Originally posted by Evan
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Cause of AF1441 touch-and-go at CDG on Nov 27th, 2018?
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by Evan View PostMight have sighted something, some debris perhaps, and played it safe. Anything large should have prompted the go-around while still in the air.
I once went around due to a dog on the runway at an altitude that I don't think a A320 would have been able to avoid runway contact before gaining altitude again (heck, I believe that at the moment of starting the go around my eye was lower than the eye of an A321 pilot at the moment of touchdown in a normal landing).
And it was not only the fact that a dog is not so large. I don't know if I had been able to spot it earlier had it been sitting on the runway instead of crossing in front of me.
Typically the "committed to complete land and stop" is the moment you pull reverse. Before that point you can DECIDE to start a go-around after touching down.
--- 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
-
Originally posted by BoeingBobby View PostLooked it up, I stand corrected, in a bigly way!
Ironingly, A friend survived a near death abortion after his flight hit a jackrabbit. The wabbit did died. And the brakes needed cooling. Ban all aircraft.Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.
Comment
-
A car 1.5 miles down the runway may be hard to spot from 200 ft high and .05 miles before the runway.
A car that is not on the runway YET util you are almost about to touch down and THEN it crosses in front of you would be IMPOSSIBLE to spot it ON the runway from 200 ft and 0.5 miles out because it was not there.
A dog (or a bull) is non-metallic, non-composites, and lacks wheels or wings so it is not large.
DH is a "last point" criteria for go around only for the land/GA decision when approaching in IMC. If you don't see the runway by the DH, go around.
DH has nothing to do with other kind of go around decisions. In fact, it is somehow routine for the tower to say "expect landing clearance by the numbers" (especially out of USA where, in most parts, ATC is NOT allowed to clear an airplane to land until the runway is a) Clear and b) Expected to remain clear until landing (vs the US standard of "expected to be clear by landing). That said, in those cases the pilots would typically perform the GA without touching down if not cleared to land in time.
Until we know what happened, it is impossible to assess how serious the situation was.
--- 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
-
Originally posted by Gabriel View PostA car... a dog... a bull... a meteorite...
DH is a "last point" criteria for go around only for the land/GA decision when approaching in IMC. If you don't see the runway by the DH, go around.
DH has nothing to do with other kind of go around decisions.
But does DH/MDA require pilots to establish visual contact with the entire runway or just the threshold? At what point are pilots required to have full runway visibility?
**Airplane-bending
Comment
-
Originally posted by Evan View PostOf course, things can show up rather unexpectedly at any time. Perhaps that's what happened here. I think you would agree, however, that a car on the runway might be considered a somewhat serious incident.
I think that's somewhat debatable. DH (or MDA) is the point at which the 'runway environment' has to be in view or you go around. I see two reasons for that: navigation and conflict avoidance. You confirm that the runway is where it's supposed to be and that you can safely assess that the runway is yours and yours alone. [...]
But does DH/MDA require pilots to establish visual contact with the entire runway or just the threshold? At what point are pilots required to have full runway visibility?
The DH/MDA is only for transition from instrument flight to visual flight and has nothing to do with the runway being clear of stuff or conflict avoidance as you said. Or think of a CAT III approach where, even after touchdown, you may be able to see only a few feet ahead of the plane (you may need a "follow me" car to be able to taxi to the gate).
--- 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
-
Originally posted by Evan View PostAt what point are pilots required to have full runway visibility?
Comment
-
Originally posted by ATLcrew View PostAt no point. Such a requirement would be impractical. For one thing, it would eliminate any approach with a visibility minimum less than the length of the runway. For another, it would eliminate crested runways.
(/sarcasm, The scientific CIVIL engineers around Flyover (and over a LOT of years,) did some things to reduce the amount of dirt moving that was be done)Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gabriel View PostUntil we know what happened, it is impossible to assess how serious the situation was.
[Saludos desde Boedo, Gabriel.]
Comment
-
Originally posted by SpaceDoc View PostTherefore my question here, as I could not find anything on AVherald about this touch&go-around, though the pilot announced to the pax after the touch&go and before the final landing that it was due to 'something on the the runway'.
[Saludos desde Boedo, Gabriel.]
I would not discard the possibility that the pilot lied, in an attempt to avoid destroying the pax confidence by saying "the approach was horrible, I came in too fast too high and when I flared I balooned and floated too long, then when we were about to touch down so far down the runway, concerned with not being able to stop on the remaining runway I decided that I would give myself a second chance, unfortunately not early enough to avoid contacting the runway first".
I have a friend, not very aviation fan, that came to me terrorized saying the the pilot told them that he didn't like how he was flying this approach so he would go around and try again. Because, you know, How is it possible that the pilot is flying the approach badly? Who's hands have we put our lives in?
--- 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
-
Originally posted by ATLcrew View PostAt no point. Such a requirement would be impractical. For one thing, it would eliminate any approach with a visibility minimum less than the length of the runway. For another, it would eliminate crested runways.
But, in this case, SpaceDoc is saying the visibility was clear under the cloud ceiling, although at night, so if there were anything large out there with lights on it (vehicles, airplanes, glowing meteorites), I would expect the pilots to see that and initiate a go-around well before it would involve touching the runway. Especially if it was stacked up approaches and traffic ahead not vacating in time.
Bulls and rabbits are a different story, but I don't think CDG has a livestock problem and it would be incredibly thoughtful to go around for a rabbit.
Comment
-
Originally posted by SpaceDoc View PostTherefore my question here, as I could not find anything on AVherald about this touch&go-around, though the pilot announced to the pax after the touch&go and before the final landing that it was due to 'something on the the runway'.Originally posted by GabrielI would not discard the possibility that the pilot lied...
Comment
Comment