FACT Go-Around

[Goldfish Jill]

SAA go around this morning at FACT. PIC tells pax on PA that there was another acft on the RWY - there wasn't - was a pilot initiated go-around due to it being an "unstable approach".

Why would the PIC blame it on the ATC when the ATC had nothing to do with it?

[Propellerpilot]

Where you sitting in the Cockpit with the crew at the time ? If not, how do you know if there was an obstruction or not ? The other aircraft might have been off the runway already (or a chopper was crossing nearby giving them a TCAS warning) before you could see anything but by then the pilot already made the decision to go-around (pilots actually make this decision and commiting to land quite a number of seconds before reaching the thresold) and even then it is not the ATC to blame - sometimes it takes longer to vacate than it was anticipated or the pilots did not accept a reduced seperation landing.

Whatever the pilot tells the pax, in this case does not make a difference in their lives, nor does he have to justify the go-around, so if he gave a false reason, I agree that he might as well tell the true reason if anything at all. Why don´t you find out who it was and ask him ? lol

[JetPark]

I guess it sounds better than him telling the pax that he flew an unstable approach and was about to screw up the landing!

Pax would not know / understand that it was an ATC problem (though it wasn't anyway) as they are not clever enough for that :rolleyes:

I'm sure he did not aim his comment at you as an ATC

:)

[Propellerpilot]

Haha - Tower=Goldfishtank and Jill the Goldfish wow;)

[beckers]

They did a go-around yesterday morning in Cape Town as well - for an unstable approach.

As much as I sit back and think ha ha :E you guys stroked the cat - I sit back and realise that I have come close too - often:O.

Isn't that the challenge - to keep the speed up and still be in the slot.
The go-around shows that professional aviation still exists within that and other companies within South Africa.

[theBOSS]

Goldfish, you seem like a real Avcom TOPGUN........

[nugpot]

That's what we are taught in Pilot 101.

Rule 1. Always blame ATC.
Rule 2. In case ATC not to blame, refer Rule 1. ;)

[mwafrika]

"Ladies and gentlemen this is your captain speaking. We just missed the runway. We have to turn around and try finding it again. ATC gave us wrong directions. Have a pleasant flight!" lol

[unstable load]

Pax would not know / understand that it was an ATC problem (though it wasn't anyway) as they are not clever enough for that :rolleyes:



Does that include you when you are not up at the pointy end impressing the idiots in the back with your wit, charm and indisputable skill, then? And indeed your AME's who all travel in the back because by default, they are too thick to be pilots........:E:D

[Goldfish Jack]

If all else fails, blame someone else.

Interesting how many go-arounds are now happening because of unstable approaches. Rather blame ATC.

However what the clever pilot does now know is that a FULL report goes to the CAA and it is investigated. Invariably the capt is the one that gets to have tea with the boss.

Of course if we hear comments like this about blaming the ATC, a further report goes to CAA. MMMM capt me thinks you better start thinking what u gonna say to the boss...

Reminds me of the situation the other day where someone decided on his own initiative to do a 360 on final, when the zone was IMC, cloud base of 1000ft, because he was unstable and told ATC he was just "sommer doing a 360!!!" Never mind the company traffic 6 miles behind him on the ILS in IMC.... Interesing situation that one. What ever happened to "in the event of a go-around, follow the publish MAP......"

OH well it takes all types to make the world go around.

See you next sat at the STAMMTISCH

[misway]

I must admit, that I usually just watch and read, but this last post shows a poor understanding of why go-arounds are flown due to unstable approaches. A "FULL" report may go to CAA for go-arounds to be investigated, but this should not lead to tea with the boss. A go-around for an unstable approach is a safety conscious move. To continue below the height designated by the company as their cutoff for a stable approach shows more poor judgement than the possible poor judgement that caused the crew to be unstable in the first place. It could also be argued that to continue the approach while unstable, and incontravention of the airline's rules, is wilful negligence of SOPS/NOPS.

This is a basic principle of ALARs: not stable, go-around and try again.

More go-arounds will be flown during the summer months due to windshear, wind changes, tail winds on finals as well as the normal speed/altitude restrictions from ATC.

Having said that I believe that when we cock it up we should admit that. What's the big deal?

But if I have made the decision to go-around it's a professional decision that is backed up by my airline. No report needs to be filed by me to my boss because of a "SAFETY" decision that's made. And there is no tea.

[oompilot]

I think this thread is being misinterpreted. The remark here is not about the actual go-around but who took responsibility for it in the eyes of the passengers.

People like Jetpark who think pilots are generally more intelligent than the average Joe are the ones who have difficulty in taking responsibility for incidents such as the one in question. CRM is tailor made for you mate!

[Doodlebug2]

Well stated, Misway. The only "stable" comment on this thread!:E

[bosbok]

Agree with misway. A go-around is performed for safety reasons. I fail to see how threatening people with a CAA investigation in the event of a go-around is conducive to safety. Both pilots and ATC will make mistakes every now and then. I'm sure most of us can easily recall examples of both. Live and let live! Imagine the actual investigation if an unstable approach is continued and results in a mishap. Get real!

On a side note, I understand that ego's will be hurt if the wrong parties are blamed. But honestly, go-arounds are frightening for the pax. What would be more reassuring them? - We are going around due to traffic reasons or we are going around because the aircraft was UNSTABLE? I can just hear the horror stories now... If the PIC is able to maintain a sense of calm in the cabin by adjusting the truth, well then so be it. The last thing aviation needs now is more sensationalised stories in newspapers of passengers in "near-death emergencies."

[mwafrika]

Telling the pax there's an aircraft on the runway doesnt mean its ATC's fault. Check this out and tell me what you think. The a/c thats forced to go around, had it been commercial, what would you tell pax? YouTube - ATC@FRG - "77F get off the rwy!" (by aldo benitez) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKR-Vj5H8u8)

[porra]

I agree wiff the Oom - the point was not the go around, but the blaming it on someone else.

Boskok - "...that ego's will be hurt if the wrong parties are blamed..."

It's really not about egos here - I just find it a little unsettling when we as ATC's must take a call from one of the passengers who were on board said a/c and being asked point blank, "Are you ATC's fast asleep or what!? I didn't take the call but was standing right next to the Controller who did.

Tea or no tea - this has been reported to the CAA and we will follow it up.

Your "not clever enough to be a pilot" PAX in the rear will almost always include some spotter who survive off "..sensationalised stories in newspapers of passengers in "near-death emergencies.."

If blame must be allocated so as to not hurt your own ego, then blame it on the wind, the moon or the stars - not ATC!:=

[nugpot]

then blame it on the wind, the moon or the stars - not ATC!

That's no fun, because the wind, moon and stars don't nearly get as wound up about it......

[porra]

Touché.. :D

[mwafrika]

Just like to say to all ATC out there. Y'all do a fantastic job. We appreciate it. I know I wouldn't survive a day doing what you do. YouTube - Air Traffic Control Pissed at Air China 981 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5351cVTvKU)
YouTube - Funny ATC conversations (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6h4UGgsGQA)

[nugpot]

Porra, I hope I'll be buying you a beer next Saturday at the Waterfront....

[Zaherk]

Does that include you when you are not up at the pointy end impressing the idiots in the back with your wit, charm and indisputable skill, then? And indeed your AME's who all travel in the back because by default, they are too thick to be pilots........

unstable load,

According to your age you should be a "grown-up". Never expect statements, categorizing people like that from a suppose to be "grown-up". Hope you got the guts to say it to their faces. :=

[porra]

I shall seek you out and claim my beer!:ok:

[unstable load]

Zaherk,

Had you read all of my post including the non letter bits at the end, you may have taken it as intended, which was a gentle nudge for someone who most likely had engaged mouth before shifting to brain.

I reiterate,

Does that include you when you are not up at the pointy end impressing the idiots in the back with your wit, charm and indisputable skill, then? And indeed your AME's who all travel in the back because by default, they are too thick to be pilots........http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/evil.gif:D


If he had indeed not done what I suspect then, in the words of Oom Pilot

CRM is tailor made for you mate!


If I had been a pax on that flight and had been the one who called the tower to be told that there was nothing on the runway, I would be a little miffed and a lot worried about the quality of person up front. After all, I do not contribute to his/her salary to be insulted by someone who has the arrogance to think he is my mental superior simply because he has bars on his shoulder.

[unstable load]

As for

Hope you got the guts to say it to their faces

it's a pity they never had the guts to tell the pax what actually happened instead of shifting the blame to the Tower.

[exjet]

I've had one as bad, many years ago positioning JNB-CPT, also a go around with not a mention from the cockpit - nothing! Silence all the way to the gate. Nothing to reassure those white knuckled pax.
:(

[glorified bus driver]

You guys make it seem as if a Go-Around is the end of the world. If the approach was unstable, it does not mean the PIC is going to walk the red carpet to the boss man. Read the original post. He mentions the PIC said they did a Go-Around cause of an aircraft on the runway. Then afterwards changes the story that he blamed ATC. Well which is it? As an ex-ATC, it is hard getting the tower's phone number so it must have been a clever friend of yours who called as he knows the number:D. And if any information was disclosed to the caller, I can only question the professionalism of the controller as that is a no-no:= of the job. Take it up at ATNS Head Office if you dare:ugh:. For interest sake, was the originator of this post on the flight deck, in the tower or even involved with the incident? Or just spreading rumours as this is a rumour website. Safe flying:)

"was a pilot initiated go-around" - LOL, I would certainly hope so.:ok:

[mwafrika]

was a pilot initiated go-around" - LOL, I would certainly hope so.http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/thumbs.gifhahaha. Hadn't caught that. But I got the intended meaning. So did the pilot change his story from having an a/c on the runway to blaming it on ATC? :confused:

[transducer]

Go-arounds are mandatory and landings are optional! Who cares who gets the blame, the guys executed one of the safest, ego swallowing manoeuvres out.

[Zaherk]

Whatever, only you will know the true meaning.:suspect:

[ORANPO]

Trust me we will send u around wen there is tfc! Just fly the plain plain plain doughnut!

[unstable load]

Zaherk,

I should be in Changi Terminal 2 on the 10th of December, so if you buy me a beer for my time, I will explain in small words what I meant.:ok:

In the meanwhile try to think about yourself as a pax rather than the bloke up at the pointy end and consider how you would feel if Biggles made an announcement like that (assuming he DID make it) and your reaction once that staement was made inferring that you are too thick to know the difference.

"Noli nothis permittere te terere."