Debris on Runway - Go Around?

[letMfly]

I have noticed an increased tendancy amongst fellow ATCOs to automatically issue go-arounds on receipt of "debris on the runway" reports, even if the debris is described as a small bird (deceased of course).

Given sufficient time, I have always described the type of debris to pilots and asked if they wish to land. In the case of a dead bird the reply has almost always been affirmative.

My question to pilots is would you prefer to be given the option to land on short final or have the decision taken for you by being instructed to go-around whatever the debris is? Would the decision be different depending on aircraft type?

Incidentally I was the radar controller in receipt of a couple of such go-arounds recently. Both of them resulted in high workload for the ADC ATCO, the pilots and me. The pilots didn't seem to be too pleased when they discovered the reason for the missed approaches. Both aircraft were small twin turboprops.

[Pilot Pete]

For a dead bird on the runway I would like to be given the option and I would probably elect to continue, unless it was an ostrich!

If you don't know what the debris is I would just like to be informed that debris has been reported on the runway. I would go-around, and my feelings wouldn't be hurt if you just told me to go around;) .

By definition a go-around is going to increase workload for all concerned, but we all train for them and if the workload is unmanageable for any party then that is a different discussion, but I certainly wouldn't like to continue an approach with debris reported just because a go around was going to increase workload. Now, if flight safety was going to be compromised in some way........

PP

[West Coast]

Give me the info and let me make the decision in a time permitting situation. My answer may vary depending upon factors of type of FOD, location of it, fuel state, WX and how bad I have to pee.

[aw8565]

Next time phone a catering company.... They'll go pick it up before anything lands on it.... Wouldn't want to serve squashed, ermm... 'food...'

[GlueBall]

I would certainly not go around because of a dead bird on the pavement, the technique would be to select idle reverse when approaching the location of the bird.

[throw a dyce]

I saw a local controller depart a 747 off 07R at HKG,with a 777 tyre carcass on the runway.''Caution there is da debris on da runway,cleared take off''
was the exact phrase.I was Tower co-ordinator and was screeming at him NO.:mad: :mad:
They looked at me as if I was an idiot.In those days at CLK,you got suspended for any go-around,your fault or not.Don't know what it's like now,but it was the most dangerous thing I'd seen in 25 years.
As far as runway birdkills,I give the option,but if it's something like a fox,I'd send them around.
In HKG they'd scrape it off and get the Wok out.:E

[chevvron]

At my airfield you send out the Fire Service; they've got disgusting eating habits!

[TopBunk]

At Lagos (for example) the debris could be human:ooh: :{

In general, I agree with the philosophy of telling us the pertinent information and let us decide. As others have said, it may be that a greater problem would arise by going around than by landing. Personally I would also land for bird/small animal remains and use idle reverse; tyre debris / aircraft bits fallen off, it would depend on where they were - anything over 2300 metres from the threshhold would probably result in me landing [B747-400], anything significant before then, a go-around.

As you can see, there is no simple answer as multiple factors come into play - I commend the approach of telling us all available information and letting us decide - that's what we are there for, and we have information available to us re our performance/endurance that you don't; if you say 'go-around' we have no option, really.

[Tarq57]

A few years ago was involved in a similar situation, dead seagulls on the runway. Of course, most pilots elected to continue ops. Airport authority get out there to pick up the birds, find a heap of dead P&W blades 'n bits. Runway promptly closed! This is pretty much SOP now, if any a/c damage from the strike is suspected or known.

[GuruCube]

If there is a birdstrike, then I pass the information, let arrivals decide and get an inspection as soon as possible. We do not depart an aircraft until there has been an inspection (With the exception of someone already lined up, I may launch them with information if I feel they cannot vacate before a G/A).
As far as debris goes, if an aircraft lands with structural faults or aborts with structral issues then we dont use the runway without an inspection, certainly not for departures. If I think its big debris or close enough to the runway to cause an issue, I'll instigate a G/A. I have no issues in justifying it on safety grounds. If a G/A will comprise the flight, then you should really have mentioned it earlier or of course you retain the right to land anyway... :)

[Spitoon]

An interesting bit of stuff was published a while back for UK ATC about cancelling take-off clearance. Similar principles apply for take-offs when there is debris seen on the runway.

See the doc here (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/ATS068.pdf).

[JW411]

It has to be said that regardless of any debris problems the definition of sublime happiness is calling V1 at Lagos.

[loubylou]

Debris on the runway = go arounds/deps suspended until the runway has been inspected and declared serviceable. No debate as far as I am concerned.
As has just been said - who knows what else is there apart from a corpse?

Louby

[NIMFLT]

Safety is always the greater consideration than expedition.

A go around should never be more of a problem than landing with FOD. If it is I'd suggest that correct runway separation standards and cut off distances are not in use.

If a runway inspection has not been carried out, then it's difficult to know what FOD is on the runway. Maybe more than simply the bird carcus.

[Piltdown Man]

I can't agree that if there is ANY debris on the runway it's considered unserviceable. Dead elephant, tyre carcas, bits of Antonov might normally render a runway unusable but to be told that I have to go around for a dead sparrow, is, I my opinion, frankly stupid. The reason we have brains is to use them. Tell my what can be seen and we'll decide for ourselves!

PM

[van der vart]

Give them the option, let them decide.

[Spitoon]

As Piltdown says, we have brains (both controllers and pilots) and we should use them.

I'm not sure who the 'them' that van refers to but I'll guess it's meant to be the pilots. As a controller I couldn't agree with this - I'm supposed to clear an aircraft to land or take off only if it is safe to do so. If there's a chunk of something on the runway and I can't tell what it is it's not much help to the pilot to say "Chunk of something or other on the runway, clear to land".

If I see a small - something smaller than a fox, say - dead animal on the runway I'll clear a large aircraft to use the runway, if it's a PA28 then I'll get it cleared away first. If I see something glinting in the sun then I'll get it checked before anything uses the runway. It's a judgement call. And sadly we get less and less opportunity to use our judgement/brains at work these days!