Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Emirates 777-300 ER go aound in Frankfurt

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

  • MCM
    replied
    Not at all Curtis.

    How many times do you think you get to fly a visual traffic pattern in a heavy jet aircraft?

    Almost everywhere we go there are vectors onto ILS or VOR approaches, and while I've done my share of visual approaches, they are not quite the same as a visual traffic pattern.

    While I'm perfectly competent at doing a circuit, I'd bet it'd be a lot more untidy and "unusual" for me than a go around .

    Leave a comment:


  • Curtis Malone
    replied
    Originally posted by MCM View Post
    I've done more go arounds than I've done visual traffic patterns!
    That's...different.

    Leave a comment:


  • Crunk415balla
    replied
    I go around all the time when I'm flying. Sometimes I'm a little too hot or high, sometimes I just wanna stay on the ball so I practice one at the last second, and sometimes I like to scare the crap out of my passengers who think we are 2 or 3 seconds from an uneventful landing. Of course this stuff doesn't happen at the airlines, except for the first one.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    In the end a Go around is nothing else than a take off. Once you have pitched up and engines spool up you retract the flaps to a setting which is as well a take off flap setting. From then on, you do nothing else than during a take off. You follow a procedure (SID or MISAP).... The rejected landing is slightly different as you touchdown and need to be careful that you don't have a tailstrike... but oh wait, I try to avoid a tailstrike during take off as well.
    So basically a go around and a take off are very similar...
    For me a go around is nothing non- normal and I am so glad that I don't have to report it, I just do it when necesarry...

    wilco737

    Leave a comment:


  • MCM
    replied
    They are in a separate "maneuvers" section, just to further debunk your "look in any user manual etc" theory.
    And have a look at that section, certainly for Boeing - it is in two subsections.

    Non-Normal Manoeuvres and Flight Patterns.

    Guess again which section it is in. Thats right - flight patterns. It is NOT with RTO's, GPWS, TCAS. It is with TAKEOFF, ILS APPROACH and VISUAL TRAFFIC PATTERN.

    I've done more go arounds than I've done visual traffic patterns! Just because you don't do them often doesn't mean they're not normal. Infrequent, yes.

    Leave a comment:


  • AJ
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Curtis Malone
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gabriel
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Curtis Malone
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Curtis Malone
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


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

    Leave a comment:


  • Gabriel
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Curtis Malone
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Curtis Malone
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gabriel
    replied
    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)

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X