QF Go-around

[Casper]

ATSB Report AO-2007-001. Page 9 Last two paragraphs

At 1923:14, the aircraft descended through 50 ft radio altitude. One second later, at 1923:15, the captain advised that the airspeed was bleeding, indicating that the airspeed was reducing. The rate of descent did not decrease, despite an increase in aircraft pitch and thrust, and the aircraft touched down firmly on the main landing gear at 1923:16. Just after the touch-down, the aircraft’s enhanced ground proximity warning system (EGPWS) issued a windshear alert, and the captain advised that he was taking over control of the aircraft. The crew conducted a go around, and subsequently landed the aircraft on runway 34L at 1940.

During the landing, several overhead cabin fittings detached. A subsequent maintenance inspection did not identify any other defect or damage to the aircraft, and there were no reported injuries to passengers or crew.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Can anyone from QF advise on SOPs regarding go arounds - into known w/shear conditions – after touchdown?

[Capt Fathom]

Just goes to show that SOP's and the textbook, do not cover all scenarios.

A windshear warning, low energy hard touchdown, and although it is not mentioned, probably resulted in the aircraft becoming airborne again.

First in the captains mind would have been to recover from the hard touchdown.

While that was happening, they received the belated Windshear warning.

A lot happening all at once! I guess you could say they dealt with it!

[Rainboe]

Casper, are you reading into this that the aircraft had settled satisfactorily onto the ground? It sounds to me like there was a very unsatisfactory ground contact and the aircraft probably bounced airborne again- the windshear warning would have been secondary to recovery from a bounced landing, and if an experienced crew decided the best option was to throw it away and go-around, despite the windshear warning, I would readily agree and I would go along with that decision. It may not be logical to you, but after 19,000 hours, I would be happy with that.

Official advice on most airline fleets is not to attempt a go-around once reverse has been selected.

I see according to your profile you are 'not anything'. Could you tell us on what basis of experience you see fit to question these actions?

[DutchRoll]

It isn't clear, Casper, exactly when he made the decision and commenced the actions for a go-round. This may well have been done in the instant prior to touchdown, due to the bleeding speed and rate of descent. Also, as has been mentioned, the aircraft may have bounced hard enough to get airborne again, which would retract the spoilers, etc. If that happened, I'd go-round too! So too, I expect, would most other airline pilots on this forum.

Changing your mind once a decision has been made to go-round can be quite a bad thing to do and leads to all sorts of complications (ask the guys from QF1 in Bangkok), windshear warning or not.

I can't see anything wrong with his decision based on the info you presented.

[Casper]

Hey, I'm not questioning any actions or decisions - just quoting the ATSB report and asking for guidance in an operator's SOPs - nothing more. SOPs such as actions after deployment of spoilers, autobrakes, thrust reversers etc if, in fact, they were even deployed.

And, for Rainboe's info, I have some 30+ years of international heavy jet experience and I'm seeking the info because I know that I have much more to learn!

[Keg]

Can anyone from QF advise on SOPs regarding go arounds - into known w/shear conditions – after touchdown?

I know most airlines have SOPs about go arounds and SOPs about windshear but I don't reckon that there would be many airlines with SOPs about go arounds after touchdown and windshear all in the same sentence.

[Buster Hyman]

I guess it also depends on which touchdown you are referring to!:p

So, they landed hard, went around, landed safely 17 odd minutes later and there were no casualties. Aside from any "We thought we were doomed" stories in the media, this was basically a preofessional crew going about their business...


Next crisis please.....:rolleyes:

As to your actual question (I obviously have NFI), does your airline use QF SOP's? Just curious mind you...

[DutchRoll]

OK then. From the Qantas Flight Administration Manual, Chapter 21B, Standard Operating Procedures, Para 21.61:

"Flight Crew are encouraged to perform a Missed Approach whenever any doubt exists as to the safe continuation of an approach and landing."

Neither SOPs nor the FCOM give guidance on specific combinations of events such as a hard landing followed immediately by windshear warning. They would run into multiple volumes if they gave instructions for every combination.

Nuff said.

[ScottyDoo]

Casper, are you reading into this that the aircraft had settled satisfactorily onto the ground? It sounds to me like ....... the aircraft probably bounced airborne again

You reading into this that the aircraft bounced is just as much speculation as Casper's. Probably accurate but speculation nonetheless. I thought we don't like speculation around here?


"Airspeed is bleeding"????

[Jabawocky]

Rainboe should stick to the forums on the other side of the planet, he barks at any who dares to stray onto his patch:ouch:.

And seems to not practise what he preaches:=.

Be interesting to see if this gets him arced up.

Mind you among some of his rantings and plain BS, he does make some pretty relevant comments.

J:ok:

[kellykelpie]

So not everyone knows what "airspeed is bleeding" means.

I would have thought that was obvious but not so?

I will try not to say it that way.

[Capt_SNAFU]

Also heard from someone that if the windshear that the aircraft encountered in the flare happened a few seconds earlier like at 200 feet, the calculations and modelling reckon it would have not had sufficient height to recover.

:\:mad::eek:

[ScottyDoo]

So not everyone knows what "airspeed is bleeding" means.


Everyone knows what it means but "airspeed is bleeding" seems unusual.

Typical IAS-related awareness call might be:

"Speed."


captain advised that the airspeed was bleeding, indicating that the airspeed was reducing

[Buster Hyman]

Perhaps the airspeed was injured during the incident???

[ScottyDoo]

Bit of a 'blunt' comment there, Buster. You're forgetting what the second "P" stands for....

Back in your box! Or JetBlast...

[lowerlobe]

Thats right little Scotty there is no room for any humour here and meanwhile we have professional pilots debating what the phrase 'airspeed is bleeding' indicates.....it makes parliamentry question time look reasonable:yuk:

[twiggs]

I think you will find Scotty's comment was directed at Buster's post no 8, rather than no 15, Lowerlobe.

[ScottyDoo]

Ah, the peanut gallery has arrived. Okay LubedLower, I'm bored enough to listen to your ideas on the go-around...

Why don't you start with a fundamental like "TOGA"?

Is it:

i) a flight automation functionality,
ii) a button
iii) a thrust setting, or
iv) a party where your fun-boy hostie mates dress up in nothing butt white bed-sheets, held together precariously by a single pin.

[MONK]

Hey Rainboe

Give Casper a break....he was just asking about SOPs....he wasn't questioning the decision of the captain....your 19000 hours hasn't taught you much about people skills has it?...

[PLJ]

Interested to know what aircraft type - with the 'late' windshear warning.

[Capt Fathom]

Why not read the ATSB Report (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2007/AAIR/pdf/aair200702272_prelim_001.pdf) for all the background information!

[lowerlobe]

Scotty..It looks like your having an identity crisis and think your Eddie McGuire and want your own TV show.Maybe Al Jazeera TV will do something for you…..or do you need help with your next license renewal?

Your right with one thing though and that is TOGA parties..a heck of a lot of fun in the late 70’s and early 80’s before the fun police and Political Correctness invaded our lives.It really gave you a better idea of some of the girls attributes.

Going back to your question though and seeing that this thread is about an aircraft doing a go-around are you talking about the actual Takeoff/Go-around buttons/switches to give take off or go around power which are usually on the thrust levers?

Then again seeing that you are having difficulty understanding the term ‘bleed’ and knowing that you personify every cliché known for a particular group in society and have a very one dimensional way of thinking I imagine TOGA would have a different meaning.

I suspect in your case it means ….

TOsser Going Away….I guess because you couldn’t get a job in Australia.

Scotty..Give TV a shot you never know where it will take you and you could be a big hit over there.

[roamingwolf]

nice one lobee can i ask scotty if i can phone a friend

[Feather #3]

As an attendee [and subsequent payee :rolleyes:] at Molly Moore's famous Xmas party in SIN many years ago, I can tell you that TOGA parties are much more fun that go-arounds!!:D Just don't spray the roof and walls with the contents of diver's illuminating sticks. :=

G'day ;)

[56P]

To get back to the subject, it would be interesting to know what prompted a go around after touchdown into known windshear conditions.

Where was the actual point of touchdown and was this a factor in the decision?

Just interested because, in the interests of safety, it's good for others to be aware of the experience. After all, walking away from an incident is experience!

[Keg]

There is a diagram on page 3 of the ATSB report that doesn't go into the 'why' but certainly gives some good gen as to what was going on. My reading of the graph (I needed to blow it up to about 200% on the pdf document) would suggest that the aircraft bounced enough to have the air/ground switch cycle a couple of times....before the G/A thrust was set. It also appears that the windshear alert came during that bounce. Given that the recovery from that bounce probably involved max thrust, I can see why the crew wouldn't then elect to cancel that decision as the aircraft comes through the windshear. I recall a crew being quite significantly chastised for that exact action when they did it in '99 at BKK.

Anyway, the graph is well worth the time to look at.

[Capt Kremin]

From my understanding, the decision to go-around was made before the bounce and the EPGWS warning.

[ScottyDoo]

Takeoff/Go-around buttons/switches

Wrong again, Google-Queen...... Still, hardly surprising you don't know the difference between a button and a switch. Best leave the flying stuff to the fliers, hey? Do we tell you all about your trolleys?

Fool. :8

a very one dimensional way of thinking

WTF?? Are you referring to "time"?

There's a challenge for you, LubedLower, define "one dimensional" giving examples other than the one I just gave you... HAHAHAHAAAHAHAHAAAAAAAA....... only a hostie could come out with something like that!!! Classic..... :ok:

As for Toga parties, yes I'm not surprised you and your fun-boy hostie mates held plenty of them in the old days when you were in shape. :yuk:


PS: Please don't send me anymore of your nasty, hate-filled PMs, it does hurt, you know... :{

[lowerlobe]

Scotty....Your reply shows my point....sad.....very sad.....

BTW...TOGA..(you know what I mean)

[ScottyDoo]

Good comeback...:ok:

Standing by for your next nasty PM :{

[DutchRoll]

I looked at the QAR plot as well and Keg seems quite correct.

It all happened in the space of about 1 second elapsed time - loss of speed, hard landing, bounce, thrust levers going up, windshear warning.

There is no amount of "guidance" in the world that could cover the Captain during that event. So under the circumstances, I doubt anyone else would've taken a wiser course of action (if there even is one).

[golfjet744]

My understanding is that the second windshear event, the one at 40ft not the one at 200ft, not only caused the EGPWS to go off and gave a 2.34g slam down, but also kicked the nose and dropped the wing. The position and attituded of the aircraft made a go around (windshear escape) an excellent decision. :D

If you don't like the situation, don't hang around to seewhat happens - get out of there. Phuket rings a bell. I know they're not the same but what would the clowns on this website be saying if the Capt had continued the landing and ended up in the freight terminal? :ugh:

Whether it was a go around or a windshear esacpe is academic, the fact is the pax and crew are alive. As far as i am aware there were no 'intentional non compliant' acts that contributed to the event. Any argument about whether the Capt made the "right" decision in a split second life or death moment is purely subjective. He did what he was trained to do and acted on a situation he didn't like - with the help of his crew.

[woodja51]

not got any facts here so feel free to sledge me, but was it a real windshear or just the reactionery system (which deals with rapid alfa changes etc) created from the hard bounce? it can happen too.
sometimes in the sim when they throw in really violent windshear the computers trip off into alternate mode and then of course allow you to stall and crash if your not careful.
from what I can see I would have done the same thing as this guy based on what I know.
but i only have 12 000 hours and 5000 plus on airbus heavies so not yet got people skills...or maybe I lost them? matty