Ryanair jet skids off French runway

[Capt Pat]

In fairness lads if a plane skids on black ice on a runway it is almost certainly the airport authorities fault for either a) Allowing black ice to form and/or b) Allowing planes to land in dangerous conditions. Comedy value aside, it is cheap having shots at Ryanair who have never had a crash unlike many other airlines.

Given that Ireland has never had a place crash in my lifetime, why are there so many road crashes in Ireland?

[muppet]

In fairness lads if a plane skids on black ice on a runway it is almost certainly the airport authorities fault for either a) Allowing black ice to form and/or b) Allowing planes to land in dangerous conditions. Comedy value aside, it is cheap having shots at Ryanair who have never had a crash unlike many other airlines.

The Captain decides whether or not to land at a given airport, the airport authorities only give permission/clearance. The speed of the aircraft while at the end of the runway or taxiway (it is not clear which they were using when they went on the grass) is not controlled by the airport authorities. 

There is not enough information to blame anyone at this time.

By the way Ryanair have had a crash. The claim that they boasted for years was that they never had a hull loss ('Rainman' made the same claim about Qantas) but Ryanair wrote off a hull in Ciampino a year ago. That is not having a go at Ryanair, I think their pilots did an even better job there than the Hudson River guys. For the record Qantas damaged an aircraft (hull) on landing a few years ago which any other airline would have written off but the rebuilt it to retain their 'no hull loss' reputation.



Ryanair have been off runways quite a lot in the last few years. Charleroi, Lodz, Limoge and now Prestwick.

If you are interested you should read an Air Accident Investigation Unit report on an incident from last year released only a week or two ago. http://www.aaiu.ie/AAIUviewitem.asp?id=12076&lang=ENG&loc=1652

I stand corrected!

But are you seriously telling me that the airport authorities could tell an incoming plane that the runway is unsuitable for landing but the pilot can decide to land anyway - doesn't sound logical to me.

That is not quite what I meant.

As Aerlik said the airport can close, then there will be no landing.

or

The airport will report the condition of the runway and clear the plane to land, then the Captain will decide whether or not to land.

This decision is based on the aircraft manufacturer's limitations (Boeing in this case) with regard to runway conditions and will also be based on the operator's (airline) limitations with regard to those conditions.

This is usually reported as a 'snowtam'.

A snowtam will contain info on:

* the runway in question
* the type of contaminant (e.g. snow, slush, frost etc.)
* the percentage of the runway that is covered with the contaminant (e.g. 50% covered)
* the depth of the contaminant (usually in millimeters)
* Braking action co-efficient (this is measured by driving a vehicle along the runway with equipment to measure braking action) this is often converted to as one of poor/medium-poor/medium/medium-good/good.

The last two above should be compared to the limits for the particular aircraft been flown and the airline's own policies. The airport is not responsible for this, the airline via the Captain is.

The problem is that some of the quieter airports don't give proper snowtams or equivalents. Part of the reason that Ryanair seem to be involved in more of these types of incidents could be that they operate into more of the backwater airports than other airlines. Another train of thought is that crews are under so much pressure to achieve very tight schedules that they try to make up time, on the runway and taxiing for example.

This could simply be that they were taxiing too fast for the slippery conditions or that they landed too 'deep' on a contaminated runway. But that is only speculation at the moment.

Aerlik grooving is only really useful for rain removal, not ice or snow.