Go Around Vs Standing Crew Risks?

[supers54]

On a recent flight from Taiwan to Korea on EVA the pilot performed a GA due to crew member not seated. I'm curious as to the risk balance, we were in the last seconds before wheels touch down and the crew member was mid cabin still performing landing checks on passengers. Had the landing gone ahead, I guess the crew member would have been injured however a GA surely involves risks for all on board. How dangerous is a GA?

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Why on earth should a GA pose risks for all on board? It's a perfectly standard procedure which happens many, many times a day and poses no danger. At busy airports where movement rates are high go-arounds are not unusual. I expect an aircrew member will comment but I am surprised that a GA was performed because a flight attendant wasn't seated.

[supers54]

It was difficult to understand the pilots two announcement, but during the GA he said it was due to the cabin "not being secured", which I assume referred either to the fact that the crew member was standing, or that the passenger checks had not been completed. After landing the announcement was somewhat garbled, but the pilot apologised for the GA, stating it was "his fault".
As to the safety of a GA, it may well be a standard procedure that is followed, but it is still an abnormal event and occurs at time of high workload for the pilots, therefore however small the additional risk is over a normal take-off/landing, it is still an additional risk.

[BOAC]

The 'cabin secure' (given to the pilots by the senior crew member) not only involves trolleys and the like but c/crew must be seated also. If insufficient time is given for the checks the pilots may have continued the approach in the hope that the 'secure' would be given before landing. A g/a is perfectly safe. Harsh braking/undercarriage collapse or runway excursion with a standing c/crew member is not.

[supers54]

Harsh braking/undercarriage collapse or runway excursion with a standing c/crew member is not.


There was no indication that harsh braking would have been required, aircraft was well within the normal touchdown area.

[BOAC]

There was no indication that harsh braking would have been required, aircraft was well within the normal touchdown area - fantastic! We need you to fly at EVERY opportunity so you can assure ALL crews that no vehicle or other aircraft will EVER cross their path.:ugh:

[slip and turn]

Oh come on BOAC, this is the Spectators / Spotters area so it's surely a fair question here deserving of a better answer?

The captain sounds like he was fair enough about it, by taking the blame on behalf of his team but if as described, whilst ultimately just exposing the aircraft to a second approach, the cause was not routine. At some stage the cabin crew obviously didn't get a chance to do their checks and / or someone missed a call.

Net result was as a result of applying a rule that says the captain mustn't land unless he knows the cabin is secure (like it should have been by then).

It is perfectly fair to compare the very small increased risk to all the other passengers and crew by aborting what I think we can be forgiven to assume was the later stages of a perfectly good approach, and by going around for to make another approach in contrast with the higher risk that cabin crew might for whatever reason hurt themselves or others if there was some further incident on landing.

So the captain made the call based on clear disciplined decision-making in a non-routine situation, but no need to berate the questionner in this forum surely? Go arounds happen for all sorts of well practised reasons, but I don't think many have occurred because the cabin crew aren't ready?

[Sobelena]

Slip and Turn please note BOAC's (a professional airline pilot) reasoned, correct and perfectly clear answer (#4). THAT IS THE DEFINITIVE ANSWER and there's nothing I or any other can add to it. End of thread. But no, Supers54 knows better. What are his/her qualifications?

[cavortingcheetah]

:hmm:

Quite apart from considerations of airmanship, it is not a good idea to land an aeroplane without a ´cabin secure´check having been received in the cockpit. Any injury to any passenger, real or imaginary, however caused on an unsecured landing would have opened the airline to all sorts of legal claims and certainly have involved the flight deck crew in major discussions with their chief pilot.:eek:

[slip and turn]

Sobelena please note BOAC's evidently unintentional and unforeseen assumption that a Spectator or Spotter would immediately understand his gist when he said that "Harsh braking/undercarriage collapse or runway excursion with a standing c/crew member is not ... (perfectly safe)".

BOAC was merely introducing his illustration as an example of some additional but potential unforeseen hazard, and NOT a commentary on what was significantly likely to happen next in the particular case. Now we knew that when we read it, but Spectators / Spotters are generally not as informed as us on risk management practised by the flight crew, are they?

So again, please let's not berate them for misinterpreting our false assumptions.

Go arounds aren't unusual but this one was unusually caused, so why dismiss the story so brutally?

[BOAC]

He's damned lucky Rainboe didn't wake up and see this one.:mad: