Heavy go-arounds

[stickandrudderman]

At 18.38 yesterday (Saturday) I was driving past LHR on the northbound M25 when I saw a heavy make a go-around from around 200ft.
Go-arounds are common at Denham, but I've never seen one at LHR, and it got me thinking...
One would imagine that with all the gismos on a modern commercial jet that go-arounds are unusual, especially when flown by highly trained pilots:rolleyes:, and runway obstructions at LHR are surely rare?
How much of a drag (no puns please) is it to make a go-around in a heavy? I tried to keep an eye on the 'plane to see if it executed a low-level circuit:rolleyes:, but had to keep the other eye on the morons on the road, so couldn't track it.
What's the deal with this kind of thing?
Just curious.

[barit1]

Many possible reasons; not uncommon due to traffic conflict. Read more here (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=178640).

[stickandrudderman]

Thanks for the link. I guess I should have searched, but I was more interested in the logistics of a go-around.
I'm sure that landing slots are difficult to get at LHR, so what happens when you miss one, how long does a go-around take in a 747, can you be sent off to a hold and end up with a half hour delay etc...
but reading the posts in the link I guess it's all in a day's work.

[TotalBeginner]

I don't really see how the "gismos" on the aircraft play a part in the likelihood of experiencing a go-around, there are many different reasons why a missed approach might be necessary: traffic slow to vacate, unable to comply with speed constraints, insufficient track miles, stable approach criteria not met and many more!

A missed approach in a modern jetliner isn't a particularly difficult thing to execute and it is a well practiced maneuver. What happens to the aircraft afterwards really depends on the local procedures at the airport and traffic density. At a quiet airfield, a brief climb followed by vectors back to the ILS is probably the norm. At LHR however, I would imagine a trip back to the hold is quite likely so that the aircraft can be re-sequenced and slotted back into the flow of arriving traffic. Obviously this results in delays and extra costs to the airline (fuel, possibility of accommodating passengers with missed connections etc...)

[Watto184]

Last night around that time there were a few issues at LHR as far as I know.

Easterlies were in use, 09L landing runway as per usual, but was closed for a short time due to 'Lighting issues'... single runway ops at peak time makes it interesting.

May have been the reason why you saw the go around..?

Couple of PAN's declared aswell with the stacks full... credit to all the controllers and pilots who coped under the stressful circumstances.

[Doors to Automatic]

Go-arounds at Heathrow are actually quite common, at least one per day. The most common reason is a slow-to-vacate aircraft ahead.

The aircraft will always follow a published procedure which involves an immediate turn of around 30 degrees to take the plane away from possible conflict with aircraft departing the parallel runway.

Then the aircraft will often be sequenced back for another approach.

I was on such a flight one evening coming in from Manchester. We went around from around 100ft on approach to 27L, turned to the south and then back round to the East. We were put on a 20 mile final back onto 27L but not into a holding stack.

[A Comfy Chair]

I've found that Heathrow (and indeed most airports) are pretty good with Go Arounds... They know that in many instances the aircraft are going to be fairly light on fuel (not in a dangerous way though) and so its best to get them back for another approach. In an instance like this the aircraft would usually be vectored back for another approach immediately, whilst if it is really busy, another aircraft that has just left the hold might be sent back to the hold, or given a larger vector, to accomodate.

They are usually a non-issue, and ATC handle them fairly well.

Had one just the other day (not at Heathrow but a very busy US airport) and it was a vector straight back up to 10miles for another go. Very well handled by ATC.

[parabellum]

From the logistics point of view when I did a go around at Kai Tak in a B744 and got fed back in fairly quickly it cost me 4.6 tons of fuel, previous aircraft still on the R/W.

[iqit]

i have read this before in a similar subject .
"go arounds are a "normal " well practiced " procedure".
well i do not agree .....
you practice a couple of go arounds in the sim every 6 months,and even then you kind of know when you will do them .
how many go arounds do you do on everyday flying? maybe once a year?
i am not saying that each go around should lead to a disaster ,but i do not accept the fact that go around is something normal .during approach your mind is working towards landing the plane .yes you should always keep go around in the back of your mind when on approach ,but when you are fighting " nature" to get the plane down ,a transition from landing to flying is not that easy.
all is well if you are prepared for it .....you see a situation developing and you start shifting from landing to go around in your mind.
if something sudden forces you to go around ,and if the plane doesnt respond the way it should be ,then u are in a different ball game.
there are a lot of different types of go around ,if i am allowed to say .
there is the " i am not happy with the approach at 500 ft and i elect to push the thrust levers forward and do a go around " and then there is the "why are we suddently sinking at 1500ft rate of decent at 200 ft " go around. dont tell me that at 200ft you were still thinking of the go around procedure ...
we are not multi tasking creatures ....if you tell me you were thinking of the go around procedure at 200ft ,i will ask who was doing the landing ?
go around IS NOT a well practiced ,normal procedure.(well practiced are take offs and landings.....and even then your mind expects them to be like the previous 200/300 ones)
go around IS something out of the normal and it should be respected as much as anything else that is not part of routine operation.

[TotalBeginner]

dont tell me that at 200ft you were still thinking of the go around procedure ...

While flying a CAT I ILS during LVP's this is probably the time that you are thinking most about the G/A!! :confused:

[turbantime]

iqit,

With a post like that I very much doubt you are a professional aviator or even hold a pilot's licence of any type.

From the very start when I started doing circuits, many and I mean many go-arounds were practiced...over and over again. This continues to this day...ie when you do a new type rating...MANY go-rounds/missed approaches are practiced. Then when you're on the line, you practice in the sims.

Go-arounds are basically take-offs but without the ground roll so one could say that they offer greater level of safety than a take-off because the aircraft is already at flying speed! In fact a go-around procedure is almost identical to a take-off procedure in modern jet aircraft.....it's designed that way to keep the ergonomics of it simple.

As others have pointed out, there are MANY reasons a go-around might need to be executed.

I personally am always ready to go-around and only commit to a landing once parameters such as stable approach criteria, visual with required visibility, landing clearence recieved and runway is clear. But even then, if i float or another event occurs...I'm ready and willing to go-around...give it away and make another safe approach to land.

Better to go-around from a ****e approach or whatever and carry out a subsequent safer approach to land rather than wrestle the machine onto the ground because you're in a mindset of "I shall land" don't you think? :ok:

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Some extraordinary comments in this thread:

<<The aircraft will always follow a published procedure which involves an immediate turn of around 30 degrees to take the plane away from possible conflict with aircraft departing the parallel runway.>>

You must check your info before writing such comments. No go-around at Heathrow calls for an "immediate" turn. 27L goes ahead to 1080ft before the turn, 27R goes ahead to 1580ft before the turn. 09R goes straight ahead to 3000ft then as directed. 09L goes ahead to 1580ft before turning. Although the go-arounds procedures are designed to be fail-safe, separation from any departing traffic will be provided by ATC, often by placing aircraft on radar headings.

<<Then the aircraft will often be sequenced back for another approach.>>

Well, that's a relief!! What happens to those that aren't??

<<ATC handle them fairly well.>>

That's nice to know too. Presumably sometimes they don't handle them well??

Go-arounds at Heathrow are not uncommon and ATC will do everything possible to sequence the go-around back into the landing stream with the minimum of delay but a heavy jet can't be turned back for a 2 mile approach. It can take 60-70 miles to fly a circuit back into Heathrow, or around 15-20 mins flying time.

[TotalBeginner]

Well, that's a relief!! What happens to those that aren't??

Erm, they divert! :ugh::ugh::ugh:

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

TotalBeginner.. I recall few diversions following go-arounds in my 31 years dealing with such traffic other than wx diversions when LVPs were in force. Only one do I recall (probably early 70s):
Cessna 310 flew a go-around claiming to be too fast. It was re-positioned and then flew another go-around claiming some other sort of problem. The Air Controller gave the pilot appropriate instructions, followed by "Now go away and don't come back until you can fly that thing". We never saw it again!!

[ETOPS]

My thanks to HEATHROW DIRECTOR and is colleagues - my last go-around was from less than 200' but ATC had my back on the ground 8 minutes later :ok:

Best controllers in the world - and so cheap :D

[barit1]

HD recollects: "Now go away and don't come back until you can fly that thing".

...or was it "Now go away and don't come back until you can LAND that thing". :cool:

[IRRenewal]

stickandrudderman,

Go to this website and select the appropriate date and time, and you can see the action as it happened:

http://lhr.webtrak-lochard.com/template/index.html

The aircraft that went around was a B777, flight EK003. It eventually landed at 1852 or so after some smart radar vectoring. Initially it was following a B737-500, flight AT802. It might be that this preceding A/C didn't clear the runway quick enough.

Quit a fascinating website. Zoom out a bit and see how the A/C are taken from the various holds and get vectored in. LGW and STN can be viewed as well be replacing the three letter code in the web address.

[stickandrudderman]

Thanks, now I feel like a real nerd, but I guess that pretty much satisfies my curiosity!
Busy isn't it?:D

[BelArgUSA]

Go around -
xxx
In our 747, that is at worst, 2 or 2,500 kg of Jet-A1 waste.
Now, instead of 11,000 in tanks, we will have 9,000 kg left when parking.
Big concerns - just get back on approach path ASAP...
Then, insult the approach controlers at LEMD, in Spanish to upset BA pilots...
Do the after takeoff then landing check-lists again...
If any time, tell passengers "we needed practice to satisfy a certain "iquit" on Pprune."
Extra .2 or .3 of an hour if we are on overtime.
And by chance, something to talk about, in the hotel's bar on arrival.
I feel to be a "superior peelot" to be able to do these G/A soooo good.
Having a nervous breakdown as pilot performing a G/A is entertaining.
Certainly, all these many heart attacks sufferred by pilots must be on G/A.
xxx
:)
Happy contrails

[A Comfy Chair]

Heathrow Director -

Yes, sometimes they are brought immediately back for another approach. Sometimes, they are sent to holding patterns.

I hold London in high regard for their efforts, and the only go-arounds I've seen there have resulted in the immediate next approach treatment. I have yet to do one there myself. It is not necessarily normal in other parts of the world though.

Presumably, yes, they don't always handle them well. I've seen some monumental efforts to make life difficult after a go around. Is it because of airspace restrictions, or perhaps traffic? Or just the controller wasn't ready for the possiblity? I said they usually handle them fairly well, because thats what they do. Usually. Definately not always.

BelArgUSA, 2 to 2.5t for a go around... you must have been quite lucky. Last one I did was a 4t effort, and not even particulally long.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

A Comfy Chair. I am a retired air traffic controller with 31 years expereince of radar control at Heathrow, hence my "handle" which was one of the radio callsigns I used.

I dealt with many go-arounds during my time at Heathrow both as a radar controller and tower controller. I never recall a go-around ever having to enter a holding pattern other than for weather or for technical problems. Eg an aircraft with gear trouble may be held but we usually used to hold it on radar rather than in one of the published holds so that it could be snatched back into the landing sequence as soon as the problem was sorted.

<<Presumably, yes, they don't always handle them well. I've seen some monumental efforts to make life difficult after a go around. >>

I take exception to that statement andf would be grateful if you would explain further. It is in the interest of ATC to get the go-around back into the landing sequence ASAP. If there is a long stream off the holds then it may be necessary to vector the go-around with several headings to fit it into the stream. Usual procedure is for the radar controllers to decide where in the landing stream the go-around it to fit and then adjust the track distances of the aircraft behind. As I said, I worked there for a very long time and do not recall any "monumental" efforts to make life difficult.

[Hand Solo]

Go-arounds are generally a novelty on any aircraft, especially so on a heavy where the low number of sectors per annum means you could go years without flying a real one. The wise man will have briefed not only the go-around routing but also how the procedure is to be flown at least an hour prior, so although the event may come as a surprise, flying it should be a case of flying by numbers. Go arounds at LHR are generally fairly straight forward, in part due to the routing which requires no low level manouvering and also due to the generally excellent handling by ATC. I'd still be generally p*****d off at having to go around after a long night flight, but I'd rather do it at LHR than almost anywhere else I fly to.

For the benefit of Heathrow Director, I only once found LHR ATC made life difficult after a go around. Having declared PAN due to low fuel the ATCO was so incredibly expeditious in getting us back around for a second approach that I actually had to ask to extend downwind to get our stuff in order! Not bad with single runway ops and EATs of 30mins+. That's my kind of service!:ok:

[A Comfy Chair]

Heathrow Director - I have been lurking around these hallowed halls a while, and I'm aware of your extensive experience. I also, if you notice in my post, said that I hold London in high regard.

I have only ever seen Heathrow ATC treat Go-Arounds exceptionally well, and I am always amazed at how well everything runs, considering the shear numbers of aircraft you handle.

I am also amazed how you didn't have a nervous breakdown and unleash on everyone who, when told to contact Director with callsign only, proceded to give you their life story :}.

I am with Hand Solo in saying that if I had to go around, I would rather it be there.


My point is that not everywhere do you get such efficient service. And sometimes ATC (in those places) are a contributing factor.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<For the benefit of Heathrow Director, I only once found LHR ATC made life difficult after a go around. Having declared PAN due to low fuel the ATCO was so incredibly expeditious in getting us back around for a second approach that I actually had to ask to extend downwind to get our stuff in order! Not bad with single runway ops and EATs of 30mins+. That's my kind of service>>

You weren't in a 757 one morning by chance?? I had one like that - following a go-around and a PAN call for fuel emergency I said "range 20 miles if that's OK". The reply was "negative", which I took to mean he was running on vapour. We broke 2 off the ILS and gave him a 3 mile final which he quite liked!

[Hand Solo]

Not me on that occasion, but a 6 mile final was offered on easterlies without prompting!