Go around phraseology (UK ATC)

[worzel]

I work as flight crew on A320 variants for a UK operator. One of the topics being covered in my companies current sim check is Go around’s from unusual heights. We’re all very familiar with going around from decision altitude, but at other times it can create additional complications in the modern automated cockpit.

Following these discussions I’m curious as to the ATC phraseology and the expectations of the controller. For example at 8 miles out and 2000’ if you wanted us to abandon the approach could we expect a ‘Go around’ instruction or maybe a ‘maintain altitude, fly heading’ or a ‘continue approach, expect possible missed approach’ or something similar. Is there a distance/altitude before which a ‘go around’ instruction wont be given?

Looking forward to your professional guidance.

Worzel

[niknak]

The standard UK Phraseology for ATC to instruct an a/c to go around, is "ABC123 go around, I say again go around", as far as I know there's no range at which it can or cannot be used.

However it's generally used if the a/c has to go around from short (4nm or less) final and will thereafter include an instruction to climb & turn as the traffic situation dictates.

If your range on final is greater than 4nm, you probably wouldn't be sent around as such and the phraseology will differ slightly to fit the situation, ie "ABC123, radar" "terminating the approach, turn right heading 120 degrees, maintain 2000ft".

[Guy D'ageradar]

Will also depend whether you have been cleared for the approach and/or have started descent on the glide or not. A long time since I worked in th UK but if you're on the loc and not yet the glide, I would prefer "cancel approach clearance...continue heading, climb...... etc. "

[roljoe]

Hi,

Niknak is right...no specific range or height defined to prompt a go around instruction..;and as stated by Guy..this could be formulated in a different way...as "Approach clerance canceled"...climb to ..rwy axis...and bla bla bla...or "proceed according the published proc's"...

[Spitoon]

gree pretty much with all that's bee posted so far. When time is not critical -for good English speakers - I'll just use plain language to describe what I want to happen. BUT, I'll explain why - even if only briefly!!

[worzel]

Thanks for your answers guys. That really helps.

worzel

[Milt]

Maybe some extra standardisation is needed by ATC to avoid confusion by those with minimum English.

What about some standard phraseology from the pilots soon after a missed approach is initiated, be it a lazy one well out on an approach or during almost May Day circumstances off the runway, which should then prompt ATC to transmit ONLY a brief acknowledgement in recognition of a likely frenzy developing on the flight deck. Sort out other traffic first which will assist with situation awareness for those now embarking on an unexpected diversion.

There should also be a recognition that pilot's hands/feet-on skills are deteriorating as they rely increasingly on automatics.

[Spitoon]

Milt makes some valid points but I think there is already some standard phraseology that does the job. In the UK it's 'Go around, I say again, go around, acknowledge' - I'm not sure if that's straight out of ICAO but if not I suspect it's pretty close.

The problem arises when there is no need for the pilot to hit the TOGA buttons or whatever because, say, the aircraft is still at a safe level and simply needs to be repositioned onto the approach for some reason. To instruct a go-around in this case seems unnecessary and is potentially confusing to the pilot.

Hopefully most controllers will recognise that the crew may have their hands full if the go-around is initiated by the pilot, but even so, in some of our high traffic density environments it may be essential to pass additional instructions to the crew at a busy time. In this case I would limit the instructions to a heading and level - which in most cases will suffice. These considerations still come into play for an ATC initiated go-around but, again hopefully, the crew will only be having to contend with a 'normal' go-around.

The issue of pilots manual handling skills is, I suspect, starting to show itself by the reluctance of some crews to accept clearances that require manual handling, or by SOPs that precluded them from doing so, which then further degrades their skills - visual approaches immediately come to mind in this context. Having said that, from what I have seen during liasion visits etc. those operators/crews who 'rely' on automatics for normal operations also rely on them to a large extent during a go-around or other non-normal event - I'm not suggesting that this is a bad idea but it further exacerbates the issue that Milt has touched on.