Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Emirates 777-300 ER go aound in Frankfurt

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by Curtis Malone View Post
    I don't want to get into a semantics battle with you ala your argument with Northwester re what is a destabilized vs really destabilized approach, but a go-around is not a NORMAL procedure, as most approaches result in landigs and not go-arounds. In fact, at airlines I'm familiar with a go-around requires an IOR (irregular operations report).
    At my airline a go around is a pretty normal procedure. If you have to do a go around, simple do it. No reports necessary, no questioning no nothing. If you think a go around is simply safer than landing, just do it and do it again or divert...
    If in doubt, go around...

    wilco737

    Comment


    • #17
      Actually Curtis, they are considered normal procedure by both airlines and pilots - certainly the reputable ones. I would never work for an airline that critisised missed approaches. Yes, some airlines require them to be reported - but it is purely for montitoring reasons. When the media ring up to ask why you nearly died and plunged to your death, its handy if the media department know why you went around.

      They are considered so routine, in fact, that Boeing puts the Go Around in the flight patterns section (with the approach and circuit patterns), not with the non-normal manoeuvres such as rejected takeoffs or windshear.

      It is an old axiom of flying that every approach is done with the missed approach as the result - you land if it is appropriate. Airline flying has certainly minimsed the number of missed approaches, but they do happen.

      Passengers do not experience them often, because the system usually works and they are not required - but given the weather, or atc environment, they are not that rare. Large, busy airports would see probably one a day, particularly if it is windy or there is low cloud around. My airline alone would have a couple a week on average... and we're amongst the more conservative.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by MCM View Post
        Actually Curtis, they are considered normal procedure by both airlines and pilots - certainly the reputable ones. I would never work for an airline that critisised missed approaches. Yes, some airlines require them to be reported - but it is purely for montitoring reasons. When the media ring up to ask why you nearly died and plunged to your death, its handy if the media department know why you went around.

        They are considered so routine, in fact, that Boeing puts the Go Around in the flight patterns section (with the approach and circuit patterns), not with the non-normal manoeuvres such as rejected takeoffs or windshear.

        It is an old axiom of flying that every approach is done with the missed approach as the result - you land if it is appropriate. Airline flying has certainly minimsed the number of missed approaches, but they do happen.

        Passengers do not experience them often, because the system usually works and they are not required - but given the weather, or atc environment, they are not that rare. Large, busy airports would see probably one a day, particularly if it is windy or there is low cloud around. My airline alone would have a couple a week on average... and we're amongst the more conservative.
        It seems we're getting into exactly the sort of semantics battle I was trying to avoid, but what the heck?

        Would you agree with me that the vast majority of approaches (certainly at the airline level) result in uneventful landings and not G/As?

        If yes, does it follow that a G/A is something that does not normally take place and is, therefore, an abnormal procedure?

        I didn't suggest that pilots are criticized for them or anything of the sort, but it is a reportable event (one of many), therefore at the very least it's not routine.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Curtis Malone View Post
          If yes, does it follow that a G/A is something that does not normally take place and is, therefore, an abnormal procedure?
          I'm not sure if I'd be willing to say Abnormal, but a Go-Around is definitely not Routine Ops.

          Yes, we practice them in training....there are a lot of things I practice in training that would be very non-routine out on the line. When we perform them in Sim training it's usually following a practice CAT III or NonPrecision approach where we smoothly start the Missed Approach right at Decision Height and then fly the Published missed exactly as we've exhaustingly briefed. Maybe the sim instructor might give you a late rejected landing for the dreaded "cow wanders on to the runway", but even then the 'ATC' (aka the instructor) gives you nice easy instructions and you're the only plane he's working.

          In real life, I'd venture to say that most every GA I've ever seen has been an abortion....not necessarily unsafe, but no where near the smooth events you see in sim training. First off, we rarely perform them....except for one day when I did 3, I may get one a year. Next, they rarely come neatly a some defined point like a Decision height. They NEVER are performed like the published procedure that you briefed. In most cases at busy airports (where traffic on the runway Go Arounds occur), if you perform the published, you will blunder into arrival or departure flows. ATC will always have some instructions for you and you won't be prepared for them. The Go Around involves large changes in energy states of the aircraft, large configuration changes, and very large rates of climb due to light aircraft. The chances of blowing through your assigned altitude are easy since you probably started the go around at some intermediate height other than DH and were given a very low level off from ATC instructions while you're climbing like a bat out of hell. Overspeeding the flaps is another common problem.

          Simply put, most Go Arounds are asses and elbows flying everywhere. That's not to say that a Go Around shouldn't be your choice in an unstable approach..... it should. A ragged Go Around is always preferable to trying to "fix" a crappy approach. However, saying that they are 'normal' events that always go smoothly is putting a brave face on it for the public.
          Last edited by Vnav; 2011-02-01, 20:30.
          Parlour Talker Extraordinaire

          Comment


          • #20
            G'day VNAV .

            I never said they always went as smoothly as they should - but nor do all approaches for that matter... hence why the Go Around is in there . Personally all of my go arounds have been quite tidy - I really can't see why, if the crew gives them due attention and practice, that they shouldn't be (with the exception of places like LAX where the go around has been specifically designed to be a pain in the ...). I'm waiting to try a PRM breakout - I can see how that could get quite messy!

            Curtis,

            The problem comes from your use of the word normal. To a pilot, normal has a very specific meaning... with the opposite usually being non-normal. They are considered normal flight patterns. Do we do them everyday? No. How about holding patterns? I haven't done one of those in 3 months - does that make them abnormal too? Of course not.

            Not routine - I'd agree with that.

            Comment


            • #21
              Curt,

              I don't want to get into a semantics battle either.

              Take any airplane "user's manual".
              There are three chapters:
              Normal procedures.
              Abnormal procedures.
              Emergency procedures.
              Guess which of the three contains the "Go-around" procedure?

              End of the discussion. (unless you want to get into a semantics battle)

              --- 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


              • #22
                Originally posted by MCM View Post
                Curtis,

                The problem comes from your use of the word normal. To a pilot, normal has a very specific meaning... with the opposite usually being non-normal. They are considered normal flight patterns. Do we do them everyday? No. How about holding patterns? I haven't done one of those in 3 months - does that make them abnormal too? Of course not.

                Not routine - I'd agree with that.
                Would you agree with me that the potential for pucker factor is considerably greater with a G/A than with a holding pattern, if for no other reason than the close proximity of hard objects, like the ground? I don't know about Australia, but in the US most holding at airline level is done in center-structure airspace, usually no lower than 10,000MSL. I applaud your professionalism in achieving a perfect textbook G/A every time you've done it, but I don't believe your (or anyone else's) skill level is the point here.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                  Curt,

                  I don't want to get into a semantics battle either.

                  Take any airplane "user's manual".
                  There are three chapters:
                  Normal procedures.
                  Abnormal procedures.
                  Emergency procedures.
                  Guess which of the three contains the "Go-around" procedure?

                  End of the discussion. (unless you want to get into a semantics battle)
                  If it's the end for you, that's you business. I would also suggest you rethink the use of the word "any" in your post. I'm personally aware of two aircraft whose AFMs place GAs in the abnormal section. Of course, they refer to them as "Rejected landings", but you didn't want to get into a semantics battle, correct?

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Curtis Malone View Post
                    II would also suggest you rethink the use of the word "any" in your post.
                    Point taken.

                    I'm personally aware of two aircraft whose AFMs place GAs in the abnormal section. Of course, they refer to them as "Rejected landings",...
                    If those rejected landings is NOT getting back airborne after the wheels touched the ground, then I'll stand corrected. Could you name them please?

                    ... but you didn't want to get into a semantics battle, correct?
                    As you see, absolutely not.

                    --- 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


                    • #25
                      It just crossed my mind that a go-around in the Space Shuttle would be a pretty abnormal procedure indeed.

                      --- 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


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Gabriel View Post

                        If those rejected landings is NOT getting back airborne after the wheels touched the ground, then I'll stand corrected. Could you name them please?
                        I'm sorry, Gabriel, I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. A rejected landing, by definition, is one that didn't take place, that is, the approach resulted in a G/A and not in a landing.

                        Are you talking about a touch-and-go?

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                          It just crossed my mind that a go-around in the Space Shuttle would be a pretty abnormal procedure indeed.
                          And a pretty unsuccessful one at that.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Curtis Malone View Post
                            I'm sorry, Gabriel, I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. A rejected landing, by definition, is one that didn't take place, that is, the approach resulted in a G/A and not in a landing.

                            Are you talking about a touch-and-go?
                            Ok, then I stand corrected. Please name those two types.

                            Fot the rest, it's semantics again.

                            --- 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


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                              Ok, then I stand corrected. Please name those two types.

                              Fot the rest, it's semantics again.
                              Gladly. One is the Bombardier Global Express and the other the Mitsubishi Diamond (nowadays known as the Hawker 400XP, previously Beechjet 400A, also T-1A Jayhawk in some circles).

                              Moreover, there are many cases where maneuvers are not in either normal or abnormal section of the AFM. They are in a separate "maneuvers" section, just to further debunk your "look in any user manual etc" theory.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                In our B767 manuals a missed approach is a normal procedure, including a go-around after touchdown (rejected landing).

                                On the A330 they also appear in NO (normal operations).

                                I've down a few in the aircraft and many in the simulator.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X