Sending the Goat-Acts Around

[OVERTALK]

Looking for a bit of guidance here.... from qualified and experienced Air Traffic (Tower) Controllers.

Me: Pilot - mostly military 4-holer - but hold ATPL
Scenario - any airfield any time. Controller sees aircraft on finals that's obviously high and hot and the runway is not all that long and you are suddenly concerned that:

a. This guy is serious about planting it and stopping
b. You know damn well he hasn't got a chance of stopping in the distance available (particularly as there's an 8kt downwind component).
c. You'd already cleared him to land before you realized that he was suicidal.
d. It's an airliner with about 150+ people on board
e. You already feel like reaching for the crash button yet he's still above 500 feet.
f. After he plants it, it's probably going to be too late to send him around (or you'd not feel you could then anyway).

What to do, what to do?
Any controller might see this sort of thing once a year at least - to whatever extent of aggravation or extreme. Whilst I realise that the tendency is always to mind your own business and let him (and his oppo) break the jet, the temptation must always be there to simply send him around (presuming you are a socially responsible non-Al Qaeda type with the normal due regard for your fellow human beings).

You could also specify the taxiway take-off scenario - per Anchorage and the CAL A330 (and there's possibly others that I've not thought of but you've possibly seen). What I'm getting at here is that there's probably a lot of merit in a dispassionate uninvolved third party observer (with a microphone) intervening at some point when the very real expectation is that not doing so will produce that familiar sound of rending metal, palls of smoke, heart-rending screams and the sound of sirens.

The big question is however whether or not:
a. You can intervene under your existing regs, guidance and SOP's - without flushing your career down the toilet.
b. Whether your Tower Boss or Supervisor will back you up (or whether your judgement will forever after be in question)
c. In the blinding absence of an accident (which you've neatly avoided) whether you will be able to successfully field all the nasty and indignant phone-calls (particularly from the testosterone-laced individual who's single-mindedness caused the ruckus in the first place).
d. If you are legally within your rights (or is it that, maybe, post-Reagan, controllers should be entitled ATC advisors and facilitators).
e. You can simply say when asked why? "Because I exercised my prerogative. I was simply not happy that it looked safe. End of story. Take it up with the padre."

The reason I ask is that the Managing Editor of a major Aviation Safety Publication asked me and I gave my view (that I'd not be upset at being sent around if I was alarming a Controller - and there was obviously much more at stake than my ego and a bit of fuel). However I also said that whether or not a licenced controller was still authorised to exercise such a prerogative? Well that I would have to check up on. Therefore this post. So no flaming pls. It is a genuine effort to establish where the goal-posts are in this post-Reagan era of laissez-faire ATC.

If anyone can email me a copy (and reference) of the pertinent FAA regulation (assuming that there is one), I'd be eternally grateful. However I warn you now that a large section of the pilot fraternity have already claimed that you do not have this right to exercise your alarm nor judgement...... and have no such prerogative.

[email protected]

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Not sure where you originate from but suspect it's Stateside. In the UK ATC Managers, Supervisors, Bosses, etc., do not interfere with the operational controller unless there is a seriously good reason to do so. Quite often those people are not qualified to do so, ie they do not necessarily hold validations for the units where they work.

In answer to whether one should intervene - been there, done that, got the tee shirt... and seen it happen several times with other controllers too. My attitude - and, I suggest, the attitude of all professional controllers - is definitely NOT one of watching the bloke make a cock of it. Whether there is anything definitive in writing which says we should take action in such circumstances the answer is probably "no". But if safety of human life is involved then it's our job to take action and if a crash had resulted one can only imagine what the lawyers might have said! If the guy wants to whinge later, that's when the supervisor does his bit.

It's not only controllers. I have first hand experience of a runway checker vehicle, not driven by ATC personnel, being on the ball and warning ATC of imminent danger to an a/c. ATC subsequently took action based on that info and saved a lot of lives.

[1261]

Isn't there a bit in the MATS Part 1 about aircraft "dangerously positioned on final" which covers such occurances (i.e. allows controllers to send around)?

[BEXIL160]

Agree with HD (Yet again!)

Been there, done that, got the T-shirt.

Only thing to add to HD's post is that today it might be considered good CRM (or TRM) to have the input of the TWR controller. After all, ATC is part of your flight deck resources, even if we aren't literally on it.

Can't see any arguments arising subsequently, the ATCO would only be sending you around for a (percieved) safety reason.

As HD says, this is the story in the UK, in the US things could be different.

Rgds BEX

[AREA52]

Quite HD,

As a Swanwick controller and obviously not therefore TWR/APP, I have to add my 2p worth. Ultimately it's the captains responsibility in these circs, but a gentle reminder or more suggestive approach is clearly the way forward. What's the worst that can happen?

At least you have then done your bit!!! If the managers wish to add their unqualified opinion then let them, safety is our job, bean counting is theirs!

AREA52

[TheFox]

Yep 1261, and being the good little trainnie that I am

Mats prt 1, section 2, chapter1, 16.2.5

A landing aircraft, which is considered by a controller to be dangerously positioned on final approach, shall be instructed to carry out a missed approach. An aircraft can be considered as 'dangerously positioned' when it is poorly placed either laterally or vertically for the landing runway.

[Yellow Monster]

In the UK ATC manual there is an instruction which says 'an aircraft shall be instructed to carry out a missed approach when it appears to be dangerously positioned on final approach'.

This is then expanded by an entry which states that 'dangerously positioned' is difficult to define and basically leaves it to the professional judgement of the controller looking at the aircraft, either on RADAR or out the window.

In my opinion this does give us the power to tell them to throw it away if we don't like the look of it. I would certainly defend anyone who did so and was then questioned about it. Conversely, I wouldn't expect it to be a decision that the controller made lightly due to the issues involved in late go-arounds from a low height.

Whether someone is already cleared to land or not is irrelevant. Would a pilot ignore a go-around instruction due to a runway infringement just because they'd already got landing clearance?

YM

[OVERTALK]

Excellent input thanks gents.
Wouldst love to have the FAA reg reference / URL.

May later post the background to the query. Your responses are now in responsible hands - as we speak. Pleased to say that you share my views on intervention in the interests of safety. Sometimes that's a difficult call and not without undeserved "payback". Perhaps ATCO's need an LSO style PLAT camera doing some continuous recording of the runway vista - from your eagle-eye viewpoint.

[West Coast]

Overtalk
If your gonna give them a plat, you might as well teach them to write backwards on the status board and move bolts on the greenie board also. There is a deliniation of responsibilities. There are 2/3 folks watching the approach from the front office along with a strict SOP that drives them. If they see an obvious configuration problem, yup sound off, but I am leary of a ATC flying the plane for me. Open to debate as to where the line should be drawn.

[Chilli Monster]

West Coast

There may be 2/3 people on the flight deck but not all of them will adhere to SOP's and be as professional as yourself. There is a wonderful set of pictures of a B747 from an asian airline landing sideways at Kai Tak, when he should have been going around. It's this sort of thing that the ATCO is there for to stop happening by means of sending him around.

Overtalk

I'm not a US but a UK Controller, but as others have said it is allowable in the UK. I couldn't find it in the US regs but if it's going to be anywhere it'll be in Order 7110.65 - Air Traffic Control (http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/ATC/index.htm) - happy reading ;)

CM

[West Coast]

Chilimonster

Yup, I have seen the video. My brother flies a CRJ for a living(if you wanna call it that) On that acft due to the wings being close to the deck they dont use the wing low/top rudder method in a X wind. They crab at a rather large angle to the runway till the 20ft callout and all of a sudden kick it out, fairly dramatic divurgance angle in a strong crosswind. The last thing I would want is some well meaning controller sending him around for what is a normal approach. Going into LAX behind Dynasty 74-400s I stay two dots high, again a well meaning controller might step in. Going into John Wayne (KSNA) I duck under the GS a tad, only 5700ft of runway. All of these profiles might set off some well meaning controller to do something unneeded. What we are talking about here is very subjective, what you as a reasonable person may note as a fairly normal approach may be completely unstabilized to your collegue next to you.

I claim to be no more a stickler to SOP than others, we all have our favorites, but to an exceeding large degree professional pilots do comply with our requirements. So unless you have some sort of first hand knowledge of pilots from flight deck experience not doing so, please pull your fangs back in.

I have no problem with, and advocate ATC callouts, such as you appear high, low,etc but I would prefer to keep the final authority for flying the aircraft within the cockpit.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

West Coast wrote: "I have no problem with, and advocate ATC callouts, such as you appear high, low,etc but I would prefer to keep the final authority for flying the aircraft within the cockpit." I don't think your examples of nipping a few feet above or below the GP are what we are talking! We're talking about the guy(s) who are going to die if nothing is done.

As a general principle I don't think any of us ATC guys would dispute that remark. However, there are times..... I have personally been involved on several occasions during my Heathrow career when air traffic controllers have intervened and undoubtedly saved hundreds of lives. If, on those occasions, the situation had been left to the guys in the front office they'd be dead. Full stop. Examples? Sure - at least two occasions when ATC sent around 747s with no gear down! Had they left things to run (or had it been dark) I dread to think of the result. The a/c were properly positioned on final approach so the instructions in our Manuals would not cover such eventualities.

YOU fly the plane but if you get into some kind of dangerous mix-up which is blindingly obvious to me then I'm going to do something about it.

[Line up and go]

Sorry West Coast, must disagree with you I'm afraid.
I've been an ATCO for a looooong time and I have no compunction about sending round an aircraft if I think it looks dangerous. I've done it a fair number of times and will ( hope) recognise the times when I will do so again.

NATS actually have a system, built into the aerodrome radar which checks the alignment of an aircraft on short finals. If this gives out a warning then ultimately the controller has no choice but to send the aircraft around. Failure to do so would get him in the office pronto! (Unfortunately this does not give warnings in the vertical sense, only lateral.)

BTW NATS needs money...anybody want to buy a version!!!

In case you're interested I've sent aircraft around for many reasons, including trying to land without u/c down, trying to land at another airport!, and trying to land on the Terminal Building!

Keep flying - I need the wages!!

[Guy D'ageradar]

West Coast


Also disagree I'm afraid. Like Line up, I have also sent aircraft around for trying to land without the gear, landing at the wrong airfield / on the wrong runway. There are probably several other times I should have but didn't for whatever reason. (Like 4km of runway...)

Just yesterday I listened to a colleague being chastised for checking with a pilot that he was SURE he could get it down...as if it was an insult to his manhood. I'm sorry, but if you can't arrange to be less than 7000ft and 200+ knots at 6 or 7 DME then I'm perfectly entitled to question if it's going to work and that's without starting the "stabilised approach" argument. It is not an insult. It is not a case of being beligerent. We are required to do so and anything less would be grossly unprofessional.

I hope that Some of you aircrew guys (and gals) will start to realise that we don't do such things just to **** you off / to make a point or just because we can. As always, there is method in our madness and a much bigger picture than you can see on your TCAS. If things really have got pear shaped on an approach, I would hope that any pilot worth his salt would bite the bullet, initiate a go-around, and try again. Frankly, from my side, I have much more respect for the guy who does that than for the guy who insists on continuing until the situation becomes critical and we're all desperately hoping it doesn't end in tears.

Rant over.

;)

[West Coast]

Gentlemen
Review my posts, I advocate ATC stepping in if they see some sort of config problem(gr up), and I am in favor of ATC pointing out what they see as a problem, such as you appear high, low etc. However the final say as to the safe operation of the aircraft must lie with the crew and more specifically the pilot in command.
Just as I dont see all that goes on in your job, you dont have the picture the crew does. The original poster believed that every controller must see this type of approach at least yearly, just aint so. The numbers just dont bear it out. Otherwise we would be lawn darting a few a day. There are times we will be high on final and still meet the parameters of a stabilized approach by 1000ft. Controller A might not send the plane around for what controller B will, just too hard to call. Again for clarification, tell us we look hi or low to aid in our decision making process, but leave the final decision to the pilots Allowing controllers to send folks around for issues beyond the perview of ATC places us on a slippery slope. What is next, is the short approach on the Cessna a bit too short? Send him around. The Attitude of an empty 757 climbing out a bit too much, tell him to shallow it out. That 737 is still doing 320 kts, better slow him down. I have no doubt that it is all very well intentioned, and that its no power trip, but leave the flying to me and I will leave the controlling to you. On a company computer in a rush so excuse spelling/grammer, blah blah

[Guy D'ageradar]

West coast

Sorry if the rant got a bit out of hand but it was necessary. I fully agree with the "you fly it, I'll do the controlling" concept - if only it worked (does the phrase "we have it on TCAS - can't we continue the climb" sound familiar?) however, if you are obviously very hot and high, I WILL ask if it's going to work, which you seem to agree with but I do not expect to be chastised for doing so.

You say The original poster believed that every controller must see this type of approach at least yearly, just aint so. The numbers just dont bear it out. I'm sorry but that is just not the case. I remember distinctly from my days at Dubai, every morning a certain US freight carrier arrives with an MD11 - no height / speed restrictions from first contact and direct to FAF at around 15nm - and every morning they manage to arrive at 10DME at 7 - 8000ft and 300+ knots. Sure, they manage to get it down about 40 - 50% of the time but again, "stabilised approach" anyone? :rolleyes:


Admittedly, I am no MD-11 expert (or any other type for that matter) but in my last year in Dubai I saw a 747 try to land on the creek, an A300 nearly hit the tower after stalling during a go-around , an IL-86 land wheels up and the gulfair crash at Bahrain, all, I believe, due to messed-up (high speed) approaches. Should we really have to sit there with our sphincters clenched, wondering if it's all going to go to ratsh*t that often?

I do hope that this will not be seen as a case of pilot - bashing but as a genuine plea to look at both sides of the coin.

Salut!

[Chilli Monster]

West Coast

Are you looking at this thing from an 'All Round' aviation perspective or just from the Commercial point of view. I have seen and sent round student pilots who were never going to make the runway unless it were 7 miles long - they were that hot and high. Now although I agree with your comments aboout 'division of responsibilty' there comes a point where you have to say something because as well as the pilot killing himself or damaging the aircraft it's also our livelihood on the line. My licence is my living - and no person's going to risk that.

Nobody ever got hurt from being sent around - but believe me, it's not a decision we take lightly. If it's done it's done for good reason, and because it's OBVIOUS that the guy has got it wrong.

As has been hinted before you do your job and I'll do mine - part of mine is keeping that runway open and not having a ball of metal rolling down it in bits and flames ;)

CM

[OVERTALK]

Chilli Monster
Thanks for the steer to that FAA URL. I'm still looking through it (but no specific luck so far).

One aspect that does come to mind is LAHSO and all the caveats and cautions attending its use. Obviously if it appears that someone has stuffed up his approach to the extent that he won't be able to land and hold short (but also doesn't look as though he's about to stop trying)..... well that's another case where a prudent step in by the ATCO might just save the day. Two a/c full of fuel and pax (and both in jeopardy) is no time to start debating with yourself whether you have either the right or the rectitude to say the words.

http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/AIM/Chap4/aim0403.html#4-3-11

Overtalk

[bookworm]

Guy and Chilli seem to be missing an important distinction, between a piece of advice and an instruction.

There's a difference between a request to continue a climb based on TCAS and an instruction to go around. In the former case that Guy cites, the controller is clearly in the better position to make the judgement as to whether the climb should continue. The crew ask, and further climb is refused. The controller may be frustrated by the request, but the decision is made in the right place.

On an "unusual" approach, the controller may advise the crew of the anomaly, and West Coast has pointed out that he would welcome that. But I find it very hard to believe that a controller in the tower has the combination of information, expertise and experience on type to make a better decision than those on board the aircraft with the responsibility for its overall safety. The crew should make the decision. Once a go-around instruction is given, the controller has made that decision in place of the crew.

It's not a commercial issue, but a safety issue. Chilli writes:

Nobody ever got hurt from being sent around

but it's by no means an easy option. I've read with interest and horror the tales of minimal fuel reserves that seem to be the norm in some airline operations, and there is no shortage of incidents of pilots coming to grief in the go-around process. Sure it should be a normal procedure, but it's not without risk, and the assessment of that risk is the crew's job.

Crews make decisions that affect the safety of the aircraft frequently. The division of responsibility between flight crew and ATC is not the result of some treaty ending a long and bitter war between the parties -- it's that way because there's a well thought out and well tested balance of authority and responsibility. Trust it, as the crew trust you.

[OVERTALK]

Bookworm
If you review the SWA Flt 1455 Burbank Accident Report on the NTSB web-site you might agree that what you say about crews being best-equipped to determine their own destinies (no matter how sizeable their apparent and forthcoming upcock) - is a bit Utopian and could apply in an ideal world - however fatigue and task fixation and pomp and circumstance can cause crews to lose the bubble. I've seen it myself.
The NTSB's server seems to be down at present so the site is tempo unavailable.

SOUTHWEST AIRLINES B-737 RUNWAY OVERRUN IN BURBANK

or perhaps something like this:

Emergency Landing for Plane After Crew Fight

Updated: Fri, Sep 07, 2001


TEHRAN, Sep (Reuters) - An Iran Air plane with 430 passengers on board made an emergency landing in Frankfurt after a dispute between the pilot and security guards, the carrier's head Behzad Mazaheri said Thursday.

The fight followed an attempt by the guards to keep a passenger from visiting the pilot in the cockpit during Wednesday's flight from Tehran to London, Mazaheri said on state television.

"The pilot then landed in Frankfurt airport, saying he did not have the morale to continue," he said, adding that the plane resumed its flight after six hours.

Mazaheri said the authorities were investigating.

Iranian airliners have been carrying several members of the Revolutionary Guards on each flight since a spate of hijackings in the 1980s by the People's Mujahideen, an Iraq-based Iranian rebel group.

Mazaheri said there have been numerous instances of quarrels between pilots and guards on Iran Air flights.

[pilotwolf]

I seem to remember recently an aircraft suffered a bird strike on touch down/roll which ended up in a contamintated runway state.

The number 1 to land was advised to expect a go around, this was noted without question and as required he went around.

The number 2, now number 1, was also told that a go around was likely - this was immediately questioned by the pilot. The situation was explained to him with regards to the runway contamination. By this time a go around was necessary. The pilot/?commander STILL argued the point and reasons behind the controllers descision, presumably with his fingers on the toga button...

As a lowly rotary CPL I found this exchange unbelievable and extremely unproffesional on the part of the flight crew.

The controller correctly stood his ground to a rude and in my opinion an unprofessional commander. Had he landed and incurred an incident I wonder who would have taken the bulk of the stick?

TImes, dates and operating company deliberately left out to protect the guilty.

[Chilli Monster]

Bookworm

1) We are talking about sending people around when they are perceived to be in a dangerous position - nothing to do with TCAS.

2) The book says I can do it, and contrary to your comments about whether we have the knowledge or proficiency to make that shout it is a judgement call I will make if I feel it necessary. It is one I've yet to make for a commercial concern, but one I've often had to make for smaller aircraft.

3) I suggest you re-read my comments about licence and runway preservation ;)

Of course booky - if you'd like to get an ATCO's licence and come and try our job yourself as you obviously know better than those of us who do the job day in and day out :D

[Guy D'ageradar]

Chilli & pilotwolf - 100% in agreement.

Bookworm, I know that this thread was specifically started with the premise of a go - around because of an a/c badly positioned on approach however, if you are told to go around when established on final, who is to say what the reason is?

We all know that you are ultimately responsible for your aircraft and passengers but please do not forget that we are held responsible for the safety of your aircraft, plus all the others, plus anything moving on the manoevering area. You would appear to be making the age old pilot's assumption that you THINK you know eveything that is going on in the surrounding airspace, based on what you have heard on the frequency. Believe me, if I am busy with a runway incursion (or blockage)/ major equipment failure / unidentified traffic buzzing the runway, the last thing I am going to do is get into a discussion with you on the freq. at the time to justify my decision. It will not have been taken lightly. An instruction is just that - please comply with it. By all means, enquire after the fact (preferably by telephone, not on the freq) but let me resolve the immediate problem before presuming to second - guess me. :rolleyes:

To repeat what several others have already stated, we not only have the right to INSTRUCT a go-around, we are REQUIRED to do so if an aircraft is considered to be dangerously positioned on final.

You quite rightly state that responsibility is divided between flightcrews and controllers for good reason - maybe it is you that should trust us a bit more.;)

[bookworm]

Guy

I agree strongly with most of what you say, but

You would appear to be making the age old pilot's assumption that you THINK you know eveything that is going on in the surrounding airspace, based on what you have heard on the frequency.

is unfair. My attitude is the opposite. If the decision to instruct a go around has anything to do with the contents of the surrounding airspace, it's clearly one that the controller should make. But the premise here from OVERTALK seems to be a single aircraft where it's only the fate of that aircraft that is primarily at stake.

You ask who is to say what the reason for the go around is. I think that's the crux of it. If you instruct a go around and all ends well, the most you should have to deal with is a call from the crew or the airline asking why the decision was taken. The problem comes if an incident develops as a result of the go around and it transpires that you didn't have all the info you needed to manage the risk appropriately. You've excluded all the information available to the crew from the risk assessment, precisely because there's no discussion to be had. If you warn the crew, rather than instructing a go around, you at least give them the opportunity to use all that information to make the decision for themselves.

Few pilots are willing to second guess crews of types they are unfamiliar with -- I'm surprised that you seem prepared to. I'm happy to trust you in all situations where you are in the best position to make a decision, but I fail to see how you can do that from the tower in this case. I put my unstinting faith in those to whom the authorities have issued a ATCO licence to perform their primary duties well, and I'd like to see reciprocity.

[OVERTALK]

We are possibly starting to split hairs here I feel. If you review the SWA accident at Burbank you'll note that they actually touched down at 182 kts well into a short runway without overruns (and flap still running/inhibited). That is by any definition suicidal and must be attributed to a multi-faceted failure of some sort. Now I don't think it matters whether the crew were affected by alcohol (but weren't in this case), fatigue, argument, a setting sun or an indifferent approach controller, the ATCO is in a good position to be the saviour of last resource as far as the passengers are concerned. I would expect him to say the words almost without thinking - in particular if he'd been the responsible Burbank controller on that day. It must have stuck out like the proverbial that it was an accident underway. Timely intervention is the name of the game. At other times it may not be so cut and dried and could remain a judgment call. In all instances you can review and sort it out later and still not have anything like the regrets you might have for NOT acting (when you were sorely tempted to).

I've flown lots of low-level aero displays and would never expect to hear anything from a controller other than a safety officer's reminder about the display line (in other words as long as I don't throw my jet into the crowd I am rightly licenced to splash anyelsewhere I like. However if I have a crew or a load of pax down back they are certainly entitled to some top cover lest I go suddenly silly, schizoid, or mentally bereft. There would always be a cojo alongside to rightly take over and follow a lawful ATC instruction (if it appeared that I wasn't going to).

That's the way it is gents and it's also the way it should be. Thanks to all above for mostly confirming my viewpoint. I know that there are some one-man bands that consider themelves infallable and inviolable - but if you tell them to go around because they're looking lethal - I'm willing to bet that just like me, they will. The difference is that I'll probably ring and thank you for saving my silly ass.

[Scott Voigt]

In the US, we will step in if we see you lining up on the wrong runway or airport <G>. We will also say something if the gear doesn't appear to be at the right angle of dangle.

While we may say something if it appears that you are very high and hot and you aren't NASA shuttle trained. But we don't send you around unless there is something from the first paragraph. That is strictly up to the pilot in command...

regards

[bookworm]

You "say something" but you don't "send [them] around" if they're hot and high?

Gee Scott, I dunno. From what the other contributors to this thread seem to be suggesting, you must be pulling smoldering wrecks out of the catch fencing almost daily... :)

[Ausatco]

In Oz we don't have the "badly positioned" provision in our MATS - conduct of the approach is up to the pilot.

If the gear's not there, or you can see there's a real possibility of CFIT or some other disaster, I think would be a legal duty of care and M/A instructions would be appropriate. Otherwise, let the pilot fly the aeroplane.

There's nothing wrong with a query or prompt - "you appear high on profile, do you wish to continue approach?" or, if it's low (but not at risk of CFIT) "you appear low on profile, radar indicates xxx feet, check altitude" or similar. I'd only do it if the apparent error is pretty gross. It lets the pilot know that ATC sees something out of the ordinary and that's worthy CRM input, if nothing else.

A few years ago an arriving 747 was twice profile height for the whole time he was on tower radar and was in VMC the whole time - an 8 eighths blue day. 6000ft at 10 miles, 3000 at 5 miles, etc. He was given the profile advisories by terminal and TWR 3 times between 20 miles and 5 miles, each time with the option of a missed approach. Each time he said, "No, we'll land". So tower gave him the wind, reminded him of runway length, gave him M/A instructions in terms of "If you wish to go around at any time..." and also a landing clearance.

The aeroplane decided for him - it arrived over the threshold in excess of 200 kt g/s (by radar) into a 25kt headwind and obviously wouldn't stop flying. It cruised a few metres above the ground for about 2500m of the 4000 odd available and then went around. Fingers were poised on the crash button. I think it was done the right way, but I'd be interested to hear other views if there are any.

AA

[mainecoon]

please remember ladies and gents of flight crew

the cockpit is what you are in charge of
the tower atco is however in charge of the runway

if told to go around you should do so straight away ask questions later

if this causes you fuel problems the you should have declared a fuel emergency at some point before initiating the approach

not a flame my friends just a point we're all trying to be as safe and honest as poss:)