A380 low pass or go-around?
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Geneva
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone looked closely the sequence ? I can count at least 3 power-up during the final approach last one beeing right at flare height, no doubt it gave to much energy hence the float and go-around. Trust mishandling but why ? New guy on type unsure how to do fine adjustments ?
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Beyond the Blue Horizon
Age: 63
Posts: 1,257
Received 152 Likes
on
95 Posts
All
Quite surprised to see the same flight number last night (18/5) quite low overhead my home. Not spinning cone trails and only at FL27. Normally up in the mid 30,s when passing over Yorkshire so 10k below the normal height at which the west bound heavies pass over. Did not seem to be much traffic about so maybe height constrained further south.
Regards
Mr Mac
Quite surprised to see the same flight number last night (18/5) quite low overhead my home. Not spinning cone trails and only at FL27. Normally up in the mid 30,s when passing over Yorkshire so 10k below the normal height at which the west bound heavies pass over. Did not seem to be much traffic about so maybe height constrained further south.
Regards
Mr Mac
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Beyond the Blue Horizon
Age: 63
Posts: 1,257
Received 152 Likes
on
95 Posts
DaveReidUK
Sorry typo on my part.
Regards
Mr Mac
Sorry typo on my part.
Regards
Mr Mac
The aircraft passed the last set of touchdown zone markers at around 0:36 whilst still a good few feet in the air. I am willing to bet that some carriers would have continued with the landing with some 5-6000ft still available ahead but in BA the rules are very clear - no landing in the touchdown zone and it is either a go-around or tea and biscuits.
I believe the same is true about achieving a stable approach by 1000ft. In fact rumour has it that a flight recently appeared in BA's monthly safety brief which wasn't stable by 1000ft and didn't go around. This particular flight was "only" stable by 950ft!!
I believe the same is true about achieving a stable approach by 1000ft. In fact rumour has it that a flight recently appeared in BA's monthly safety brief which wasn't stable by 1000ft and didn't go around. This particular flight was "only" stable by 950ft!!
Fundamentally what Doors said.
I am lead to believe
the company involved have very little tolerance these days for either unstable approaches even slightly below 1000', and certainly not for long landings.
Other points - Autoland fault: not impossible I guess but unlikely given the weather was good. Given the number of landings per month these guys get there's a tendency grab manual landings if circumstances permit.
Dropping a wing if floating: Not a taught or approved method of saving a floater in BA AFAIK, in fact doing that on one of the big Boeings would very definitely result in being invited to office for a discussion about pod scrapes - not sure how vulnerable the 380 is to the same.
As far as the video is concerned I'd be wondering if there was training involved and and was Bloggs being given a bit of time to recognise the decision that had to be made, (and eventually was made) - but I don't know the actual answer.
I am lead to believe
the company involved have very little tolerance these days for either unstable approaches even slightly below 1000', and certainly not for long landings.Other points - Autoland fault: not impossible I guess but unlikely given the weather was good. Given the number of landings per month these guys get there's a tendency grab manual landings if circumstances permit.
Dropping a wing if floating: Not a taught or approved method of saving a floater in BA AFAIK, in fact doing that on one of the big Boeings would very definitely result in being invited to office for a discussion about pod scrapes - not sure how vulnerable the 380 is to the same.
As far as the video is concerned I'd be wondering if there was training involved and and was Bloggs being given a bit of time to recognise the decision that had to be made, (and eventually was made) - but I don't know the actual answer.
Last edited by wiggy; 24th May 2016 at 07:12. Reason: added comment about pod scrapes.
I also heard a rumour of an incident of a 319 landing on 27R at Heathrow (almost 10,000 ft still available beyond the touchdown zone) where it narrowly missed the last set of markers. This was still deemed an incident worthy of discussion even bearing in mind that the plane could comfortably stop three times over in the remaining space. The piece was allegedly full of reminders about timely touchdowns or a go-around. That is the level of safety that is drummed into crews over and over again at this airline. Contrast that with the way some Indonesian flights are operated (with the inevitable results) and I know who I would rather be flying with!
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Wherever I go, there I am
Age: 43
Posts: 804
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Transport Canada also made it "news" by including it in their Daily Occurrence Report.
No they didn't. An astray fart will be included into CADORS, so don't read into that as being news. They simply reported a go around.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doors: I understand the philosophy behind the thinking, but IMHO 1000' and a calm severe clear day, long runway, is more than overly 'on the safe side'. Regarding the story quoted; a GA is made, minimum reserve full in the tanks, radar round SE England and now number 6 in sequence. Which is safer, land the thing or end up fretting? Is commander's discretion (common sense) so frowned upon? I suppose a strong minded captain could invoke deviation from an SOP in light of a flight safety issue: landing at 1500' on a 10,000' runway or be floating around the skies of London with only 40mins fuel. Just a bar-room discussion; nothing more.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Wherever I go, there I am
Age: 43
Posts: 804
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
but IMHO 1000' and a calm severe clear day, long runway, is more than overly 'on the safe side'.
I suppose a strong minded captain could invoke deviation from an SOP in light of a flight safety issue
A single pilot on their own or a small company...sure make a rule for good weather and bad weather, but when you're dealing with a company where the pilot numbers start running into the high thousands, you have to keep it simple. Not every pilot is at the same experience level, so what is safe for pilot 1 may be unsafe for pilot 2. Better to err on the side of the lowest common denominator - even if that only applies to half a dozen of your pilots.
