Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ryanair go-around at Tallin Dec 22

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Ryanair go-around at Tallin Dec 22

    Swedish tabloid Expressen reports an incident involving Flybe flight AY2115 and Ryanair FR4764 having occurred at Tallin/EETN rwy 08 around 20:20 Monday Dec 22nd. The Flybe flight landed ahead of Ryanair and had not vacated the runway when the Ryanair Boeing touched down. This caused the crew of the Ryanair flight to make a go-around.
    There are two lines of speculation;
    -- Tallin control allowed the separation to go below acceptable minima for the prevailing weather/runway condition/visibility conditions, or did not monitor the runway properly.

    -or-

    -- FR4764 attempted to land without receiving clearance to do so.

    link to video, AY2115 lands at 1:24, FR4764 about 1:50 into the clip.
    The video is not continuous and there are no real time tags avaliable, so it is clearly edited and time lapsed:
    On the 22nd of December 2014 at 19:39z Ryanair flight FR4764 Boeing 737-8AS (EI-DCN) performed a dramatic Go-Around after Finnair (FlyBe) flight AY2115 ATR-7...


    I have not been able to find out if EETN has ground surveillance radar installed.

    It looks like the tower is located at the western end of the runway, placing a landed aircraft at worst 3000m+ away in the darkness.. It also appears that the first available exit to the taxiway at the eastern end of the runway is some 450 meters back west from the end, so if AY2115 did not make that last exit due to low friction affecting deceleration, the Ryan crew may have been looking straight at an ATR-72 rolling up the runway toward them.

    Facts to follow... anyone heard more about this?

  • #2
    There are reports that ATC confirmed that Rayanair had not received the landing clearance.

    A ground observer, EETN Spotter, videotaped the go-around amongst other flights and told The Aviation Herald, that the Ryanair Boeing 737-800 did not receive landing clearance.

    Tallinn's Air Traffic Control confirmed on local Estonian TV news that the Ryanair Boeing did not receive landing clearance, the occurrence is being investigated by Estonian Authorities.
    Aviation Herald - News, Incidents and Accidents in Aviation

    --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
    --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

    Comment


    • #3
      There appears to be quite a hot debate at Aviation Herald on this one.
      So far I have read only un-corroborated statements through the media as to the cause of this incident. Even the thought that the Ryanair flight was attempting to land without clearance (shortcutting the system?) is quite disturbing. Trying to save fuel, time-?
      Maybe tower fell behind events and understood too late that the ATR would not clear runway in time, realised that FR was inside the treshold and praised their luck that they forgot to give clearance... This may have happened through FR going for short finals, ie making last turn very close and causing marginal separation-?
      It may come to "word against word". Unfortunately, if FR did not get clearance, they will have to bear the blame..

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Passion for flying View Post
        Even the thought that the Ryanair flight was attempting to land without clearance (shortcutting the system?) is quite disturbing. Trying to save fuel, time-?
        More likely, they didn't realize that they didn't have the clearance. It would not be the first time.

        A pilot is apporaching, having normal conversations with ATC. ATC don't give the clearance to land because there is another plane ahead, but they expect to do so after the preceding plane vacates the runway. The pilot forgets that he had not received landing clearance and lands without one.

        In those cases, the best practice is for ATC to tell the pilot to "expect a late (or "last minute", or "on the numbers") clearance". This will augment the pilot awareness that he has not received the clearance. I wonder if ATC gave this infor to the Rayanair crew (the lack of which does not authorize the Rayanair to land anyway).

        --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
        --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Passion for flying View Post
          ...(shortcutting the system?) is quite disturbing...trying to save fuel, time...Maybe tower fell behind...ATR would not clear runway in time...inside the treshold and praised their luck...forgot to give clearance...marginal separation..."word against word"...blame...

          OR


          ...a very mundane, boring, tiny mistake, not super rare occurrence where the backup systems worked pretty much exactly as intended, and the plane landed a bit later and was refueled, reloaded and flew again.
          Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

          Comment


          • #6
            Well - whatever the final reason was for this, it's another of those "There but for the grace of God..." incidents. If you ask me, 'runway incursion', 'controlled flight into terrain' and 'weather' are the unholy trinity of aviation safety...
            Okay okay... let's throw in a measure of "What's it doing now?" and it's a quartet.

            Comment


            • #7
              I am sure the passengers on board KL 4805 and Pan Am 1736 would have felt happer if Captain van Zanten had waited for clearance that foggy sunday March 27, 1977, in Tenerife. They did not have the luxury of the backup systems working pretty much exactly as intended so they could fly again.

              Pardon for making reference to that accident but the collision occurred between an aircraft taxxiing up the runway while another was procceding down it at speed. The runway systems share much the same geometry.

              Just which backup system worked here, apart from the Ryanair pilot visually identifying the other aircraft coming against him whilst he was performing a landing, without clearance?

              Would you suggest that we'd better not take notice of such occurrences and dismiss them as "mundane boring mistakes which always are taken care of by the backup systems"

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Passion for flying View Post
                Would you suggest that we'd better not take notice of such occurrences and dismiss them as "mundane boring mistakes which always are taken care of by the backup systems"
                To the best of my knowledge, things break every day, Go-Arounds occur multiple ties every day, and "emergency landings" occur every day.

                Please be my guest. Don't dismiss them, take notice of them and track them.

                If you find a big trend, I'd be interested in discussing it.

                However, if there was a plane on the runway and a plane had to go around??? It's happened to me twice now as a passenger (and a couple of more times in the light plane world), and I've heard a number of pilots describe the situation from their standpoint...Airliner or 172, you see the situation developing way in advance, the decision is made calmly, the power is smoothly advanced, the pitch is gently adjusted upward, the plane flies away.

                It really is boring- especially for cases like this where it seems that you don't really know what happened and trying to make it out to be bigger than what it is...one of the many go arounds that occurred on that particular day.
                Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Passion for flying View Post
                  I am sure the passengers on board KL 4805 and Pan Am 1736 would have felt happer if Captain van Zanten had waited for clearance that foggy sunday March 27, 1977, in Tenerife. They did not have the luxury of the backup systems working pretty much exactly as intended so they could fly again.

                  Pardon for making reference to that accident but the collision occurred between an aircraft taxxiing up the runway while another was procceding down it at speed. The runway systems share much the same geometry.

                  Just which backup system worked here, apart from the Ryanair pilot visually identifying the other aircraft coming against him whilst he was performing a landing, without clearance?

                  Would you suggest that we'd better not take notice of such occurrences and dismiss them as "mundane boring mistakes which always are taken care of by the backup systems"
                  I don't want to minimize the incident at all, but it was faaaar from a fatal accident:

                  - They were not rushing at each other. The preceding airplane had landed before the Rayanair in the same direction.
                  - It is possible that there was no violation at all. The Rayanair knew that they were not cleared to land because there was another airplane on the runway that they (all of them, Rayanair, ATC and even the preceding plane) expected to vacate before the Rayanair landed. So the Rayanair pilot waited until the last second for the clearance to come, and when it didn't they went around, briefly touching the runway in the process (which is common when a go-around is initiated just before touching down).
                  - Second line of defense: ATC might have told the Rayanair to go around. Also in the last second because they were expecting for the previous plane to vacate in time. We don't know yet if this happened or not.
                  - Third line: The Rayanair might have been unaware that he was not cleared to land but, because they look out of the windshield to land, and the planes are fitted with lights, saw the plane on the runway and went around. We don't know if this is what happened either, but one of the three previous cases did happen.
                  - Fourth line of defense. The plane lands and slows down behind the preceding airplane. Now this would be a really serious incident, but the planes would not have crashed. The previous plane had landed before and could not have done it very shortly before the Rayanair because they were maintaining separation in the air. When the Rayanair touched down the previous plane was already way down the runway (it didn't vacate before because there is no exit in the middle of the runway. The Rayanair could have easily slowed down behind the previous plane if it had not vacate during the landing roll of the Rayanair. I'm very sure that the collision would not have happened even if the Rayanair never saw the previous plane.
                  - Fifth line of defense: Avoidance. This requires the Rayanair spotting the previous plane, but had the previous plane been closer they could have maneuvered to avoid the collision, even if that meant going to the grass.
                  - Sixth: In Tenerife you had a 747 already flying impacting another 747 taxiing in the opposite direction. There were many survivors from the 747 that was on the ground. All of the KLM died not because of the collision itself, but because the airplane was already flying, fell down, broke up and continued the disintegration of the pieces tumbled down the runway at thigh speed. In this case, even if a collision had happened, both planes were already firmly on the ground and it would have been at a slow speed, the nose or wing of the 737 against the tail or wing of the ATR. An accident, a good fender bender, but likely with no fatalities. None of these last three cases happened because the Rayanair DID go around.
                  - If ALL of the above fails (and we don't know if ANY did fail yet), you might have something like Tenerife.

                  --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                  --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    On Dec 27th 2014 Estonia's Civil Aviation Authority reported that they are aware of the occurrence and have collected data. The data available do not permit to accurately claim the Boeing crew acted outside their clearances, the CAA reasoning that it takes a while for an aircraft to settle in a go-around. The danger of a collision was minimal even if the Boeing had continued the landing. The occurrence therefore was rated an incident and is not being investigated.
                    Aviation Herald - News, Incidents and Accidents in Aviation

                    --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                    --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X