Landing aborted because plane on runway

[timgill]

Landing at LHR yesterday we were suddenly hurled back up into the sky because there was another plane on the runway. The flight was VS301 from Delhi. Nobody panicked because we were all rather taken aback (literally). How often does this kind of thing happen?

I'm a frequent flyer, but haven't experienced this before.

Thanks in advance for your comments and opinions,

Tim

[QNH1013]

It happens because in a busy airport when one aircraft lands and doesnt clear the runway on the turn off he expected and has to take the next one being on the runway longer than expected, the aircraft going to land behind has to go-around due to the tight spacing between them. Or, an aircraft that is suposed to take off has to abort the takeoff and therefore is still on the runway so an aircraft behind cannot land and has to go-around. It happens sometimes and nothing to worry about as pilots are fully prepared for this. The result, as you would have seen, is just to fly around for another normal approach and landing.

[timgill]

Just checked a few connected links, and I think my question's been answered, i.e. no big deal!

[timgill]

And thanks, QNH, for your super-fast reply! Much appreciated...

[The SSK]

It's the equivalent of having to drive round the block again because you can't find a parking space.

[Del Prado]

It happens all the time, perhaps just less than once a day on average at Heathrow. A Go-Around is a perfectly safe manouvre planned for (just in case) before the start of the approach.
If you think about aircraft in a stream of arrivals, the spacing between them has to be just right. Too far apart and there will be massive delays, too close together and there won't be enough time for the preceeding to vacate the runway. Many years of experience have led to 3 miles being used as the optimum at Heathrow whereby the movement rate is very high but the frequency of missed approaches is less than one a day. When there's a really strong headwind 3 miles is reduced to 2.5 and in bad visibility the spacing is increased.
Although it may have felt dramatic to you, it really is a non story.



(damn,too slow)

[cwatters]

Ever wondered what happens if you are in a glider :-)

[Doors to Automatic]

Don't know - never tried landing one at LHR - I imagine you would be arrested :ok:

[timgill]

Well, thank you all. I appreciate your replies very much. Question is, how do you cope with idiot pax asking silly questions - part of the job? or line of duty...

In any event, we passengers (and I'm sure I speak for most) regard you guys with considerable awe and admiration even though you appear so incredibly laid back about most things airborne. Which we tend not to.

Cheers


Tim

[Get me some traffic]

I was at a controller/pilot forum run by GATCO a few years ago when a very well respected/very well liked Senior pilot from a large user of LHR (not BAW) stated that in his opinion "in a capacity strapped situation (LHR) if there is not the odd go-around, ATC are not trying hard enough!" I think he had a very valid point. The controllers at TC and LHR do a very good job and are second to none in the world. Go-arounds are an occupational hazard.

[Get me some traffic]

Oops, I goofed, I said LHR but add all the busy airports in UK to that list. All airports have their busy periods and Controllers will always do their best to reduce delays.

[QNH1013]

There are some idiot passengers that fly and make trouble, but a passenger who wants to ask a question if they are interested in aviation is not one of them. It's not a silly question and you are welcome to find out about flying if you are interested. There is a special 'Questions' forum here which is the better place to look in to.

[Jerricho]

"in a capacity strapped situation (LHR) if there is not the odd go-around, ATC are not trying hard enough!"

As a newly validated. very green Final Director (with an antipodean accent) was told one day by the Tower Arrival guy..........

"You'll get scared before I do!" ;)

[Navy_Adversary]

When an aircraft has a missed approach at LHR does it have to go to the back of the queue at say LAM or does it get vectored in as priority?:confused:
TIA

[Postman Plod]

Saw exactly this incident yesterday - dont often get aircraft flying north over Slough on approach! Saw it making its second (successful) approach about 15 minutes later. Was going to ask, but thought it would be something like this!

Think there was another one today for some reason, but maybe wrong - different runway, may just have been quick at gaining height before turning north.

[Roffa]

Traffic making a missed approach will get vectored straight back downwind for a truncated circuit, can still add about another 40 or so track miles though. Won't get anything much quicker than that unless there are fuel issues.

They won't go all the way back to a hold unless they themselves want to if the missed approach was for technical reasons as sometimes happens.

They will get an extra mile or so in front of them second time around...

As has already been mentioned, better to land 40+ an hour with the odd missed approach than 35 with none.

[Jerricho]

When an aircraft has a missed approach at LHR does it have to go to the back of the queue at say LAM or does it get vectored in as priority?

As Roffa says, the missed approach will be re-sequenced into the traffic flow, not as "a priority", but simply as another arrival (if the go-around was a heavy, it may be planned to group it with another heavy or behind a 757). Realistically, this will mean that traffic being brought off the stacks will have an extra couple of track miles to fly to accommodate the sequence, as a gap will have to be made. Heathrow's sequencing is all about track mileage and the number of aircraft off the stacks vs where the arrivals will be turning to final.

They will be afforded a little bit more room ahead on final to ensure it doesn't happen again ( ;) ) .

[Gonzo]

They will be afforded a little bit more room ahead on final to ensure it doesn't happen again ( ;) ) .


Well, usually.... :E

[Sick Squid]

I was the Captain of the aircraft that was on the runway. We did all we could to get off quickly, however we were a light 319, technically with a Vapp of 119k which had been increased to 125k to help the flow. At 4 miles the aircraft behind was slightly inside the 2.5 miles, but not enough for either the co or I to mention it. However, given the fact that he was a 340, the difference in Vapp between 160kts each at 4 miles and both our final speeds would be significant.

Only after touchdown were we told to expedite off, which the copilot did a brilliant job of, and indeed VS301 was cleared to land as we exited, but he already had the up arrow on my TCAS for a go-around. Totally the correct call, and something that happens every day at LHR. Most certainly not an "incident" as someone wrote earlier. Just another go-around.

Same thing happened to me a couple of months back, this time we were a heavy 321 planning a flap 3 landing (company policy these days) vectored tight behind a RAM 737. We saw the potential for a go-around coming as we turned finals, went back over the brief for it, even had time to change to Flap Full to see if that would help. Kept an eye on how things were progressing and decided that it definitely wasn't going to work as we went through 1000 radio. We then went around in a calm and very rehearsed manner from 800 radio.

These things happen.

Squid

[Julian Hensey]

I thought TCAS automatically disabled close to the ground. I certainly didn't think TCAS could be used to decide on a go around or not if an aircraft is on the ground, it was purely a visual judgement thing?

[Floppy Link]

...TCAS automatically disabled close to the ground. I certainly didn't think TCAS could be used to decide on a go around or not if an aircraft is on the ground...

The TCAS did not tell them to go around, but the TCAS display DID show the aircraft going around...

...but he already had the up arrow on my TCAS for a go-around...

for for read "...indicating that he had commenced..." and it should make sense. I think.

[Julian Hensey]

OK that is useful, I thought the whole idea was that TCAS would disable its display from showing anything under a set height, and also disable itself while an aircraft is wheels on ground to avoid confusion - hence the surprise that a low aircraft about to go around was showing at all.

[Sky Wave]

Julian

The only part of the TCAS system that is supperessed when at low altitudes is the RA's. The rest of the system works even on the ground. We often use it to monitor the approach before entering the runway.

SW

[scroggs]

I was the Captain of the aircraft that was on the runway

Typical. Bloody Scotsmen driving minibusses getting in the way of proper aeroplanes doing proper work! ;) (No, it wasn't me driving the 301).

Scroggs

PS At normal landing weight, the A340's Vapp would have been about 135-140kts, and the IAS inside 4D would have been about 145, so long as groundspeed mini wasn't a factor. So the overtake would have been about 20-25kts. If it was a -600, add 5 kts or so.

[Sick Squid]

Shame it wasn't you, matey.... from what I hear you can do with the practice ;)

Just blame ATC. I do. Then I get slapped. But I do.

Beer soon, hopefully? All the best.

[OzExpat]

You're a glutton for punishment, aren't ya Squiddy! :}