Lgw Gar/mor

[sidtheesexist]

Was sitting at the hold at LGW yest (Fri 10th) lunchtime when I saw an airbus initiate a GAR due runway being occupied by a 777. Quite busy at the time with numerous arrivals/depatures. Tower controller clearly working his nuts off trying to get as many deps away without interfering with inbound traffic. Anyway, as the bus vacates 8R after second successful approach and is instructed to go to 121.8, he advises chap in tower that he is going to file an MOR for said GAR. This may or may not be an SOP but it didn't do anything to improve the tower controller's day!!!! Could the intention to file the MOR not have been notified by a phonecall to the SATCO once AC gated rather than being done so publicly? I may be making more of this than is necessary (in which case I apologise for wasting people's time), but the contoller was under a great deal of pressure (it seemed to me) and was undeserving of what appeared to be a public rebuke.

[eastern wiseguy]

A little while back we were advised by a captain from a certain LCC that he would file an MOR if landing clearance had not been issued by one mile if there was another aircraft on the runway whether or not said aircraft was rolling or static. It makes a tower controller think twice about how tight he/she wants to play it. The same company are swift to point out hat they "could have gotten away in the gap"

Damned if you do Damned if you don't I suppose..:confused:

[Spitoon]

Can't speak for LGW or the controller concerned but if I've followed all the procedures correctly but it just hasn't worked out right I don't give a pilot report that ther'll be an MOR any thought.

In my experience, and granted it's only happened half a dozen times over 20 years, the pilot usually doesn't mention it to the controller either by RT or phone. There's a balance to be found. As sid says, it can be an unnecessary distraction to the controller to mention it on the RT but, equally, if the controller has to record what happened from his/her perspective it's far easier to do it on the day rather than a month or so later (which is how long it seems to take to filter back to the unit).

[2 sheds]

It would still be far more to the point for the pilot to telephone the watch manager after parking. That is not what the RT is for and can really spoil the ATCO's concentration in what was obviously a busy situation.

I don't know quite what point the pilot is trying to make. He made the decision to fly a missed approach - that's his choice. He should be bl%dy grateful that it doesn't happen every day at somewhere such as LGW where, really, it is a national disgrace that so many movements are planned on a single runway.

[LateLandingClearance]

As someone who was working in the tower at the time (but not the ATCO plugged in during the event) can I just make clear that the ATCO made the decision to send the GB flight around.

Still now, a day later, bearing in mind how much time and paperwork is created for an MOR, I cannot see why the whole situation warranted second thought, yet alone MOR action :uhoh:

[GT3]

Some airlines have to file and MOR if they carry out a missed approach. Either pilot or ATC initiated. However having experience a pilot telling me he is filling on me on the R/T its not great, especially if you are busy.

[chiglet]

Had 3 g/as at Manch 'tother day due to FOD [a toy balloon[ :{
what's the prob
watp,iktch

[Father Jack]

Chiglet,

I can see the Manchester Evening News headline now:

"Frigtened Tourists Tell of Triple Tangled Toy Terror Flight!"

:ok: