When to call go around exactly?

[meatlover]

Just something I want to be completely sure of.
I'll write down in my own words what the company requires, and then ask some questions.

Company approach requirements, following should be achieved at or before the altitudes stated:

Landing Configuration by 1,500ft AAL.

A missed approach is mandatory if any of these are not achieved by 1,000ft AAL:
Landing config.
Stabilized on Glideslope/Final Approach Path
Stabilized at Command Speed/Vapp with a target speed of (taking into account the prevailing conditions -5kts to VAPP + 10kts

Landing checklist completed.
Power setting is appropriate for the aircraft configuration and is not below the minimum power required for the approach.
-----------------------------------------

So my questions. (be easy on a newbie please) :O

Not in landing config at 1400, just advice the captain so that we be sure to have it at 1000 feet?

900 feet, and just realized landing checklist wasn't done. Go around?

A random ques. If ATC asks to do 160 till 4 and we know we would probably not be stabilized by 1000 using the average deceleration of 10 knots per NM.
Okay to start decel at 5 miles?

If we were doing an ILS approach with platform altitude of 1500 feet, this is now a stabilized approach correct?

For The 1500 in landing config and stable at 1000, should it always be ok to use RA?

With gusty winds, and speed moving around a lot and above Vapp + 10 and going back down, not a problem I assume?
Is it just that you should have decelerated to at least Vapp + 10 by 1000 feet.

Sorry for the random questions, and silly ones.
Thanks guys!

[PW127-B]

Hi,

Our company SOP asks for the following
Speed VAPP -5 +10
V/S BELOW 1000FT AGL , NOT MORE THAN 1000FT/M
LOC DEV 1/4 DOT
GS DEV 1 DOT
The aircraft MUST be in final conf (3 or full) at 1000FT AGL, but the GO AROUND call out is made at 500ft, either 500 stabilized or 500 go around.

Hope this helped in any way

[FlightPathOBN]

900 feet, and just realized landing checklist wasn't done. Go around?

I believe you have just realized you are in the wrong profession. ;)

[meatlover]

Thanks for the response PW.

Flight Path,
No I didn't realize anything like that. Ive only completed TR and it's a matter of habit already for me to ask for it after flaps full and to make sure it's done by at least 1500 feet.
My ques was very clear. It COULD technically happen to anybody..

Thanks anyway:ok:

[mad_jock]

The joys of being a line training Captain :-)

Speak to them. Its actually quite company dependent. And take the LTC's lead on it.

I would imagine that if you are working somewhere that has alot of cadets flying it might be quite a hard rule and the management are more than happy when it occassionally occurs.

In my TP world we also have a visual/IMC change where its 1000ft if IMC and 500ft if you are visual with the runway even if flying the procedure.

And never change your speed if you have been given one without either being told or telling them that you are doings so.

eg "speedjet 123 unable 160 to 4, reducing at 5"

Then be ready for being told to go-around. The more warning you give them the less likely that is. But check with the boss before you say anything. Some will see it as being switched on and others will get the hump, some like to use the +-5knts as an excuse that you can reduce. It can really screw the controller over though if they are running min spacings and you do reduce without telling them.

And as for RA not really it all depends on the local terrain. Again its a company policy thing ask your LTC.

You need to have a bit of paper with you and as these questions come up take a quick note of them and on the post flight debrief ask your LTC.

[grounded27]

Human factors crash aircraft.. It is a difficult topic because so many accidents in history have been a result of a person who has to much confidence in their abilities, has a motivating factor to land despite the options or is simply not on the ball given the environment. Screw company pressure.

Minimums.....

[Capn Bloggs]

Re 160 until 4, given you can be Vapp+10 at 1000ft AGL, you won't have much to lose from 160KIAS eg Vapp 140KIAS, you only need to lose 10kt. The deceleration rate will be much more than 10kt/nm when fully configured for landing. More like a few seconds to lose 10kt!

Not in landing config at 1400, just advice the captain so that we be sure to have it at 1000 feet?
Affirm.

900 feet, and just realized landing checklist wasn't done. Go around?
Affirm.

a line training Captain :-)

Speak to them. Its actually quite company dependent. And take the LTC's lead on it.
Agree.

FlightPath OBN, what are you on about? :confused:

[stilton]

'Quote:
900 feet, and just realized landing checklist wasn't done. Go around?'
Affirm.


You cannot be serious.


If all that needs to be done is complete the checklist but you are stabilized and in the landing configuration that is ridiculous.



It takes seconds to read a checklist, maybe it should have been done earlier but to go around for that reason :confused:

[Denti]

Other companies take the same strict stance on that. In "my" outfit it is pretty much the same, except we do not have the 1500 gate. At 1000ft AGL the checklist has been read, everything done, thrust set or it is a go around. In the reality a go around for a not read checklist is rarely done though. Which erodes SOP compliance right there.

[Capn Bloggs]

A missed approach is mandatory if any of these are not achieved by 1,000ft AAL:
Landing config.
Stabilized on Glideslope/Final Approach Path
Stabilized at Command Speed/Vapp with a target speed of (taking into account the prevailing conditions -5kts to VAPP + 10kts

Landing checklist completed.
Power setting is appropriate for the aircraft configuration and is not below the minimum power required for the approach.


Affirm

You cannot be serious.

If all that needs to be done is complete the checklist but you are stabilized and in the landing configuration that is ridiculous.

It takes seconds to read a checklist, maybe it should have been done earlier but to go around for that reason

RTFQ!! := Checklist done by 1000ft is a requirement. Whether it's a stupid requirement, as you suggest, or not, is not what we're discussing here. Meatlover's just setting out on his big jet flying and you're on here urging people to ignore the rules. Quick way to be shown the door (and prang, of course).

[TyroPicard]

meatlover
I'll write down in my own words what the company requires, and then ask some questions.
Your own words are very clear, but it might have been better to post the exact company words?

And it is never OK to use RA if the requirement is referenced to AAL - it can only be Baro Ref, and you can always specify the relevant altitudes in the approach briefing.

[mad_jock]

To you and me it may seem ridiculus Stilton. For me personally it would be impossible because the the last item on all of the landings checks I have used has always been "Clearance recieved" which working into any big airports your not going to get until pretty close to the ground.

Its maybe a safety dept lead change because of numorous occurances but then we get into Pay to fly/low houred cadets and altering SOP's to fit their limitations.

Then again they could be flying for Shell or the like and its one of their requirments. And may very well be ignored on the line but its in the book to keep them happy. Shell will say its not a pile of bollocks but just they are world leaders in aviation safety and its best practise.

Tyro its quite a common usage of the RA and like you I think its a complete and utter bollocks way of doing it. Along with setting RA mins when your doing a CAT 1 approach. The bloody noise that comes out of the sodding machine all while your still doing the normal CAT 1 calls. But all you get is some bollocks about belt and braces and it protects against QNH errors. The fact though that the thing is counting down from 500 over the top of the intercom and twr calls and all that other Cat II stuff EGPWS is ignored.

[Checkboard]

It's known as Practical Drift - when a procedure is particularly onerous, crews at the local level develop "workarounds" which differ from the laid down procedure.

The minor problem is that the safety goal of the written procedure may not be met by the workaround (sometimes it may be met - sometimes local workarounds are actually more logical). The major problem is that, when working closely with others (i.e. as a pilot in a multi-crew flightdeck), confusion results when some of the crew are no longer following the procedures designed to standardise responses and actions.

Given the very few go arounds which get flown, yes - I would follow the published SOP and go around, if only to reinforce the procedure and practice the manoeuvre. As a mitigating factor, I would balance that against the other risks inherent in the operation. (i.e. I wouldn't go around if low on fuel, if in weather causing queues for the approach etc etc). Yes I would dash off a quick ASR in either case - as that is the only way to gather data to change poorly written procedures. 10 go arounds at 900 feet, with ASRs (due the checklist being the only item not complete), and guess which procedure will be modified in the next amendment cycle? ;)

As to being given a mandatory speed to 4nm (and a company manual which recommends slowing at 5nm) - you have to either comply with ATC's instructions or tell them you are unable to comply. Personally I hold the 160knots to 4nm every time, and generally prevent FOs from slowing early.

[mad_jock]

The thing I have always thought, along with the very tight min fuel stuff is that fighting against it or doing the workaround doesn't actually cure the problem.

I have always thought that by doing what they say then doing the divert/GA will hit them in the wallet and get things changed much faster than fighting and moaning all the time.

I did that with one route which was stupid low min fuel and diverted twice early and 2 days later the fuel was bumped up by 5% (which is what everyone was doing anyway) and the traffic load was reduced to mucho bitching of commercial.

[Tinstaafl]

Work-to-rule can be a marvelous way of effecting change if that rule doesn't work well in practice.

[RILAX]

If I am correct this looks like a certain red/green colored airline in HKG in which case you can drop the -5/+10 in case of gusty weather captain...but the landing CL not completed would be a go around

[FlightPathOBN]

I erred in the 900, I first read it as a 1000 minima ...sorry 'bout that.

[bubbers44]

One day with my major airline I did my final check at 200 ft and found to my dismay we had been so distracted by ATC we had not done any of the checklist. My 200 ft check was gear, flaps and spoilers armed. The spoilers were not armed even though reversers would have deployed them. Yes the checklist was complete at touchdown but just barely. In 23,000 hrs that was the only time the 200 ft check helped but wouldn't had made any difference. Always back up the checklist the basics, wheels, flaps and for our airline spoilers.

[darkbarly]

I was a newbie once. With the benefit of hindsight I recall the following advice:

Fly every approach to a GA.

When all Checklist - Crew - Company - ATC parameters are met THEN,

Elect to land.

....................................................

I also recall that my initial training on type only required me to demonstrate fully configured misses at decision. Another 1000 hrs on type passed before I was familiar with going around not fully configured, from above the glide slope, towards departing traffic or during AWOPS ILS capture when the AP drops out etc.

Ultimately, each airline has its own 'line in the sand' (be it 1000' agl, 4 miles etc) which represents the margin by which you and it mitigate the risk of controlled flight into a lawsuit, or worse. IMHO professionalism means not crossing the line and this requires self discipline and on certain days, a LOT of effort.

I have a lot more respect for those that make sustained efforts to toe this line over and above those who creep across it as, fundamentally, they're just plain lazy.

Happy flying meatlover.

Please post again soon when you vacate the runway, look down at your plate and realise you are still looking at the SID you briefed on departure to your home base:eek:

[ShyTorque]

Reading the responses on this thread reminds me how varied our roles in aviation can be. I spent eighteen years flying when going above 1,000 feet was a relatively unusual ocurrence.

[mad_jock]

Aye but you more than likely doing it with a fuel load that most fixed wing pilots would be declaring a mayday with.