Article by COLUM KENNY of the Irish Independent. [Archive]

Wiley

9th Jul 2007, 03:55

It's a fact; go arounds scare the bejezus put of pax (and many cabin crew) and a reassuring PA from the captain as soon a s possible after the go around can do wonders in calming them down - (but only if the captain doesn't sound as rattled as they are)!

However, I've been a passenger on more than one occasion where we've had to go around and have heard absolutely nothing from the flight deck for the 20 minutes or more it took to make the second approach. (It's my habit to hand over to the FO as soon as we've completed the clean up and got everything squared away and make a PA, and if the weather is really marginal, to tell them of the possibility of a go around in my approach PA, including what it will involve, (pitch up, loud engine noise etc "basically, just like a take off"), stressing the fact that it's quite normal and something we practice in the simulator every six months.)

We would all agree that the article here is nothing more than sad yellow journalism at it worst, but too many of the punters we carry are all too willing to drink that kind drivel in. many with what appears to be unbridled enthusiasm. I don't know if it's not a subconscious desire by some people to want to think they've been involved in something dangerous so they can breathlessly pass on their 'close call with death' to friends and families.

It's on a par with the current equally sad journalistic practice of labelling any soldier who has so much as put his boot into a war zone as a 'hero'.

Final 3 Greens

9th Jul 2007, 07:30

Then a mighty roar came from the engines and the aircraft's nose went up. Its wheels slammed shut as we flew faster and faster, banking right and disappearing back into cloud.

Passengers fell silent.

Then the pilot announced what had actually happened. A jet had been slow to clear the runway on which he was due to land

The episode was "absolutely routine", according to the Irish Aviation Authority.

She said that both pilots and air traffic controllers are trained for them.
According to the IAA, an Aer Lingus pilot on flight EI 169 himself requested a 'go-around', because of the effect of wind on his approach

You may not like the lack of comprehension of a normal procedure, but the piece did not strike me as being sensationalist and the writer seems to have spoken to the IAA and the airlines to investigate go arounds. In fact I would say that he has been careful to balance his (incorrect) perception of 'danger' with reassuring comments from the industry.

Rather than bitch about the guy, maybe a more constructive approach would be to contact him and offer the flight deck view.

Compared to the recent compost in the Daily Mail about the easyJet descent, I think this guy might actually be trying to get to grips with something that pilots understand very well, but that seems scary to those who don't.

Hookerbot 5000

9th Jul 2007, 07:49

Erm so! What point are you trying to make? :}

9th Jul 2007, 07:57

Quote: "Bit like me trying to show that all airline pilots are dangerously hopeless by using the example of a dumb mistake by an inexperienced PPL."

True but the difference here is that an "inexperienced PPL" is not going to be flying a jet full of passengers. This piece was allegedly written by a "Professional" journalist not a "PPL"- although it reads like it was written by an excitable 14 year old.

......"but the piece did not strike me as being sensationalist "

"Its wheels slammed shut as we flew faster and faster, banking right and disappearing back into cloud. Passengers fell silent. The first thought that crossed my mind was that it was a near miss - and I just hoped hard that there was no light aircraft or flock of birds in our exit path." :yuk::yuk:

This is the problem with crap journalism - amateurs are are allowed to practice, and publish, whereas a Professional pilot has to achieve a (very high) standard before being allowed to practice.

Of course the consequences in each case are somewhat different, but a journalist can do a significant amount of "damage" with ill-researched and sensationalist articles which are then consumed by the masses as gospel.

I don't even know what the point of the article was driving at other than the IAA don't keep stats on go-arounds????????

A4 :hmm:

hobie

9th Jul 2007, 08:27

You could argue ..... "Why do we post this Rubbish on PPRuNe" .... :(

9th Jul 2007, 08:35

You could argue ..... "Why do we post this Rubbish on PPRuNe" ...

I'm not sure what, exactly, you are refering to. As far as I'm concerned at least we get a right to reply via this site. I'll wait for a few more replies and then e-mail said journo with a link to the thread to allow him to see the reaction to his article from a group of more aware readers.......

If you're refering to the original article then yes I agree... it was rubbish.:ok:

A4

Hartington

9th Jul 2007, 09:18

I am a humble SLF.

While go-arounds happen, and may be routine, almost, I can't help feeling that the frequency with which they occur at some airport is worrying. Now, Dublin is nothing like as frequent as Heathrow but to a passenger even one occurrence is one too many (I've done 4).

There are some that it is arguable are unavoidable - low visibility approaches spring to mind. But to operate the system at a rate which means that one small error/slow clearance causes a go-around is something that you all need to think about.

Is it really acceptable that you simply accept go-arounds?

Final 3 Greens

9th Jul 2007, 09:33

"Its wheels slammed shut as we flew faster and faster, banking right and disappearing back into cloud. Passengers fell silent. The first thought that crossed my mind was that it was a near miss - and I just hoped hard that there was no light aircraft or flock of birds in our exit path."

The first and second sentences are factual the gear doors and struts can sound very much like a door being slammed if you are sitting in certain seats.

When I've experienced go arounds as an airline pax, the nervous silence (plus white faces) has been very noticeable, so the journo has no tried to sensationalise this obervation. He could have written about sheer panic, creaming pax annd weeping kids - but he didn't.

The second sentence is simply the immediate reaction of someone who does not understand what happened.

Finally, A4, as you are not a journalist, I suggest that you do not judge what is "crap", since you are doing to him exactly what you despise in his writing about your profession.

Jeez, give the guy a break and feed him some positive advise - you might get a half decent story out of this guy - he obviously thinks that G/A's are dangerous and we all know that they are not.

I've already emailed the editor to point out its a normal procedure and suggests he contacts IAP to get the flight deck percpective.

9th Jul 2007, 09:35

Hello Hartington,
I respect a missed approach probably is alarming to pax and any half decent Captain should come on the PA once the house is in order just to reassure everyone...

However, may I suggest you forward your concerns and comments to the numerous anti airport expansion groups...... when airports only have one runway the chances of missed approaches are significantly increased due to capacity issues and trying to utilise the runway to its max. 98% of the time ATC and pilots do a great job and all is well. Very occaisionally it doesn't work and we go around and fly the approach again..... all that fuel/NOX/CO2 -do the "anti's" factor that into their arguements :rolleyes:

The NIMBY fraternity in this country are very good at delaying the inevitable - the south-east needs additional runway capacity now - not in 5 years times. The Dutch, Germans, French and Spanish have all added additional runways in the last few years - the UK has done nothing (in the south where the demand is....) for 20,30,40 years.

A4

SWBKCB

9th Jul 2007, 09:43

While the article appears sensationalist to the aviation professional exactly which piece of it has been poorly researched? Seems to have gone to the trouble to obtain facts even if you don't like the way they are presented.

What the majority of previous posts don't seem to appreciate is that to the average SLF, when they've been in a go round they've nearly been in a crash.

What is needed is communication, communication, communication (well done, Wiley!:D)

Hartington's point about the increasing frequency and the reasons why, are worthy of more consideration.:D

Wiley

9th Jul 2007, 09:49

Hartington, it's called m-o-n-e-y. When many airlines want to utilise an airport, as with Heathrow, everyone concerned tries to get the maximum THEY can get out of what's available for the minimum outlay, and who would have it any other way? That's the system (capitalism) we all work in.

The controllers at Heathrow (and the majority of pilots who fly into that port) have it down to a very fine art, to the point where it wasn't all that unusual under the now superceded system to get landing clearance almost in the flare.

The new procedures allow the controller to clear a following aircraft to land with another aircraft still occuppying the runway as long as, in his judgement, the leading aircraft will be clear of the runway by the time the following one lands. (This saves a badly timed radio call from another aircraft preventing the controller from getting a vital landing clearance call in should spacing be that tight.)

In the vast majority of cases, the system works, and works very well. Every now and then, (in a very small percentage of cases), something happens to cause the controller to have a following aircraft go around.

We - the people who fly into Heathrow and other busy airports -aren't attempting to make out we're terribly cool by saying that such incidents are no big deal. In the vast majority of cases, they simply aren't. They make a bit of noise and cost the operator a lot of money - in a 777, for instance, nearly 2.5 tonnes of fuel on average at Heathrow, but given how seldom they do occur, that's a lot less fuel than would be wasted in the long run if we were forced to stretch the separation on landing aircraft to accommodate your suggestion.

Think of it as getting two takeoffs for the price of one ticket, because that's pretty much what a go around is, just another takeoff.

9th Jul 2007, 09:49

F3G,

Perhaps I was a little harsh. However I maintain that the word "slammed" is unnecessary. Did they "slam" up on the original take-off? Was his first thought about a flock of birds...or did that idea come to him on the ground when he was writing his piece?

Just because a Journalist does not understand a subject doesn't mean it's ok for him to write what he thinks is correct - that's just lazy and will provoke the "victims" of the inaccuracy. The problem is, once it's published the damage is done.

A Professional Journalist has a responsibility to ensure that he has got his (basic) facts right before publishing (see the Calder thread.....). What if Professional pilots were so lax..........

I accept the word crap was a bit strong - weak?

A4

Desert Diner

9th Jul 2007, 09:56

....and was down safely at Dublin Airport. While such episodes might be 'routine' they appear to occur more often than either the Irish Aviation Authority or airlines realise.

Even the honourable wan. er gentleman's words can be taken out of context:rolleyes:

I believe that this would be himself:
http://www.comms.dcu.ie/kennyc/

9th Jul 2007, 10:09

Tell them how it is. What you have done and why. Reassure dont patronise

Good advice to some journalists!!

I will say no more on this thread.

Out.

A4

hapzim

9th Jul 2007, 10:35

Rather a Go-Around every day, a few mins delay, than be part of an accident. That's why we all train for them for what ever reason they occur.

Poor standard of todays reporting by the media in general, anything to get a headline. We just see the in accuracies with the bits we have knowledge of so how correct is the rest ??

Bearcat

9th Jul 2007, 12:08

Yeah, read the article too and it appears the said journalist has the mind of a 10 year old. Dublin airport has got busier than ever imagined, more traffic means invariably more G/A's....that's life.

fireflybob

9th Jul 2007, 12:29

You all spout how normal goarounds are. Tosh. look at any Flight data and you will see that along with npas they are the most commonly badly flown maneuveres. They are underpractised and usually messed up to some degree.

Lou Stulewater, on what statistical basis do you make your observations?

A GoAround is a "normal" manoeuvre which may be required for a number of different reasons.

I am curious to know what you mean by "underpractised" and "usually messed up". Please explain more fully.

moggiee

9th Jul 2007, 12:38

It was written by a journalist with relatively little knowledge of aviation matters. Not a professional aviation journalist. I refer the honorable gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago......
.....and 10 minutes on the phone to research a few facts would have allowed him to write an article with all the sensationalist twaddle removed. Whilst the noises and aeroplane manoeuvres may seem dramatic to the non-aviator, any pilot (or even experienced traveller) could have explained to Mr Kenny what it was all about.

Mr Kenny could then have written an informative piece along the lines of "Ever wondered what happens when an airliner goes around?". He could have explained what happens, why it appears dramatic and why the go-around might be flown in the first place. He could have explained what the noises of the gear and flaps are, why the nose rises so much, why the aeroplane banks at relatively low levels. But that would not have been dramatic enough for him or his his editor, so we get this simplistic, shallow hype instead.

This is a rather poor example of work - utterly typical of the majority of journalists when they get near an aviation story. It doesn't even report facts so mucvh as the journalists's emotions - two very different things.

PPRUNERS - think on this. We know that 95% or more of all aviation-related stuff that appears in the popular press is poorly researched, innacurate, fabrication, hype or just plain nonsense. We know that because it's our field of expertise. Now think of how much you read in the press that is not in your field of expertise.....................

whoop.whoop

9th Jul 2007, 12:46

Never forget a little knowledge is dangerous :ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:
When it comes to aviation journalists seem to have a little knowledge and make up the rest. Except of course for a few well known aviation publications.

SOPS

9th Jul 2007, 12:58

We really need to start an award for this stuff...on a yearly (twice yearly??) basis.

Final 3 Greens

9th Jul 2007, 13:14

Moggiee

.....and 10 minutes on the phone to research a few facts would have allowed him to write an article with all the sensationalist twaddle removed. Whilst the noises and aeroplane manoeuvres may seem dramatic to the non-aviator, any pilot (or even experienced traveller) could have explained to Mr Kenny what it was all about.

To be fair to Mr Kenny, he did spend his 10 mins (at least) speaking to an airline and an airport authority and less he has completely misquoted his sources, the information supplied has not exactly shed the light it could have done on the situation.

I wonder what he would have written if he had been put through to the chief pilot or some other authority figure from the flight deck community, who had explained the situation and allayed his fears?

But he did make the effort, so I don;t think he should be criticized for that.

whoop whoop

I understand our frustration, but I don't believe this guy is an aviation journo - just a journo.

If you read the piece again, there is no mention of plunging aircraft, screaming pax etc etc, just a layman's description of the event he experienced and some comments on go arounds that show he is a layman; but I don't see anny of the sh*t stirring rubbish that I read in other paper.

In other words, here there MAYBE a guy who would write a good piece with the right info - I'm not aline pilot, so I cant do it, but perhaps someone else can.

Experience in other fields suggests that guys like Mr Kenny can be helpful if steered in the right direction.

Rick Studder

9th Jul 2007, 13:35

Many pilots fail to realize that a go-around scare probably half of the pax on the plane ****less. They don't know what's going on and assume the worst, near miss etc.
I've seen go-arounds covered in the media far more sensationalist than in Mr. Kenny's piece. The article illustrates the need for some kind of public education with regards to go-arounds. Maybe it should be included in an FAQ in the inflight magazine... In any case, always make a PA as soon as possible after a go-around, explaining what happened and why, and stressing that it is a controlled operation and not out of the ordinary. Don't tell them you practice it two times a year in the sim, they don't find two timeas a year reassuring. Just don't let them leave the plane thinking they experienced a near miss...

Lou Stulewater

9th Jul 2007, 15:13

fireflybob,
my post is self explanatory.
however I have been involved in FDM analysis since its inception and responsible for its application in two uk companies.
I didnt say it isnt a normal maeuvere. I inferred that people dismiss them as a normal occurrence and not worth mentioning.. They are not. A landing should be the normal occurance from an approach.
I also stated that they are messed up to some degree. That means anything from poor tracking, speed control to piss poor flying and dangerous practice. You see thats the beautiful thing about the phrase I used.it covers the small to large errors. If such an alledged straightforward maneuvere causes so much hassle then why is it fobbed off as a non event? arrogance? probably. It isnt a non event and to act that it is indicates,from my 25 years in the business an accident waiting to happen from some skygod or other. Thats why we have fdm now.

How many times have you practiced go arounds on good engines in the sim from a non usual vertical or lateral position? Try it.ask the IP to insert it at random in the two days. Watch the fingers and thumbs, the poor fd work, tracking and flap discipline. Lets say ga 1600 feet flap 25, level off 2500feet with a turn at 185kt at x miles followed by a further climb and then aninstruction from atc to do something else. Ie not a briefed GA from decision alt at a familiar airport.
Or simpler at man go around at 350 feet. ..initial clean up roll mode 0 dme or 750'. I'll bet it gets screwed and the turn is missed due to a late roll mode, or the ga is cancelled due to ap selection because it wasnt in a set sequence that you practice so well.. I could go on ive seen many but quite frankly i cant be arsed anymore.

Rick .

good post. My thoughts exactly

JW411

9th Jul 2007, 16:36

I agree with Lou Stulewater. I cannot tell you how many go-arounds I have seen flown inaccurately in years of training and examining. I have lost count of how many times I have briefed pilots that there is no point in flying a beautiful ILS if you then screw up the go around. I have also lost count of how many times I have told them that, if they screw up the go around, then they are also going to have to fly the ILS again.

Now that is not to say that we are talking about dangerous manoeuvres. We are talking about inaccuracies such as poor tracking etc.

Another consideration is that go arounds are normally practiced twice a year in the simulator. As often as not they are practiced at MLW with one engine out.

I once had to go around at LGW in a DC10-30 after a flight from LAX. The aircraft was very light and all engines were operating. The rate of climb when I hit the TOGA button was astronomic and it was quite difficult not to bust the missed approach altitude believe you me.

So, go around manoeuvres are normal manoeuvres but they are not practiced as often as some of our brethern seem to think is necessary.

The travelling public need to have little to fear sitting in the back whilst a go around manoeuvre is being flown. You are in safe hands but the guys in the front will be working quite hard for a little while so don't expect an immediate passenger announcement.

AltFlaps

9th Jul 2007, 17:19

I fully agree with what many have said - i.e. make a passenger PA as soon as is practicle ... I always do this myself - it calms veryone down.

HOWEVER, the travelling public DON'T require an explanation for every manouevre we fly , and there is no reason to educate them on the finer points of a go-around.
We (the public) do not question a surgeon, nor a lawyer, nor the bus driver when he has to brake sharply ...

Just allow the professionals to do their job for chr1st sake ! :ugh:

If you don't trust your pilots, DON'T GET ON THE AIRPLANE

CaptKremin

9th Jul 2007, 17:37

Those of you who are not familiar with the Irish media ought to be informed of the nature this particular newspaper before making further judgements on the journalistic standards in said article.

The 'Sunday Independent' (affectionately known in Ireland as 'The Sindo') is part of Independent Newspapers Group (ING), a publishing company owned by 'Sir' Tony O'Reilly, an Irish multi millionaire businessman. More on him later.

The Sindo is a newspaper in similiar vein to the UK tabloid 'The Sun'. It is a scandal sheet masquerading as a broadsheet (in only the thinnest of disguises). It is legendary among Irish newspapers for its willingness to print any lie or innacurracy it believes will sell to the public. It's cover page normally consists of a bombastic headline juxtaposed with a picture of a scantily clad female - not a 'serious' image right from the start.

The inner pages continue in much the same vein - little actual news, but plenty of innuendo, insinuation, sensationalism, prurience and character demolition. It focuses heavily on 'celebrity' stories and is as Right Wing in its politics as Bill O'Reilly.

Just as an example of its gutter journalism, the same issue which carried the article we're discussing also printed a 'report' from a journalist who had interviewed a DRUG DEALER who informed her that his best customers for his cocaine business include 'an airline pilot'. No names, no evidence, just a despicable accusation, allegedly from a self admitted criminal.

Mr.O'Reilly - the proprietor - sets the tone for this rag. His company ING effectively controls 80% of the Irish print media, and he is not averse to using this influence to ridicule, undermine or even destroy his victim du jour. His own Right Wing agenda is well documented and reflected in the editorial direction he encourages, witness his papers history of union bashing. The sacking of journalists who don't toe the party line was well demonstrated by the departure of Justine McCarthy after she wrote an article sympathetic to workers in the Irish Ferries dispute in 2005.

In short - if you MUST read a comic like this, please don't be foolish enough to take anything written therein seriously.

Desert Diner

9th Jul 2007, 17:46

For most of us familiar with Irish media would find characterisation of O'Reilly and the Independent as far of the mark as Professor Kenny's:rolleyes:

Hartington

9th Jul 2007, 19:36

All the points re money and putting quarts in to pints and nimbys are well taken. Furthermore, I appreciate the job that all of you do (I was privileged to ride a number of jump seat departures and arrivals over the years pre 9/11). I once saw the "clearance in the flare" happen from the jump and the (apparent) calm in the cockpit was impressive.

But you do yourselves a disservice when you slag off the journos. You need them on your side so they don't write sensationalist rubbish.

corsair

9th Jul 2007, 20:27

I frequently get a good laugh out of sensationalist reports of go arounds. Some are quite hilarious. Mr Kenny's is not the worst I've seen and amounts to no more than a filler that journalists waste their lives writing. But to be fair to the average passenger a go around is scary. I experienced only one as a pax. My gasp of exasperation because I knew I was about to miss my connection was misinterpreted by the woman beside me as fear and she glanced at me worriedly. I apologised and explained that most probably it was simply because the aircraft ahead was slow to clear the runway. Kudos to me when it was announced as exactly that. I explained go arounds and she relaxed.

Like it or not go arounds are a bit scary for the uninitiated and scary for those like Mr Kenny with a little knowledge.

It is surprising to me, sometimes just how little knowledge of flying so many passengers have despite the huge growth in air travel. It is still something of a mystery to many people. Every trivial incident seems to garner acres of newsprint. I'm not sure how this kind of negative attitude can be reversed.
So I guess we'll have to put up with this kind negative press.

I wonder if any of thought to contact Kenny directly and educate him a bit more. (Not abuse him:=):) It would do no harm.

Final 3 Greens

9th Jul 2007, 23:10

Corsair

Yes, though only a PPL and I don't have the same perceived authority as a line pilot.

Given it was written by a layman, I thought the article was a reasonable attempt and the journo might actually do a good job with a better grasp of the subject.

CaptKremin

9th Jul 2007, 23:38

But you do yourselves a disservice when you slag off the journos. You need them on your side so they don't write sensationalist rubbish.

It is surprising to me, sometimes just how little knowledge of flying so many passengers have despite the huge growth in air travel. It is still something of a mystery to many people. Every trivial incident seems to garner acres of newsprint. I'm not sure how this kind of negative attitude can be reversed.
So I guess we'll have to put up with this kind negative press.

Both rather missing the point, eh?
These are not mere "Passengers". They are so-called "Professional Journalists".
In my humble opinion - a "Professional" is required to know what they are talking about, rather than discrediting themselves by printing rubbish. Otherwise, why waste our money and time buying and reading their trash?
After all, these are the very same people who comment on our "generous wages" and "cushy working conditions"! They seem to expect us (and the credulous public) to blindly accept their pronouncements as gospel truth, when the reality is that most of their 'NEWS' is nothing but mere Opinion from a bunch of ignorant lazy hacks with a domineering editor who is employed by a millionaire proprietor with a clear agenda.

We need to "suck up to them" and "get them onside"?
Excuse me, we are not politicians. We don't need to give a damn for journalists opinions - stick them.

What matters is the truth.
If you journos wish to print lies and spin then go ahead and be damned - they sell well. The only people you fool are yourselves and the ignorant public. Don't try to rope professional pilots into your sleazy circle of back-scratching pols and hacks.

This is the level at which tabloid 'journalism' operates in the UK/Irish press - pure guttersniping bull****. There are decent journalists out tere Danny, no doubt, but bull**** is bull****, and a hack is a hack - especially when employed by the bottom-feeders like the Sindo.

Desrt2005, I'm sure Tony O'Reilly deeply appreciates your craven and snivelling imprimatur.

airbourne

10th Jul 2007, 00:56

This would be the same Colum Kenny that is the journo and college professor on journalism in Rathmines or at least he used to be. When the industry needed an 'expert' to talk to about radio stuff they would turn to this guy for advice! To be honest I expected more from him than this crap but thats the indo for you. More and more like the Star every day.
Incidentally, The BCI, those are the boys that regulate the broadcast industry in Ireland take broadcasting breaches very seriously. Things like 'dead air' are one such incident. However I dont think the BCI will be informed of this incident and I certaintly dont think the newspapers will carry a big story tomorrow about the 'loss of communications' at a Dublin radio station. In my business (radio) this is a big deal!
http://www.radioviews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=395
I think Mr Kenny should stick to talk of radio and leave the stuff that he has no idea about alone. Or would he prefer if the offending pilot landed and plowed into the back of the departing traffic. :=

Sorry he is now in DCU. I suggest you send him an email.

http://www.dcu.ie/info/staff_member.php?id_no=987

Gullyone

10th Jul 2007, 02:47

"methinks though does protest to much"
In 20000 or so hours I have performed only a few go-arounds as opposed to "discontinued approaches" However as a trainer I have observed a multitude of screw ups in the sim, usualy with all engines operating. Is just something that we dont do very often and with modern aircraft perfomance it all happens a bit quick.
I thought the artical just expressed a laymans opinion, why get excited?

groundbum

10th Jul 2007, 09:17

you know, I would almost suggest a new forum along the lines "stupid stuff in the press today" and all these threads could be shunted there never to return! It must make up at least 10% of the traffic on rumours and news, and there's obviously a hard core of people that get some satisfaction over nit picking over the missed school/wrestling pilot/screaming engines sections of each report!

Doesn't anybody have an off switch where they can just ignore these threads when they appear?

G

eastern wiseguy

10th Jul 2007, 10:57

Yeah, but I'll bet he can spell. And use proper grammar

The content remains rubbish though.:ugh:

CaptKremin

10th Jul 2007, 11:53

I thought the artical just expressed a laymans opinion, why get excited?

The word would be INDIGNANT actually.

Why get indignant?
Because this is not just a laymans opinion - it is an opinion from a journal with an axe to grind. An agenda to discredit.
I've tried explaining this, but you obviously aren't getting my drift.

fox niner

10th Jul 2007, 13:25

Can anyone get hold of the e-mail adress of Mr. Kenny? I would love to e-mail him the link to this thread!
Let's see what Mr. Kenny has to say to all this journo-bashing.:E

CaptKremin

10th Jul 2007, 14:32

[email protected] ([email protected])

400Rulz

10th Jul 2007, 14:35

OK, crappy journalism aside. It's true the pax are usually white-knuckled when their aircraft has to go around - they have been told at ToD they are going to land at where-ever and that is what they expect! They've heard it from the pilot, and the purser during the descent briefings. They go into arrival mode (some crew do as well). As pointy-enders, we have the benefit of all our displays, and the best view on the a/c, as well as direct comms with ATC, so our perception of events is vastly different. It is SOP in the airline I work for to brief the missed approach procedure for every approach, and generally, it is flown on the automatics (that's why we pay so much for them), so LNAV and VNAV take care of the niceties (and don't piss off ATC). The worst G/A I have ever seen was flown by an experienced pilot who thought he was better than the automatics. And ATC were REALLY pissed off!
It is important for ONE of the pilots (P/F or PNF, it doesn't matter) to let the SLF know what is going on, but sometimes that is not feasible if an engine-out, or some other situation exists, where our time is taken up with emergency procedures. However, having said that, once we have the situation under control, we make every effort to keep all informed.
Journalists have a job to do. Some do it well - others use sensationalism to get out their copy. We do know the story - they don't. So no point getting upset unless you and your crew have screwed up - and if you have, have the balls to admit it. Just do it before the media catch on!:E

kilkennycat

10th Jul 2007, 17:46

QUOTING A4: "This is the problem with crap journalism - amateurs are are allowed to practice, and publish, whereas a Professional pilot has to achieve a (very high) standard before being allowed to practice. "

Ye sound like a ****.
Plus - yer man Kenny has been a journalist for about 40 years.
And I think from reading the article he was just illustrating what most pax would feel, not knowing the situation.

CaptKremin

10th Jul 2007, 21:10

A hack for 40 years huh? Still producing ****e after all this time? :ugh:

I like your name btw - Kil Kenny. Great. :}

Nice first post.

*Journo alert*

theamrad

11th Jul 2007, 00:59

CaptKremin - i think you've hit the nail right on the head there! I confess to particularly liking pure guttersniping bull**** :E

While such episodes might be 'routine' they appear to occur more often than either the Irish Aviation Authority or airlines realise. First time I've seen GA's depicted like something undesirable (especially on a gusty day at Dublin) - or worse a criminal act!:p So much for 'media' support for a pro GA culture.
Well, we have to at least acknowledge that this may be the first time a journo appears to be advocating the counter argument in the "real men don't go-around" debate! As for informing/educating the public about GA's - I'd agree - but that doesn't mean turning the already nervous flyer into a quivering wreck for the sake of sensationalist :mad:.

CamelhAir

11th Jul 2007, 22:46

Then a mighty roar came from the engines and the aircraft's nose went up. Its wheels slammed shut as we flew faster and faster, banking right and disappearing back into cloud.

Poor man got a bit spooked by the take off. What baffles me though is how he could read the ASI from the cabin. These journos really can see everywhere it would appear.
More seriously, in keeping with the agenda of the Indo group, it's no surprise that the recipient of the boot was Aer Lingus. While ryanair suffers from actual serious saefty concerns and incidents, the paper ignores these and focuses on EI non-events. That's the power of advertising revenue and like minded right-wing psychos.

Codger

11th Jul 2007, 23:44

Per Rick Studder
"The article illustrates the need for some kind of public education with regards to go-arounds. Maybe it should be included in an FAQ in the inflight magazine... "

This makes a lot of sense to me.

Another comment about "Trust us we're the pros" gave me pause. I don't think that it's a matter of trust. Rather that all professionals are finding that the people that pay the bills want to know more about what is going on. My M.D. gets a lot of questions from me about exactly what he's going to do to my old carcass when I'm unconscious on the table. I do and have trusted him with my life but that doesn't mean that I don't want to know what is going on.

Also a good reminder to me that the Communicate part of Aviate, Navigate
and Communicate also applies to the folks out back.

Ah, for the days of the Vickers Viscount and a straight faced briefing that started with a welcome and a comment about how well everyone looked. One wouldn't want to be a badly turned out corpse should the worst happen would one.:) Never did it with the PA mic live. Potential unemployment was such a behavioural modifier.....

RoyHudd

12th Jul 2007, 07:39

If I flew with the same degree of accuracy that Kenny researched and wrote his article, I'd be out of a job.

No-one asks ATC for permission to go around, the aircraft does not continue to accelerate in the early stages of climb (<1500ft), and in the landing gear does not slam into the wheelbays, no matter how firmly PNF may pull the lever up! Etc, etc. The G/A was almost certainly performed with the automatics in, acc. EI SOP's.

There is really no excuse for publishing mis-leading verbiage, and the editors must be held as responsible as the journalists. (When I retire, I may well see if I can become the first journalist who understands professional aviation.)

snipes

12th Jul 2007, 15:49

Just because it's accurate doesn't mean it's good.

So to be a good article it needs to be sensational then?

And so we come full circle 214. You have proven our point, the jornos don't need facts - they need sales and they publish what they need to achieve this.

Your defence of them is bizarre.

Colum Kenny

13th Jul 2007, 16:17

Although I am not one of those “professional pilots and people who work in aviation” for whom the Professional Pilots Rumour Network (PPRuNe) is said to be “a community”, I have joined it so that I may reply to the remarkable response to my 200-word article that I wrote for the Sunday Independent, Ireland’s best-read Sunday newspaper across all social classes.

That article was published on the PPRuNE website in breach of the site’s own rules about copyright (which should have the author’s permission), and a number of the anonymous postings also breach the site’s own courtesy guidelines. Some postings are also libellous of myself and of the spokeswoman for the IAA who is called a liar, but I shall ignore the cowardly libels, (especially from a compatriot who denounces passengers who raise concerns as “nervous nellies” while her/himself lacking the courage to sign what s/he writes).

A number of postings are quite kind to me, and others from experienced pilots could make the basis for an article far more sensational that the little piece that I penned. Indeed, if I wished to be sensational, I could write about inconsistent security checks, cabin doors I have seen left open during flights, a passenger taken onto the flight deck for an extended period and things that airline crews have said to me. Or about some of the concerns of certain people who wrote to me directly.

I shall ignore the abuse and attempt to clarify some points. I generally ignore anonymous reaction to what I write and wonder what it says about the industry that professional pilots and people who work in aviation feel it appropriate or necessary to express themselves anonymously or pseudonymously. That some should resort to infantile language similar to that deployed by graffiti artists on toilet walls is simply bizarre.

I have been flying for nearly forty years. The short item was not intended to be sensationalist but to highlight the fact that no coherent record of such go-arounds are kept. I believe that the article accurately described my experience. It in no way criticised the pilot, who was highly professional and I was relieved in the circumstances to be flying Aer Lingus (even if it took over an hour after boarding to get a cup of coffee).

There may well be another article entitled, "Ever wondered what happens when an airliner goes around?" (as someone suggests) but it would be nice to know first why the industry and its regulators appear to keep no coherent record of why or how often pilots actually do go-around.

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.
Some respondents on the site, and others directly to my email address at DCU, seemed to feel that I was putting pressure on pilots not to “go-around”, and that this reflected growing commercial pressures on pilots. I completely support pilots who decide to make go-arounds” in the interest of safety. As one of you put it, “Rather a Go-Around every day, a few mins delay, than be part of an accident.” The conspiracy theorist who felt that I was trying to be pro-Ryanair and anti-Aer Lingus was simply wrong.

A remarkable feature of quite a number of responses is that they imply a lack of research or factual accuracy and assert low journalistic standards but they do not say how exactly the article errs. My own deduction is that what the extraordinary response shows is a great unease in the sector about go-arounds, for reasons that have nothing to do with my article.

One UK contributor writes, “I maintain that the word "slammed" is unnecessary. Did they "slam" up on the original take-off?”. All I can say is that is what it sounded like to me, and certainly stronger than the normal sound of wheels going up. I was seated over the wings, about three rows back from the emergency exits. Indeed, one contributor from “The Med” acknowledges that, “The first and second sentences are factual the gear doors and struts can sound very much like a door being slammed if you are sitting in certain seats.”

The same UK contributor asks, “Was his first thought about a flock of birds...or did that idea come to him on the ground when he was writing his piece?”. The first thought that came to me was a near miss or a flight on the ground (as happened me thirty years ago with a go-around at JFK which was decidedly scarier). But as we rose quickly this month I did wonder about the knock-on dangers of a sudden evasive move, including a flock of birds in the cloudy flight-path.

A “Roy Hudd” from Crawley writes, “No-one asks ATC for permission to go around, the aircraft does not continue to accelerate in the early stages of climb (<1500ft), and in the landing gear does not slam into the wheelbays, no matter how firmly PNF may pull the lever up!”. 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. I wrote in the article, “we flew faster and faster, banking right and disappearing back into cloud”, which we did. The flying faster and faster may have preceded the actual climb stage. And it certainly sounded like a slam to me.

“Rick Studder” from “Europe” writes, “The article illustrates the need for some kind of public education with regards to go-arounds. Maybe it should be included in an FAQ in the inflight magazine.” That would make a pleasant and interesting change from much of the commercialised rubbish in such publications. But it would require the airline industry to reverse if standard policy of treating people like mushrooms. The stress of contemporary travel, not least at Dublin airport, is likely to increase the number of nervous nellies who wonder just how under sober control the whole rapidly growing airline business is.

Some people criticise me for not being a professional aviation journalist/specialist. Well, that is what I am not, but a cat may look at a queen. In any event, I have formed the view that some specialist journalists (for example, in property or motoring or agriculture) can get far too cosy with their sector for the public’s good. Wetting yourself about the latest Boeing jet is not every reader’s idea of the most relevant story.

Oddly, it seems to me, one thing no respondent appears to have done is to have actually addressed the point of the article, namely the absence of clear and agreed published data on the number of go-arounds and the reasons for them. With modern computers, this should be easy and would surely tell us just how routine they and the reasons for them are at various airports.

-ends-

Eric T Cartman

15th Jul 2007, 09:57

baw676
As an Irishman, you'll probably appreciate Oscar Wilde's comment :
"There is much to be said in favour of modern journalism. By giving us the opinions of the uneducated, it keeps us in touch with the ignorance of the community". As he's been dead for 107 years, it seems nothing much has changed !" ;-)

CamelhAir

15th Jul 2007, 15:49

quoted IAA spokeswoman hasn't got a clue

She routinely gets things completely wrong

An succinct description of the competence of the IAA. What do you expect from an organisation that functions as mick o'learys de facto spokespersons?

moggiee

17th Jul 2007, 09:21

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"

CamelhAir

17th Jul 2007, 10:51

Moggiee, very well said.

Mr Kenny, moggiee puts it well. We're criticising the obvious lack of carrying out an essential part of a journalists job: research. Were any of us airline pilots to neglect to carry out an essential part of our jobs, say neglecting to study the weather at destination, leading to a diversion for example, we know we would be hung, drawn and quartered in the very paper you write for, which would, as usual, and not just about aviation, act as judge, jury and executioner.
You may be getting excoriated on this website for the article in question, however the audience is relatively small. On the other hand, a pilot who makes an error (in the eyes of the paper at least) will be denounced to an audience of millions. You may believe that you have not been critical of the pilots, however the average reader will, however unconsciously, detect an implicit condemnation. And not only have you the opportunity to reply to the criticism on this website, we, as a group, have no opportunity to reply to media inaccuracies. Would that we could, but your editor sees fit to not print any of my letters to him regarding inaccurate journalism.
Your whinging about anonymous (and if you wonder why I choose to remain so, why not ask that great hero your paper so avidly adores, mick o'leary?) replies, to which the audience is small and you can reply to, is not likely to be received too well while you and your ilk continue to print the standard rubbish you do print, without any opportunity to reply.

The conspiracy theorist who felt that I was trying to be pro-Ryanair and anti-Aer Lingus was simply wrong.

I suspect you mean me. You personally might not be of this opinion, but it is the editorial policy of your newspaper. If you doubt that, I suggest you consult your colleagues Shane Ross and Laura Noonan.

Finally, I do commend you for appearing on this site. A belated attempt at research and to understand the issues is better than nothing. I trust you will now pen an article that accurately deals with go-arounds, utilising all your new found knowledge.

The Jolly Roger

17th Jul 2007, 22:26

Just a short reply,

I am a controller. I've worked in high traffic density areas. Without meaning to sound like a parrot, the piece of journalism written by Mr Kenny only adds to Passenger worries. Would it not have been wiser to be a little more unbiased about this whole 'go-around' procedure. Maybe it would have been a better and more respected piece of journalism to point out to the 'lay' readers that go arounds are carried out for one reason only...to ensure safety. If I was reading that article as a lay person, I'd be fairly worried about flying from Dublin. Is it safe? Just because 4 happened in one week means that everybody was doing their job properly, and putting safety first. It is also highly unlikely that the IAA haven't got any report on one of the go-arounds. IT IS MANDATORY for ATC personnel to report a go-around for whatever reason under the Mandatory Occurence Reporting MOR. If I were you Mr Kenny, I would make it clear that passengers are safe flying from Dublin or elsewhere in Ireland.

Colum Kenny

18th Jul 2007, 08:23

Thank you for your generally courteous and detailed posting Moggiee.

You yourself write, "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!"

This puts in a different light the statement by an earlier contributor, about which I expressed surprise (in my posting). He had written, "No-one asks ATC for permission to go around". My suprise at his suggestion that pilots could goaround wthout permission was justified, and his statement disingenuous because they already have permission.

I would also point out again that I said nothing about ATC permission in my actual short article.

Again, no errors of fact in my article are asserted. I appear to be criticised for not writing a longer or different article which might have reassured readers at greater length than I did about go-arounds, rather than querying the absence of data on them.

As regards the person ("Jolly Roger") who writes that it is highly unlikely that the IAA did not known of all four goarounds, I simply depended on is what the IAA told me about its records. And, for the benefit of others who tell me that I should have spoken directly to Air Traffic Control, you should know that queries there are referred to the IAA for comment.

By the way, just so that it is not forgotten, what I DID write in my article was that, "The episode was "absolutely routine", according to the Irish Aviation Authority.... She said that both pilots and air traffic controllers are trained for them."

I would give no interviewee a guarantee to quote her/him at length and in full, nor an opportunity to approve my article in advance.

Might I suggest also that if someone had not had a letter accepted by the editor of any newspaper on a flight topic then they post it on PPRuNe if it is not libellous.

heidelberg

18th Jul 2007, 09:02

Quote from Colum Kenny's latest posting:
'I would give no interviewee a guarantee to quote her/him at length and in full, nor an opportunity to approve my article in advance'.

This is typical of the arrogance shown by the media 'Kennys'.

I was interviewed recently by a media person and I agreed to the interview so long as she read back to me what she intended printing - to ensure my comments were reported accurately. She agreed and in fact there were a couple of points which needed correction.

Judging by Colum Kenny's comments he would not agree to this - would you?

Colum Kenny

18th Jul 2007, 09:19

More anonymous abuse, this time from Heidelberg, who like quite a few others appears to disregard the PPruNe forum rule that reads, "Be Courteous! Don't attack others. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Challenge others' points of view and opinions, but do so respectfully and thoughtfully... without insult and personal attack."

He/she might read what I actually said and what the earlier contributor requested. I could not agree "to quote her/him at length and in full", nor give him an opportunity "to approve my article in advance'. This is a usual and practical professional postition.

However, it is also a normal courtesy to read back a specific quotation that one intends to use if the person requests one to do so. It is just such different circumstances to which Heidelberg appears to refer in his/her own case.

Perhaps those aviation professionals on this site who feel so agitated about alleged journalstic bad practice should do something about it, auch as have their professional bodies organise an event at which it could be addressed in a balanced fashion.

PhoenixRising

18th Jul 2007, 09:59

Mr. Kenny,

Your arrogance astounds.

Your article was poorly researched, sensationalist and just plain inaccurate. You know it was, and it is disappointing to see you unable to accept constructive criticism from the professionals who actually do the job. Your approach to 'come out swinging' is regrettable, but I would expect nothing less from a journalist from Independent News and Media.

Bearcat

18th Jul 2007, 10:18

Mr Kenny, your flogging a dead horse here.....I would be embarrassed to have 4 pages and increasing on a pprune thread about an article I wrote......there has to a reason for the reactions......

HotDog

18th Jul 2007, 10:27

Mr. Kenny,

This puts in a different light the statement by an earlier contributor, about which I expressed surprise (in my posting). He had written, "No-one asks ATC for permission to go around". My suprise at his suggestion that pilots could goaround wthout permission was justified, and his statement disingenuous because they already have permission.

Moggiee's erudite and factual explanation of the technicalities of a missed approach and go-around, obviously did not prevent you from rationalising (very poorly in my opinion) your reasons for your words. Had you carried out adequate research before going to print, this thread would have been put to rest some time ago. Why don't the press obtain some professional advice on matters outside their expertise before publishing misinformation?

slip and turn

18th Jul 2007, 11:10

Mr Kenny, you were right to consider your piece newsworthy and now having seen the true nature of some of the minds that make the decisions, you might see the basis of further newsworthy items.

Unfortunately many of the contributors to this forum consider themselves to be infallible, unassailable professional experts and controllers within their own world. They often consider the opinions of outsiders to be valueless unless you feed them carefully.

Unluckily for you, they can see that despite your 40 years of flying, you have never been a pilot so some of your latest comments are very conspicuous as obvious 'back-seat driver never learned to drive myself never saw the point' type comments which sadly dilute the original point of your story i.e. that there may be more poorly controlled aborted-landing incidents at some airports than most people would expect.

There are however some in this thread like Luke Stulewater who present a balanced understanding of the world of aviation (there is no world of aviation worth speaking of without the one that includes fare-paying passengers).

As a perhaps rash generalisation, it might be said that go arounds do often up the ante both on the flightdeck and in the back.

There are reports that the dreadful Sao Paolo incident last night may have followed a "go around", and yet further reports that a second go around may have been attempted during the landing roll that led directly to the crash. If so, it might be fair to ask why did it go around the first time, and why did it not go around the second time?

RogerIrrelevant69

18th Jul 2007, 11:38

Gentlemen, gentlemen. Re-read the article. It doesn't really say that much. None of the usual bravely narrowly avoiding schools, hospitals, bus full of kiddies, motorway full of traffic. He does say something about a light aircraft + flock of birds that didn't show up but not really in a shock horror oo la la way. So the journo in question knows buggah all about aviation...is there something new here? I think not but I do think I have seen a lot lot worse.

Only conclusion I can find is IAA don't keep statistics about go-arounds. Big deal. Bit of a non-article really.

Now then now then, what about that old chestnut they drag up every summer about Tenerife sliding into the sea and causing a tidal wave which will drown the whole of the western world. About time we had that one again. Sky News used to carry it every year usually about mid-July. Should be due shortly :)

moggiee

18th Jul 2007, 11:55

Gents,

I trust that Mr Kenny won't mind me making this post as I believe that it seems to show a desire to move forward, for the benefit of all.

Mr Kenny has been in touch with me to express an interest in taking up my offer for him to use the information I posted above (re:go-arounds) in a forthcoming article about "what happens on a go-around" or words to that effect. This would involve, as I offered, me allowing my real name to be used and he has indicated which passages he proposes to use.

I am minded to do this as I think it will help set the record straight - but would appreciate comment from my peers here as to the accuracy and relevance of my post. The sections to be used are:

"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 the normal bank angle for an airliner, although due to the relatively low speeds flown it will feel like a tighter turn."

"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."

"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, therefore the crew do already have permission! It's a bit like a car rally - Colin McCrae doesn't have to go slowly round the corners because he knows that no one is coming the other way."

Your input please.

Forkandles

18th Jul 2007, 12:26

Don't start on at me, but moggiee, unfortunately, I think that probably goes some way to proving a point for the journalists. Too much technical stuff and they'll turn to the next story of someone from Big Brother saying that they haven't heard of Shakespeare. Sad, but true. :*

I say 'they' because I can't be arsed reading newspapers. They're just less humorous versions of Viz. Which, incidentally, isn't as funny as it used to be.

HotDog

18th Jul 2007, 12:46

I think you are spot on Moggiee. I can't exactly recall the number of missed approach/go arounds I was involved in as operating crew in my 33 years of aviation career but being based in Asia, flying in Typhoon conditions, they were more than I can count on ten fingers. An MOR was submitted on every occasion and not one of them were ever questioned. The decision to go around was in the majority our own alone. It might be worth to mention, that just about every PC or refresher program in the simulator includes at least one engine out missed approach and go -around and the missed approach briefing on every flight before top of descent in real life.

moggiee

18th Jul 2007, 18:49

It isn't going to happen - apparently there can be no guarantee that my words won't be edited (even "just for space constaints"), so they don't get to use my real name. End of story - any editing is unacceptable to me. However, Mr Kenny is free to use my words (which were freely given) - but he doesn't get my name to go with them.

I'm afraid to say that I have never read any newspaper that I regarded as reaching an acceptable level of accuracy on aviation reporting - and that includes "grown up" ones such as the Daily Telegraph and The Times. As such, I am not prepared to put my name to anything over which I do not have 100% control. It's a shame - I wanted to help but there you go.

I know that the following is from the Evening Standard but it gives an idea of the sort of thing we're up against: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23402991-details/Terrified+Easyjet+passengers+feared+they+would+die+as+plane+ plummeted+23%2C000ft/article.do

and this: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/columnists/columnists.html?in_article_id=416981&in_page_id=1951

The Gary Lineker one I know to be pure fabrication - I know the Captain in question and at no time did he say "I don't know what he's been up to this morning, but he's missed the flight.". BA told him to ignore the Mail because everything they write about BA is rubbish.

slip and turn

18th Jul 2007, 20:03

I liked the comment "...and there was a strange smell of sweet tobacco. The plane suddenly shot down and my life flashed before my eyes." Sounds like someone, perhaps in the seat behind, had decided to introduce a new calming ingredient.

BTW I thought the report itself was perfectly valid and correctly conveyed the seriousness of the incident. Suppressing such a report would not have been helpful.

blaggerman

18th Jul 2007, 21:15

As a mere (frequent) passenger with an interest in the machines in which I spend too much time, I felt the article was not very clear, fair and balanced. I'll happily explain the reasons why to Mr Kenny if he cares, but it wouldn't be very constructive for me to pick through it word for word. I simply dismissed it as silly nonsense at the time - something we have to do with most newspaper articles these days.

But never mind - few people probably read it as it wasn't about sports, sex or Paris Hilton. Now if she was onboard, that would be different. "Paris tells her near-death story".

Fly safely guys. Especially if I'm in the back. :)

theamrad

18th Jul 2007, 22:01

apparently there can be no guarantee that my words won't be edited
What a surprise! No offence meant, Moggie, but if you were considering doing this for SOME other news organisation other than the aforementioned, it might have been a good idea. Your detailed explanation was good and should have had great 'public information' value for a professional journalist with that interest/agenda - but of course that would not do here. But then there's already been quite a few posters here attesting to the type of 'news'paper published by THIS particular one.
As far as the comments of others concerning arrogance: a non-pilot/aviation professional coming onto the 'professional pilots rumour network' and, by the third post, is quoting forum rules to everyone else here.... Maybe Sky's looking for another 'aviation expert'??????

Personally, I think this thread should have been a non-runner after post number 3: 'TwoOneFour' puts it quite succinctly. But then again, non-aviators/non-aviation savy people wouldn't have had the advantage of Moggie's free and accurate advice. (As opposed to the 'newspaper').

Ireland’s best-read Sunday newspaper across all social classes
mmmmm....... :confused:, or is it :{, or maybe :O

MarkColeman

18th Jul 2007, 22:57

Mr Kenny:

To help clarify the reason why its necessary for pilots to have immediate and final authority to carry out a missed approach or 'go around' without first requesting permission from ATC, please consider the following:

A plane which is descending at 800 feet per minute, 300 feet above its touchdown point experiences sudden atmospheric change such as wind sheer, or a violent crosswind to the extent that the approach is too dangerous to carry out, and must be aborted. Lets assume this particular ATC is busy, the pilot may have to wait a few seconds or longer for the frequency to become free to request a go around. Then he has to request the go around and wait for a response. Then ATC informs him he is cleared to go around (or perhaps informs him he cant go around?!?). As you can see this takes time and could reasonably take 20 seconds or so for such a clearance.

Now if the plane is descending at 800 feet per minute, 300 feet above the runway when it becomes apparant that a safe landing isnt possible, it hardly makes any sense for the pilot to have to wait for a clearance to go around, when his plane is just moments away from slamming into the ground, does it? For this reason the necessary safety conditions are in place for any pilot on final approach to carry out a 'go around' at his own discretion.

Hope that helps clear things up!

RoyHudd

19th Jul 2007, 09:31

How dare you, Mr. Kenny.

You wrote about a flight EI169 "requesting permission to go-around", and then deny you ever referred to "permission to go-around". Now that is disingenuous in my book, even dishonest.

I am a professional pilot, and am against scaring the public by publishing articles that contain factual inaccuracies or un-necessary exaggerations.

I know you are only one small part of the "dumbing-down" army of journalists ready to make your living in this way, and I blame the editors and publishers as much as yourselves for your irresponsibly written and published articles. But by sticking your head above the parapet, you must be prepared to accept criticism, particularly from people who know their subject far better than you.

"Out".

Colum Kenny

19th Jul 2007, 10:11

Roy Hudd adds some more abuse to the site, which I shall ignore. But he has a reasonable (if not entirely accurate) point when he says,

You wrote about a flight EI169 "requesting permission to go-around", and then deny you ever referred to "permission to go-around".

I did not metion permission. What i actually wrote, was, "According to the IAA, an Aer Lingus pilot on flight EI 169 himself requested a 'go-around', because of the effect of wind on his approach..."

The IAA made it clear to me, and I understood it when writing the article, that some goarounds are directed by ATC and some are at the option of the pilot. I said nothing about ATC permission in my actual short article but accept that the phrase which I used could be read as implying that. I did not intend to be disingenuous, and think that it is something of a red herring as this issue is entirely incidental to the point of the little piece that I wrote. Also, stating that the pilot requested a goaround could not possibly scare any reasonable reader.

As regards Theamrad reproaching me for

coming onto the 'professional pilots rumour network' and, by the third post ... quoting forum rules to everyone else here

I can only point out that I did not originially come on this site but was put on it when my article was published here in breach of my copyright and contrary to the forum rules. The continuing abuse is also contrary to rules. I normally ignore anonymous or pseudonymous communications of any kind but decidecd to request permission of the administrator to respond and was eventually given it. I did so because the site does appear to be used by some serious professionals who rise above abuse but feel the need not to disclose their identity, and also becuase it is an interesting exercise to see the dynamics of such a site of this from the inside as a participant.

You appear to query my statement that the Sunday Independent is Ireland's most widely read paper across all social classes, but you can see independent research at www.nni.ie. As regards media standards generally, I have concerns of my own but they are not as sweeping or simplisitc as some of those that have been voiced here.

I have explained to Moggiee that it is not the practice of broadsheet newspapers to give interviewees a promise that everything said by that interviewee will be included in the final article, or to allow a veto over the article by providing it in advance of publication. Such options would be unworkable. I appreciate his offer and he is of course entirely free not to proceed if he wishes. Editing is a normal everyday part of publishing, and I did show him the quotations that I would attribute to him.

Colum Kenny

21st Jul 2007, 18:32

Snipes writes, in posting no. 1 as recently amended,
*Edit: To keep Mr Kenny happy, I have removed the actual reproduction of the article and will just leave the link to it instead. I find it hard to understand why posting it here upset him so much ...

In fact, I have no objection to the article appearing as such. But it is a courtesy, as well as a legal and PPRUNE forum requirement, to ask permission of property owners to reproduce their articles. I pointed out that this was not done.

I think that it is reasonable to expect contributors, especially if they wish to hide behind a shield of anonymity, to abide by the rules of the forum on this and on matters such as courtesy. In that respect I also differentiate between criticism (which is reasonable) and common abuse (some of which has displayed a level of emotionalalism that strikes me as odd if those penning it as really the airline professionals that they purport to be).

One achieves more by dialogue than by condemnation, in my experience, and I am always open to hear criticism of what I write. Airline professionals should also be open to seeing how passengers view the world, and to hearing what journalists perceive to be relevant issues: in this case the absence of centralised and coherent public data that permits one to assess the frequency and reasons for ATC directed goarounds at various airports.