight to Paris from the same airport was cancelled due to crew hours.. so there are some exceptions

[-]

Imaneight@reddit

Google says a 737 can glide for 90 miles from 30,000 feet. Hopefully there's an airport within that radius.

[-]

ScottOld@reddit

Would be a very soft landing for a Ryanair

[-]

purplehammer@reddit

Jetliners can glide surprisingly far.

I doubt AirTransat 232 will ever be beaten, nor do I ever wish to see it be required.

[-]

F1McLarenFan007@reddit

That 90 miles goes fast in a jet. They are all very lucky.

[-]

agha0013@reddit

I mean, it sounds like they used their entire reserve for exactly why that reserve exists.

I guess the investigation might focus on why they kept trying instead of diverting sooner if conditions were the same for every approach?

[-]

OneLorgeHorseyDog@reddit

It looks like they only went around once, then diverted to Edinburgh, found it to be the same there, then diverted to Manchester which is quite far at that point. I wonder what the indications were that drove them to try Edinburgh rather than diverting to Manchester immediately.

Also, why Manchester anyways? It looks like there are several closer options even if we disregard anything in Scotland. I get they ideally want to divert somewhere that Ryan has ground services and such, but when you’re that close to the line on gas…

[-]

iiiBus@reddit

Apparently Manchester was where they wanted to go immediately but ATC said no so they decided on EDI.

[-]

1000togo@reddit

This has become the problem in the UK now. Most airports are at capacity and can handle 1 or 2 diversions. After that, they are closed to non-scheduled aircraft by airport management not ATC.

The only way to go there is to declare a mayday. ATC will specifically say "Manchester are closed for diverting aircraft unless you are declaring a mayday. Are you declaring a mayday".

If they had enough fuel to get to Edinburgh (~600kg and fly 2x approaches ~1.5t) they weren't nearing final reserve fuel at that point. It's a bit of a catch-22 situation particularly if you don't understand the nuances of UK ATC (they were Italian based pilots).

[-]

ScottOld@reddit

And after all that MAN got that Ryanair, and a random Canadian Air force Hercules for the same reason

[-]

monsantobreath@reddit

Sounds like the UK system has serious incentives toward unsafe decision making.

[-]

davejsb@reddit

Not correct. Manchester airport authority said no. ATC have no say in that.

[-]

knobtasticus@reddit

It was ‘No’ to non-emergency traffic. At any stage, they could’ve declared a fuel emergency and every runway in the UK would’ve been instantly available to them.

The poor ‘planning’ was not nominating an alternate far enough away where weather wouldn’t have been a concern. Brussels, Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Paris or any other smaller airport on RYR’s network would’ve been perfect. That was a day to fill the tanks and give yourself 3+ hours of thinking time on top of a far-away alternate fuel.

[-]

flightist@reddit

Had a discussion about this in another thread and somebody was arguing with me that it was a heavy fuel load and a crew prepped for bad weather, because they had ~115 min overhead destination.

I guess I’m a total chickenshit, because that’s an absolutely wild take. I landed on my last trip with about that, but it was severe VFR and the alternate was another airport in the same city.

[-]

knobtasticus@reddit

In their defence, I understand they were delayed an hour+ on the ground in Pisa due to some sort of security issue with protesters. They likely expected to arrive before the worst of the weather hit.

It can also be severe bad luck. There were various periods of successful and unsuccessful approaches at lots of airports throughout that afternoon/evening.

Nearly 2 hours of extra fuel certainly isn’t nothing and shows they were absolutely aware of what they were flying into. The alternate nomination was the problem. That comes down to decision making on the day. It’s easy to armchair critique their choices but there’s no pause button up there - the situation is constantly developing and the right decision one minute could be the wrong one the next.

I’ve been in a similar situation myself with every airport around me closed for diversions. The difference was, I’d 5T extra juice on board and could just keep flying east until somewhere would take us as non-emergency. The next time I launched that night to try get in, I’d another 5T extra on board. No one in my company will ever ask why we took so much. But they damn well will have a problem if we don’t take ‘enough.’

[-]

flightist@reddit

Fully agree that the alternate selection is the problem, but picking that distant sure bet is what gives you options once you’re overhead and having the sort of luck they were obviously having.

[-]

iiiBus@reddit

Thank you

[-]

Mr-Zappy@reddit

Because Manchester already had a ton of airplanes diverting there due to the weather. It’s poor planning to fly in bad weather and count on no one else needing to divert.

[-]

TheFlyingMeerkat@reddit

Curious where else you'd think was suitable other than PIK, GLA or EDI.

Newcastle/Teeside was gusting 50-60 knots just like central belt Scotland and Leeds had a nasty crosswind. Apart from those three, Manchester is next geographically (along with Liverpool) and with winds gusting 30-35 is also the first airport with calmer winds.

For reference, winds across PIK/GLA/EDI was generally 35G55knots with directions generally around 240, 230 and 250 respectively.

[-]

Fluffy_Yogurtcloset@reddit

When I used to fly for them, based in Edinburgh. If winds picked up to that level we would quite often take fuel for Stansted and then another hour of extra fuel on top of that. These pilots being based in Italy I imagine just took the alternate off their flight plan and didn’t think to ask for somewhere further afield.

[-]

OneLorgeHorseyDog@reddit

Yea, I didn’t have the weather info for the southerly airports, so that makes sense if the weather was bad there too.

[-]

Guadalajara3@reddit

In the US, the pilots consult with dispatchers whom share 50% responsibility for the flight with the captain. In europe and England, they dont have that same position with the same responsibility and accountability. The pilots could have just decided on their own without the latest weather and notams and found themselves in an undesirable spot. In the US, this would absolutely not happen unless someone is completely negligent of the regulations

[-]

Apprehensive_Cost937@reddit

It should happen here in Europe, either, regardless of how the dispatching system works.

There are at least two pilots on board, who have at some stage passed a very detailed exam in Flight Planning and Monitoring, have supposedly checked the NOTAMs and weather, and decided on the required block fuel, and have then managed the fuel on board to safely land the aircraft somewhere.

Now that didn’t happen, and we will all learn as to why exactly, and what their thought process was, in the AAIB final report, as they have confirmed they will investigate this serious incident.

[-]

monsantobreath@reddit

There is something to be said for a person whose job is exclusively to sit at a desk and look at charts and maps all day seeing what is happening to other pilots and develops a good feel for how things play out. Pilots have a lot of skill but they necessarily can't do that. They can look at the data and read reports, pour over the details but it's never gonna be the safe back up of having someone just immersed in it all day and can make faster better choices more easily.

And having people outside the cockpit involves is a check in the dynamic in the cockpit.

Just overall seems a more ideal choice for how you'd structure a safety culture imo

[-]

Pugs-r-cool@reddit

Two go arounds at Prestwick, aborted the landing at Edinburgh, then went to Manchester.

[-]

lukei1@reddit

Probably needed to be far enough away from the previous airports they'd tried to not be affected by the same weather

[-]

OneLorgeHorseyDog@reddit

That definitely could be. I don’t know what the storm looked like, but I assumed northerly since Glasgow and Edinburgh were both out.

[-]

mduell@reddit

No. Read ICAO Doc 9976, the final reserve fuel is not meant to be used.

[-]

Tof12345@reddit

a commercial plane should never be in a position where there are only 6 minutes of fuel left anyways, with or without the reserve, so that guy who ur replying to acting like it's not a big deal is so fucking ridiculous.

[-]

monsantobreath@reddit

It should never normally. But it's there for a reason. It is meant to be used if something happens to make it needed. It's like a third tier safety margin after divert and other reserve margins. You wouldn't need it if there were never a chance it would happen to be needed. Excellent safety standards mean you'll almost never hear of its use.

But saying it's not a big deal is also stupid. And it does mean it should be thoroughly understood to increase safety.

[-]

monsantobreath@reddit

It should never normally. But it's there for a reason. It is meant to be used if something happens to make it needed. It's like a third tier safety margin after divert and other reserve margins. You wouldn't need it if there were never a chance it would happen to be needed.

But saying it's not a big deal is also stupid.

[-]

HappyBappyAviation@reddit

It's not meant to be planned to be used. When that fuel is required in flight, it becomes an emergency.

[-]

Stoyfan@reddit

Why on earth would you think that is normal.

[-]

AJohnnyTruant@reddit

When I was a regional FO, we got put into a hold after a pop up cell shut down EWR. My captain genuinely didn’t understand the fuel ladder. It was crazy. I ended up just telling ATC that we were diverting because he refused to divert because of our FOB IN THE FUCKING HOLD. EWR didn’t accept arrivals for another two hours. We’d have landed in a field and there would have been no fire.

[-]

agha0013@reddit

I never said anything about that was normal, so why on earth would you make that assumption and accusation?

The reserve is for emergency situations, they got themselves into an emergency (quite possibly bad decisions contributed to it) and they had to use up most of their reserve to get out of dodge.

[-]

theatrechippie@reddit (OP)

It may also investigate how much they took over reserve. I don't imagine you look at the arrival ATIS and take minimum block fuel with 100mph winds.

[-]

Flaxinator@reddit

One person on board recounted what is thought to have been a two-hour attempt to make a safe landing, saying the plane made two attempts to land at Prestwick, before heading for Edinburgh and finally Manchester.

From the article - it was enough fuel for multiple approaches plus holding and two diverts

[-]

theatrechippie@reddit (OP)

Well, it would be the TAF I suppose, before they depart.

[-]

LaximumEffort@reddit

Optimized fuel efficiency, well done!

[-]

ScottOld@reddit

We paid for the fuel, we will use all the fuel

[-]

abbottstightbussy@reddit

The Captain’ LinkedIn tomorrow: Thrilled to share a recent milestone in my ongoing journey towards aviation efficiency and operational optimisation! 🚀

[-]

pup5581@reddit

"How YOU can use AI to plan your flights"

[-]

Apprehensive_Cost937@reddit

Jokes aside, most flight plans at larger European airlines these days are automatically generated without any dispatcher input. The system can decode the weather, NOTAMs and decide whether it needs 1 or 2 alternates, whether the alternates are suitable, etc.

Only when the system for some reason can't output a valid flight plan (or if there's any other special reason), will then a dispatcher solve the issue and rerun the calculation.

[-]

peepay@reddit

Right, the Ryanair pilot will get... a pat on the back.

[-]

NonWiseGuy@reddit

Can be upgraded to a hug for only 29.99 extra

[-]

Gullible-Hose4180@reddit

How much for a handshake?

[-]

NonWiseGuy@reddit

14.99 but you must buy in the next 23 hours, 7 minutes.

[-]

Conor_J_Sweeney@reddit

I don’t know, it sounds like they left a lot of glide distance one the table.

[-]

AdamHLG@reddit

This reminds me of shades of Avianca Flight 052.

[-]

purplehammer@reddit

One of the most infuriating CVR recordings I've ever seen alongside AF447.

You can only listen to the word "priority" so many times on that recording without screaming at the TV "emergency! Just say the word emergency! Please!"

[-]

upbeatelk2622@reddit

Knowing MOL, he's gonna blame it on paper boarding passes :P

[-]

theatrechippie@reddit (OP)

Or NATS!

[-]

free_t@reddit

It was French ATC

[-]

purplehammer@reddit

Or Spanish airport fees

[-]

aqaba_is_over_there@reddit

For as much as everyone shits on Ryanair they have never had a passenger death due to an accident.

Landing with this low ammount of fuel should never happen. But at least from the article they did at a minimum of two go arounds and two diversions.

It's rightly being investigated to see if the pilots could have possibly made better decisions but it this could have just been very unlucky bad weather.

[-]

purplehammer@reddit

Landing with this low ammount of fuel should never happen.

And it didn't in this scenario. The reading was at stand (after god knows how long considering the number of aircraft diverted to Manchester that day), not on landing.

[-]

monsantobreath@reddit

Landing with this low ammount of fuel should never happen.

Not sure that's a reasonable statement if there are factors out of your control that can lead to this. Just more like highly unlikely. It's a story for a reason. We don't even report on most scary events that don't lead to a crash unless a plane just went down in the Potomac a week earlier.

[-]

christianbro@reddit

They had long ago multiple mayday fuels that gave them bad reputation in this regard. Their main reputation issue is how shitty they treat passengers and this is very well earned.

[-]

tylerscott5@reddit

Just in time then!

[-]

Remarkable-Mango5794@reddit

This is not a good condition for pilots or passengers. reckless management

[-]

wpoz5@reddit

Flight was supposed to take 135 minutes, it took 200 minutes longer than expected. They had two failed landing attempts because of the weather and they were diverted to second airport. On second airport they again had failed attempt and were diverted to third airport. How non-reckless management would look like in this case?

[-]

Remarkable-Mango5794@reddit

The force and create the culture of fear. Don’t act like this is not the policy set at this company. They are famous for having list, which pilots use minimum fuel! This how non-reckless management looks like: you don’t transfer the side-effects of you shitty copy-pasted business model on to pilots! Is this ok?

[-]

CreakingDoor@reddit

I know a couple of guys who worked for Ryanair. I’ve flown with quite a lot of guys who sat in both seats at Ryanair.

Not one of them said they were ever pressured by management or scared into taking less fuel than they wanted. Airlines want you to take what you need. They don’t want you taking fuel for the sake of it, but if you need it you take it no questions asked - including at Ryan.

[-]

evilgenius82@reddit

https://timesofmalta.com/article/malta-air-flight-minutes-running-fuel-prompting-investigation.1117675

[-]

SwagYoloMLG@reddit

They contracting military pilots now?

[-]

Enigma_789@reddit

100mph winds doesn't exactly sound compatible with "good landing conditions" to me, as a layman.

[-]

LowerBar2001@reddit

Pretty sure somebody posted this story the day of.

[-]

wpoz5@reddit

Note they were 200 minutes longer in the air than expected. And flight was supposed to take 130 minutes. So they started with big reserve and it still wasn't enough. So many dumb comments here, didn't expect to see this on this sub.

[-]

1320Fastback@reddit

And I bet they still slammed it on the deck.

[-]

MihtoArnkorin@reddit

That's because they fly only 737s. These aircraft have a tendency to float as they land so pilots are trained to land slightly harder to avoid that.

Ryanair has one of the safest fleets in aviation and the average aircraft age much lower than many of the traditional carriers.

[-]

TommyyyGunsss@reddit

Was my wife flying 😂

[-]

Independent_Wrap_321@reddit

The pilot’s phone battery was at 2%, so maybe.

[-]

CrashSlow@reddit

Better to be looking at fuel than for it. Also you only have to much fuel when its on fire.

[-]

schastlivaya-zhizn@reddit

or you have way too much and can't dump it, but there is an urgent need to get on the ground

[-]

JoeBagadonut@reddit

Swissair 111 ran into this exact problem, though I suspect that was more a case of the pilots not knowing the full severity of the situation and believing they had time to dump.

[-]