Originally Posted by
Colum Kenny
I did not say that ATC is asked for permission to go-around, but that some go-arounds are directed by ATC. However, as a layperson, I find the suggestion here that a pilot could go-around without permission to be quite startling.
Well, Mr Kenny, I'm afraid that this just goes to highlight that you don't actually know very much about what goes on up front, despite "flying for 40 years".
To enlighten you - go-around is the term used to describe the procedure whereby the crew break off the approach, climb back up to altitude and "go-around" for another go. This procedure may be performed for a number of reasons such as:
1 ) because ATC instruct the crew so to do (for example if the runway is not clear) or
2 ) if the crew are unable to establish visual contact with the ground after an approach through cloud (the decision to do so is made at a safe altitude known as "Decision Altitude" or DA) or
3 ) the approach becomes unstable due to gusty winds etc. or
4 ) the crew observe an aeroplane/vehicle enter the runway or one takes too long to vacate the runway, thus making it unsafe to continue or
5 ) any other reason that the crew feel is appropriate
When a go-around is executed (don't read anything into that term - it just means "carried out", after all), the crew fly what is known as a "Missed Approach Procedure" - MAP - a route which takes them through clear airspace up to a safe altitude and thus keeps them clear of other traffic. The crew and ATC know that this is a safe route because ATC do not put any other aeroplanes into that piece of airspace. At no point should it require the crew to use more than 25 degrees of bank, which is the normal bank angle for an airliner, although due to the relatively low speeds flown it will feel like a tighter turn. Again, at now point should the airspeed go below a minimum safe speed.
The whole point of a go-around and MAP is that the aeroplane should get away from the ground in an expeditious manner and that is why climb rates are quite high and airspeeds quite low. Climb rates will normally be higher than at take-off because the aeroplane is now lighter having burnt off some fuel en-route. Airspeeds will be about the same as those flown during take -off, with small variations due to the changed weight.
A go-around feels dramatic because the aeroplane makes the transition from a descent at around 800 feet per minute (along a glidepath which typically has a 3 degree descent angle) to a climb at several thousand feet per minute and a climb angle in excess of 10 degrees. Because the aeroplane is descending at 800 feet per minute there is not time for a crew to ask permission for a go-around - to do so would increase the risk of contact with the ground. However, as explained above, the MAP routing is known to be clear so that permission is not needed. In fact, the rules of the air state that when ATC clear a crew to fly an approach, they are also giving that crew permission to fly the go-round and MAP, therefore the crew do already have permission! It's a bit like a car rally - Colin MaCrae doesn't have to go slowly round the corners because he knows that no one is coming the other way.
Once the go-around has been started and the aeroplane is climbing, landing gear and flaps are retracted in the same way as normal, using the same aeroplane systems and at the same times. It's probably just the case that as the go-around is unexpected (unlike the essential,expected take-off) the passengers senses are heightened and they are more aware of the noises and vibrations involved. It is good practice for the Captain to make passenger address explaining what has gone on - and in fact, if on approach he thinks that a go-around is a possibility, he may warn passengers in advance (I have done that myself).
By the way, I find the term “go-around” Orwellian. If this term referred to the sort of stacking one used to experience over places like JFK, due to congestion, then I could accept it. Using it to describe evasive action or an aborted approach/landing is to use it as a euphemism it seems to me.
With regard to the term "go-around" there is nothing "Orwelian" about it - it's a simple statement of the fact that the crew have broken off the approach to "go-around" again. The stack to which you refer is more correctly known as a "holding pattern" whereby the crew orbit at a defined position at a specified altitude whilst they await their turn for an approach. It's a "hold" because you hold your position. This allows ATC to sequence aeroplanes at the correct time/distance spacing to ensure that best possible use is made of airspace and runway "slots". Of course, no-one is perfect and occasionally the spacing goes awry and a crew have to go-around because the aeroplane ahead does not get clear of the runway intime. No problem, the MAP puts them into clear airspace.
Any airline pilot would have been able to explain the above to you, which would have allowed you to write a rather more informed piece. I appreciate that you are not an aviator, just as I am not a journalist, and thus you would not be expected to know all this off the top of your head. As a journalist you will have plenty of resources available to you which would allow you to conduct the necessary research. I would be quite happy for you to quote me on the above, if you need the waiver of anonymity just send me a private message for my details. However, I would insist on written confirmation that my words will be quoted verbatim, with no editing and that I must approve copy before it is printed and that NO editing will be permitted after I have given that approval.
I hope that I have managed to shed some light on the nature of a go-around and Missed Approach Procedure. Should you require any further information, you only have to ask. In the spirit of airmanship and professionalism, I am open to input from my colleagues in this "community" if they feel that any of what I have said above is incorrect, misleading or in need of elaboration - after all, that is the way we do it in aviation, Mr Kenny, we aim to share experience and knowledge for the benefit of all and are open to informed and constructive criticism.
Some people criticise me for not being a professional aviation journalist/specialist
No, Sir, you are being criticised for not doing the proper research. Your comments which I quote above clearly indicate that to be the case - if you had researched the issue, you would understand why crews sometimes have to go around without "asking permission from ATC"