Ryanair B738 at Alicante on Jan 6th 2011, landed without clearance
Last Update: March 11, 2013 / 12:32:48 GMT/Zulu time
Incident Facts
Date of incident
Jan 6, 2011
Classification
Incident
Airline
Ryanair
Aircraft Type
Boeing 737-800
ICAO Type Designator
B738
The incident was caused by the crewÂ’s failure to request landing clearance, believing subconsciously they already had this clearance, and by the deficient supervision and monitoring by the ATC stations involved (Valencia TACC and ALC TWR), which became aware of the aircraftÂ’s landing only after the fact.
The CIAIAC reported that the captain (47, ATPL, 14,335 hours total, 6,326 hours on type) was pilot monitoring, the first officer (22, CPL, 2,300 hours total, 2,050 hours on type) was pilot flying. The aircraft had been cleared for a VOR Z approach to runway 28 and had been cleared for the approach and to report established. The aircraft subsequently landed safely on runway 28 without establishing contact with the tower. Contact was established after the crew called on the approach frequency after landing and was instructed to switch to tower frequency. The tower protocol such noticed: "RYR54WP lands without clearance despite being called on 118.15 and the emergency frequency 121.5. Pilot admits mistake".
Neither cockpit voice nor flight data recorders were preserved and could not be used for the investigation, the quick access data recorder was available but provided no useful data.
The Alicante Approach Controller provided testimony that he had instructed the aircraft to report when established. A few minutes later he detected that he had not removed the flight strip from his active flights and called tower to ask whether the aircraft had reported, tower replied the aircraft was already on the ground.
The tower controller said, he attempted to call the aircraft on his frequency and the guard frequency, however received no response. There was no attempt made to call the aircraft on the approach frequency.
The crew provided testimony they didn't recall to have been transferred to tower, and if they had been they did not acknowledge the transfer, hence ATC would have needed to take additional steps. Only after landing they recognized they were still on the approach frequency and switched to tower. They were under the impression that they had been cleared to land, there was no other communication around as they were the last aircraft to land that day. At that point they also realised, the second receiver was still tuned to the ATIS frequency rather than the guard frequency as per company policy and the volume turned down due to permanent chatter on the guard frequency.
The CIAIAC analysed that the approach controller coordinated the hand off with tower, after receiving the okay to hand the aircraft off to tower 8nm out, the controller however did not relay the frequency to the crew, probably awaiting the crew's report "fully established".
According to internal ATC procedures tower should have called approach if the aircraft did not report on his frequency before 5nm out, however, such a call did not happen.
Weather conditions were clear, the runway was visible way out, the crew had been cleared directly to 8nm out and descend on pilot's discretion, they were cleared for the approach and may subconsciously believed that they were cleared to land. Only after landing the crew noticed the landing lights were not turned on, and subsequently discovered they were still on approach frequency and on ATIS. Turning the landing lights on is the last point of the landing checklist which should be executed after receiving landing clearance indicative of the landing checklist not having been processed.
The report contains a contradiction between factual representation and analysis: while the report states in the factual portion (tower interview) at 1.6.3: "The aircraft did not acknowledge contacting the tower on 118.15 MHz. The aircraft was called on that frequency and on the emergency 121.5 MHz band, but no reply was received." with no other factual representation as e.g. citing tower tapes that such calls could not be heard, the last paragraph of the analysis states: "Since the TWR had not attempted to contact the aircraft prior to the landing either on the tower or on the emergency frequency, and since the flight progress strip had been generated at 21:08 and the TWR controller was aware of this aircraftÂ’s imminent arrival, it follows that the TWR controller was also unaware that the aircraft had landed without clearance, which confirms that he had a mistaken impression of the actual conditions present in and around the airport, a situation that could have posed a risk to operations."
A number of safety recommendations were released as result of the investigation including to Ryanair to prevent reducing volume of the second radio on guard frequency and to enhance the landing checklist to specifically require a landing clearance to be obtained, to AENA to revise procedures to ensure transfer of aircraft as well as supervision and monitoring of aircraft.
Incident Facts
Date of incident
Jan 6, 2011
Classification
Incident
Airline
Ryanair
Aircraft Type
Boeing 737-800
ICAO Type Designator
B738
This article is published under license from Avherald.com. © of text by Avherald.com.
Article source
You can read 2 more free articles without a subscription.
Subscribe now and continue reading without any limits!
Read unlimited articles and receive our daily update briefing. Gain better insights into what is happening in commercial aviation safety.
Send tip
Support AeroInside by sending a small tip amount.
Related articles
AeroInside Monthly Aviation Safety Review November 2024
November 2024 was a busy month in aviation safety. Please find our summary below.All in all, 77 new articles have been published during last month.…
Cybersecurity in Aviation: Best Practices to Protect Data and Communication Channels
The cybersecurity landscape in aviation is in a state of continuous flux, with emerging threats posing substantial risks to data security and…
AeroInside Monthly Aviation Safety Review October 2024
October 2024 was a busy month in aviation safety. Please find our summary below.All in all, 82 new articles have been published during last month.…
Ambitious Plans to Modernize Civil Aviation in the Next 20 Years
In recent years, in the specialized press about aircraft construction and real concepts, much has been said about plans to change the approach to…
How to Prepare for a Long Flight?
A long flight from one part of the world to another may be exciting, but it’s a test for your body and mind. You have to stay inside the plane…
Newest articles
Spring Japan A321 at Sapporo on Nov 29th 2024, runway incursion by vehicle
A Spring Airlines Japan Airbus A321-200 freighter, registration JA82YA performing flight IJ-407 (dep Nov 28th) from Tokyo Narita to Sapporo New…
Commut E145 near Monroe on Dec 2nd 2024, smoke in cockpit
A CommutAir Embraer ERJ-145 on behalf of United, registration N14148 performing flight UA-4830 from Little Rock,AR to Houston Intercontinental,TX…
Subscribe today
Are you researching aviation incidents? Get access to AeroInside Insights, unlimited read access and receive the daily newsletter.
Pick your plan and subscribePartner
A new way to document and demonstrate airworthiness compliance and aircraft value. Find out more.
ELITE Simulation Solutions is a leading global provider of Flight Simulation Training Devices, IFR training software as well as flight controls and related services. Find out more.
SafetyScan Pro provides streamlined access to thousands of aviation accident reports. Tailored for your safety management efforts. Book your demo today
AeroInside Blog
Popular aircraft
Airbus A320Boeing 737-800
Boeing 737-800 MAX
Popular airlines
American AirlinesUnited
Delta
Air Canada
Lufthansa
British Airways