PDA

View Full Version : South African Airways 747 Go-around at LHR


Professor TailSpin
26th Jun 2001, 17:54
Noticed the following in todays Times. Anyone got any further information or is this run-of-the-mill stuff these days?

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">
TUESDAY JUNE 26 2001

Heathrow drama

A South African Airways jumbo jet from Johannesburg was forced to abort its landing at Heathrow when it was less than 350ft from the ground after a BA 747 that had arrived 60 seconds earlier missed its exit from the runway. The SAA jet went into a steep climb and landed safely a few minutes later.
</font>

Bono Vox
26th Jun 2001, 18:05
sorry, not remotely news-worthy or interesting. very definitely run-of-the-mill.

autobrakemedium
26th Jun 2001, 19:04
Sensationalism after the LHR near miss.

Manflex55
26th Jun 2001, 19:31
Reminds me of a Falcon 900 going around in Vero Beach, Florida, because a chinese student from FlightSafety (who had just landed in a Cherokee) didn't understand how ATC wanted him to exit the runway. Nice words followed on the frequency...

PaperTiger
26th Jun 2001, 19:37
That cr@p was in The Times?
How are the mighty fallen http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/frown.gif

Final 3 Greens
26th Jun 2001, 20:04
Isn't a steep climb pretty essential when going around or am I missing something?

Looks like the journos are up to their usual standard!

Professor TailSpin
26th Jun 2001, 20:09
The journos are indeed up to their usual standard but in a publication which normally steers clear of this type of 'sensationalism'.

Would have normally imagined this story coming from certain tabloids, but there you go, nothing is safe from dodgy articles

putco
26th Jun 2001, 20:20
I wonder what they'll say when the Wallabies have finished in Brisbane!!!

Red-liner
26th Jun 2001, 21:45
Bored now!!!!

Whipping Boy's SATCO
26th Jun 2001, 22:16
ZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...............

ayrprox
26th Jun 2001, 22:29
The Times certainly has gone downhill. it'll soon be advertising on tv as the SUPER SOARAWAY SIZZLING Times. Doesn'y quite have the same ring to it.
Sensational journalism at its usual worst

village flyer
26th Jun 2001, 22:53
If the papers and "journo's" are writing about these stories surely they are happening with some degree of repitition, as pointed out by my able friend. Now consider this, if you have one half of this forum writing about RVSM stories and their potential consequences and the other half babbling on about privatization of ATC and the potential impact it may have with ever increasing number of movements surely these incidents can sparsly afford to become a regular feature of air travel, or an irregular news story.

You can look at it like this, if a car carrying 4 peolpe runs a red light who is ever going to know, a bus with 50 people maybe the passangers will have something to say, a train carying 150 people, you bet the peolpe using that line everyday will want to know a little more, what about the South African Airways boeing 747 and the a/c that had not vacated the runway?

Yes granted there are proceedures and well established proceedures at that, but what about the one that could'nt get way, bird strike, unfavourable wind conditions.

Keeping these incidents in the lime light is healthy, it should not only be shared with us few on pprune, people should have the right to know every risk associated with whatever they choose to do, particularly when they are not in control of the outcome. Keep it in the press, drive the law makers to make correct descisions and maybe then people will feel more relaxed

VF

Underdog
27th Jun 2001, 00:24
Village Flyer,

This isn't even an 'incident'. This is more like giving way at a busy junction - not running a red light! It is not even remotely newsworthy. Whilst a landing is the preferred option a G/A is always briefed for and is no more dramatic (usually) than a landing (usually). Reporting this G/A is just a waste of ink and trees.

IMHO,

http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/cool.gif Underdog

Shanwick Shanwick
27th Jun 2001, 00:35
I wondered why it went around. We vacated the runway (expeditiously) just ahead of the BA 747 to be confronted with the SAA 744 drifting to the south of centreline (09L) as it climbed away.

------------------
hhhiiisssssccrrrraaaacckkkllesssshhhhhh

mach78
27th Jun 2001, 00:54
While I agree not newsworthy, I wouldn't take a go-around quite so lightly.

Many have been killed performing this "routine" manoeuvre.

checkhauler
27th Jun 2001, 06:10
Yeah, and many more during cruise. What are you trying to say?

AfricanSkies
27th Jun 2001, 10:20
and many more during landing, which I´m sure can be described as 'a fairly dangerous maneuver'

LONDON (27 June) - It was reported here today that an XXX Airways Jumbo impacted the ground at more than 160 mph at Heathrow Airport today. An airline spokesman refused to comment, but people were heard to remark that it was fortunate indeed that the pilot had his wheels extended and managed to cunningly steer the heavy jet away from buildings to impact the ground on a long grey tarred strip with white markings on it.
There were no injuries.

:)

M.Mouse
27th Jun 2001, 11:56
Since The Times was taken over by News International it has become a downmarket broadsheet if that is not a contradiction in terms. I stopped reading it a long time ago. Mr. Murdoch has a lot to answer for relating to the standard of his comics.

Desk Driver
27th Jun 2001, 11:58
NEAR MISS ON TRAINS WITH 600 PASSENGERS ON BOARD

Today a train bound for Victoria made an last minute unexpected stop at a Red light due to a previous train failing to exit the station on time. the 2 trains were belived to be just 100 meters apart and seconds from disaster. One eye witness stated all of a sudden the train started to slow, there was a loud noise which sounded like brakes beeing applied and all of a sudden we were stationary with no platform around. The train continued it's journey uneventfully Contrix were unavailable for comment at this time.

The point is Trains can be just as lethal as aircraft but the press don't make such a fuss because generally the public are not as nervous of train travel as they are of flying. the press are feeding on people's fears as always

------------------
-------------------------
You fly em we'll fill em!

PAXboy
27th Jun 2001, 14:00
I agre that pax are more scared about flying than trains or cars and we all know the stats! That's life. However, there is no doubting that The Times *IS* a tabloid broadsheet.

It still has many interesting articles and writers but I stopped reading it (after nearly 20 years) when Murdoch's Men got too lurid in their reporting. A fairly routine bank robbery was described as being started by 'a hail of bullets'.

I have been Independent for many years.

(Just to throw fat on the fire) In 35 years as pax, I have NEVER had a G/A. So, could someone do one for me next week on my next LHR/EDI?

------------------
A window seat on the sunny side of the aircraft, please!

dallas dude
27th Jun 2001, 18:33
Village Flyer and Mach78,

Simple fact of life is that go arounds will increase simply because ATC has no option but to reduce aircraft spacing (on approach) if another 5lb is going to be squeezed into our already full 10lb bag.

If an airplane has to go around because the previous one missed an exit maybe that in trail mileage was already too close (not blaming ATCO's, they can only work so much magic).

As pilots we need to brief "going around unless....." etc. so it is not such a surprise when it occurs.

dd

Gspot
27th Jun 2001, 19:15
As the HOU (Houston Hobby) Tower Controller said,

"If you don't have two Go Arounds a week You aint tryin'!!"

t'aint natural
27th Jun 2001, 19:23
I see the Daily Mail picked up the "story" and ran with it today.
The most frightening thing is that journalists must be as ignorant about every technical subject as they are about aviation. How much of my "knowledge" of the world and its affairs comes from newspapers, TV and radio? An enormous amount, I imagine. So how skewed is my worldview?

jdoe
30th Jun 2001, 00:19
Just out of interest how many go-arounds are usual at lhr daily/weekly, I have had one BA van-lhr and my wife has had 2 with EK

shocka
30th Jun 2001, 10:19
So ?

elandel
30th Jun 2001, 16:20
jdoe,
It can vary, we can go a week without one and then get a hatful. It depends on a lot of things such as weather, traffic levels etc. It really isn't abig deal (here on the ground anyway).

HOMER SIMPSONS LOVECHILD
3rd Jul 2001, 18:28
Reminds me of a v.serious tv documentry recently about ATC congestion in UK airspace.Cut to Fred Bloggs,Shoeshop Manager from Burnley and "Frequent Flyer" as he recounts his tale of coming into land at LGW when the "pilot" had to go to "full throttle" and "Shoot back into the air"missing a disaster by a few hundred feet.This highlighted the serious underlying faults in the ATC system.

surfingatco
3rd Jul 2001, 20:14
We had an interesting one this morning. The go-around alarm in TC went off (as happens about once a shift at LL - please note jdoe) and the tower reported "debris on the runway".
Expecting to lose 09L, traffic was orbited/put in the hold, etc. But the next 2 working the tower landed! It transpired that a 747 had "encountered" a duck plus assorted ducklings on touchdown - hence the "debris". I personally think the 747 pilot showed poor airmanship in not holding it off for a few feet more to avoid the carnage and I'll be reporting him to the RSPCA :)
Alls well that ends well though - anyone for "Duck A L'09L"?

P.S. At least we didn't have to put out a Railtrack type announcement "NATS wish to apologise for the delay due to the wrong type of ducks on the runway"

OzPax1
4th Jul 2001, 05:01
Out for a Duck! http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/Gif/WBDaffy.gif

:) :) :)

Genghis McCann
4th Jul 2001, 14:33
What is it with everyone about go-arounds? All this publicity has the danger of subconsciously re-inforcing the eroneous belief that this is a big deal. It is not, and should not be seen as one. I have done a number of go-arounds in my time - both as an FO and as a Captain, and will have no hesitation in doing them again if the need arises. The more that people unwittingly discourage go-arounds, the greater the chance of continuing with unsafe approach for fear of retribution from flight ops depts.

I have to disagree with comments earlier that go-arounds are potentially dangerous manoeuvres. They are no more dangerous than any other standard manoeuvre. Some people get themselves into a terrible lather about them and end up doing unbelievably foolish things. To me, it is no different than doing a turn or a climb or a take-off. As the advert says - "Just do it!"

PaperTiger
4th Jul 2001, 20:42
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">What is it with everyone about go-arounds? </font>
Not everyone - just the press and the pax, neither of who understand. The press want a story and they get it because the average passenger is scared when it happens. Not just a UK thing, although the recent BA/BD incident has probably increased the focus.

Somebody asked how many. I don't think anybody keeps statistics simply because it is a non-event. This (http://www.airporthub.com/news/details.asp?id=3626) appeared on airporthub.com a couple of days ago. Starts off in 'shock horror' mode but gives some details about how often it happens at Minneapolis (MSP).

M.Mouse
5th Jul 2001, 15:33
surfingatco

Out of interest did you guys find any ducks?

Indiana Jones
6th Jul 2001, 01:18
The best go-around I ever had was as a passenger on a Northwest Airlines 747 at 0400am into Vnukova Airport near Moscow, in a biting blizzard in January one year, I was down the back of the whale and the climb out was definitely a 'two armer' Yeeeeeeeeha!

surfingatco
6th Jul 2001, 03:22
M.Mouse - sorry I work in the engine room (TC, LATCC) but I'll try and find out - ATCO 2, are you there?

Gonzo
6th Jul 2001, 03:30
No ducks that I've heard of. A few foxes running about, but no ducks. :)

Gonzo

Strength-5
7th Jul 2001, 21:57
Our "good old friends" in the media ...
They certainly give anyone with a bit of aviation experience a pain in the .... at times ....
What's needed at times like this, and other senseless reports is that everyone with a little know how write to said paper and tell them what blinkin they are making of themselves are of the aviation industry ...
It has always amazed me how "light a/c makes emergency landing-no one seriously injured" could make headlines in the tabloids ??? When on the same day 1000's of folks are killed in vehicle accidents & murders etc ???
One thing to crews ..be very careful what you say to the pax when you execute a go-around ....an announcement like we just had to execute a missed approach because there was another A/C still on the runway does not go down well with "joe soap" ....also we have been "re-positioned by ATC due to a light A/C that wondered off course in front of our flight path ....get the drift ....it frightens the living ..... out of Mr Avewrage commuter in the back ..

Ramrise
8th Jul 2001, 00:59
I went for a ride in my car yesterday. While at the postoffice I had to parallel park. Whoa, heavy stuff!! :rolleyes: