Tiger Go - Round @ ROK

[Tiger01]

Just this morning i was onboard a Tiger flight from Melbourne to Rockhampton when at what looked like around 50 feet, a go - round was conducted nothing said untill after landing when the first officer infomed that they had elected to go round as there was another aircraft on the runway.
As we were going around i did notice the rescue helictopter on the cross strip.

Would a investigation need to be condcuted or is this a minor incident ?
Also i heard another passenger say that a go - round causes alot of extra stress on the aircraft and would need to be inspected is this true ?

[ABX]

Hang on while I go and get some popcorn and a drink!:}

[Shark Slayer]

Q1.NO
Q2.NO

All NORMAL OPS, practiced in the sim and rehearsed on flight decks all over the world. Essentially just another take off without landing.

Beats an accident any day.

Doubt it was initiated at 50' though-still I was'nt there.

[MCKES]

I dont mind if you were concerned about a particular go around, but just a personal thing from myself, I would like to see no more threads on go arounds. It is a safety thing and in this age should not be questioned. Not going around and taking second best causes accidents. ala garuda

[Balthazar_777]

I am sure that there will be negative replies to your question, but as you are obviously not a pilot i will go easy.

A go around is a normal and safe maneuver that all pilots must demonstrate before they can be issued with a licence. It is constantly practiced during training, both intitial and recurrent training, and at all levels from student pilot to airline pilot.

An aeroplane is designed to be able to go around safely, it is just like another take-off, only a little safer as you are already at flying speed. All aeroplanes have go-around procedures in their manuals.

Whilst most approaches do not include a go-around, they are always a consideration.

It is much safer to go-around than continue an approach if it not safe to do so.

Your example is a classic example of an appropriate and safe go-around. Missing the helicopter (if that was the problem) is better than hitting it. I would suggest that if you think that through you would agree.

I would also suggest that you never fly with a pilot who refuses to do go-arounds.

I hope that has answered your question.

Cheers.:ok:

[Tiger01]

I understand that the go around is just a standard procedure that is practiced regularly and isnt really a big deal in itself. More what im trying to ask is would there need to be some investigation as to why the go - round had to be conducted. Ie Why there was an other aircarft on the airstrip at such a late final approach?

Cheers,

[The PM]

Who knows? ATC may not have cleared it for take off due to a preceding departing aircraft not having acheived the required separation, or traffic on the cross runway, it may have had a last minute no go problem, there may have been a rabbit/kangaroo/bogan on the runway....these things happen and it's not really important.What's important is that either the pilot in command wasn't happy with how things were shaping up or he/she didn't receive a landing clearance in time so he/she went around.A non issue.

[No Further Requirements]

Tiger01, there could be a thousand reasons. Maybe the pilot of the other aircraft was slow to get off the ground, maybe ATC just misjudged the spacing, maybe the other aircraft aborted a takeoff, maybe the aircraft ahead was slow getting off, maybe someone unfamiliar with the aerodrome went through a holding point......all of these have happened to me as a tower controller. Some my fault, other sh!t happens.

If it was an ATC initiated go-around, a report will be filed to keep a record. I am happy to be corrected, but airlines also get their crews to report any go arounds, whether pilot or ATC initiated.

A large scale investigation would only be needed if there was some serious problem. But it looks like, from what the pilot said, that the cause was known.

Cheers,

NFR.

EDIT: pipped at the post by the PM!

[Tiger01]

Thanks for all your replies :)
I think that answers my questions,

Cheers,

[mirage3]

I don't know how many times I have heard ill-informed 'experts', particularly in the media, describe a perfectly safe and controlled flight condition such as a go around described as a 'near miss'. I was in Townsville Tower many years ago when a Beech Queenair blew a tyre on takeoff and a B737 was on final. Naturally enough, the B737 crew conducted a well practiced go around. The next morning's headlines in the local rag panicked the ill-informed public by headlining that 150 people had come close to dying because of a Tower error causing a near miss. We called the local rag to protest the standard of journalism only to be dismissed by the editor as 'ordinary people who don't know what really happened'. When I told the editor that I was in the Tower when it happened, he hung up. Pathetic, isn't it? :ugh:

[The PM]

ya gotta be quick NFR! hehehehe
:}

[Sunfish]

I'm not a professional, but all my landings are "Go Arounds" until I get to about three hundred feet and decide that my approach is good enough to land from. By that I mean speed, altitude, attitude, aircraft configuration, a clear runway and most of all :"cleared to land" from the tower if there is one.

Absent any one of those conditions then I will go around and try again. Only sensible ain't it?

[Keg]

Great logic Sunfish. The only minor thing that I'd change in your flow is to move the decision point from 300' down to about touch down. Whilst it's handy to get all those things tidied up by 300' or so, the reality is that there are lots of things that can occur well below 300' that can cause you to go around. You need to be thinking that you'll go around until it's safer not to. Half the go arounds that I've down in heavy metal have been done below 300' with all of those conditions having previously been met!

[Balthazar_777]

Good advice Keg.

In my company we have a company requirement to be stabilized by 1000 feet, except during a visual circuit (500') or a circling approach (300').

However, our training department is quite vocal in articulating that whilst you must be stabilized by 1000' (for most of our approaches) that does not mean that you must complete the landing. Until reversers are deployed, you can still go around.

Sunfish, i think that in an most GA aircraft you could go around at any time, runway length permitting. Good attitude :ok:

Cheers.

[scrambler]

Unless it is a one way strip keep reminding yourself that you can go round until you either don't have enough runway or you are taking the exit.

The 300' mark suggested is a good idea if the approach isn't stabilised.

[dirka]

Go - Round? Are you serious? Isn't it better that they went around and made a better approach next time? Who effen cares? I'd say that's a little bit safer... Get some better media hype.....:ugh:

[ABX]

Hmmm... I pop out to get some popcorn and drinks and while I'm gone this turns into a decent thread with some good advice!:ok:

[Tankengine]

All my "work" landings are potential go arounds till reversers in but my "play" landings almost never go around!:}

[a reminder for all of you at joint use airfields to look on final for gliders!!!];)

[Skystar320]

Also i heard another passenger say that a go - round causes alot of extra stress on the aircraft and would need to be inspected is this true ?

Ahh there always is one passenger who knows everything about commercial aviation :ugh::ugh::ugh:

True classic, SYD - PER B743.

"This aircraft is virtually brand new and was brought for a bargain from an operator in Europe"

[Cap'n Arrr]

I'm fairly certain that an aircraft climbing a bit and continuing flying (as it was designed to do) puts far less stress on the airframe than colliding with the boeing that just pulled out onto the runway...

Not having a go at you Tiger, it's a reasonable question, but the other passenger who said that needs a good backhanding. With an attitude like that they'll be an excellent journalist :yuk: