Comment by nostrademons

Comment by nostrademons 4 days ago

With 100mph winds I could easily see the 30 min reserve being eaten up by the flight from Edinburgh to Manchester. It's 178 miles! It takes a good 15-20 minutes to cross that distance when flying normally, add ascent & descent time and the landing pattern and you're easily at 24 minutes.

Edit: in other comments here, it seems like Edinburgh to Manchester is a 45 minute flight. So yeah, they could easily have been outside of reserves when they did the go-around at Edinburgh and still had only 6 minutes left at Manchester.

cpncrunch 4 days ago

Yeah, although it depends what the alternate was in the flight plan. It may have been Manchester. Although I think its more likely it was Edinburgh, which in the circumstances was too optimistic. Too much concern about the minimal costs of fuel tankering to add a bit more gas? Or saving time by not refuelling?

Ive never flown on Ryanair and dont intend to.

Reply View 5 replies

lxgr 3 days ago

As far as I’ve heard, Ryanair will cut into literally everything (including comfort and decency) for the sake of efficiency – other than safety. Even if they wanted to, they're subject to the same commercial aviation regulations as everybody else.
Do you have anything other than this single incident to back up your insinuation that they’re less safe than a full service airline?

Reply View | 2 replies
- ifwinterco 3 days ago
  
  I don't know how true this is but I have heard Ryanair will use the absolute legal minimum amount of fuel whenever possible whereas other airlines might fly with a bit more.
  In theory though that shouldn't matter because as you say, the legal minimum should really be enough.
  
  Reply View | 1 reply
  
  lxgr 3 days ago
  
  That seems like a cost/convenience tradeoff: The implication of only carrying minimum fuel is that the pilots can't hold for long to see if conditions improve and instead have to immediately go for the alternate destination airport.
  The consequence of that is everybody ending up in the wrong place, but not in an unsafe way.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies
jacquesm 3 days ago

The flight plans I've seen accounted for two alternates, not one, a significant time in a holding pattern and up to three go-arounds. This was for cargo 747s and a while ago so chances are the regulations have changed by now, also, it may have been due to the kind of cargo.

Reply View | 1 reply
- cpncrunch 3 days ago
  
  From what I can tell, that only seems to apply to EASA since 2022. As it took off from an EU airport and landed in the UK, I don't know if that rule would apply.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies