1* Safety??

[beaver_rotate]

AO-2010-038 (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2010/aair/ao-2010-038.aspx)

AO-2010-035 (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2010/aair/ao-2010-035.aspx)

AO-2010-037 (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2010/aair/ao-2010-037.aspx)

Bad week for onestar... naughty airbuses :=

[feetonthedash]

At least they were not problems like the A330's have :bored:

If it aint Boeing I aint going!

:cool:

[drugs detected]

WOW..... Go-Arounds, better than crashing!

[AerocatS2A]

Wow, two missed approaches and a cargo truck with a stuck throttle, what is the world coming to? :rolleyes:

[Capt Kremin]

With relation to the 3rd one, why does a go-around require an ASIR?

[mr flappy]

Every company I have worked for, go rounds were considered a normal procedure and therefore no report was required.
I worry if there is a company out there does require reports to be put in.
Maybe that Garuda pilot decided not to go around because he knew that he would have to put a report in and face having to explain himself to management, the result being substantial loss of life.

[beer bong]

FFS!

If we have to report go arounds it is seriously time to get out of this industry.
:ugh:

[clear to land]

You will find that worldwide, in the air transport role, it is a mandated state requirement to report all go-arounds on the applicable Air Safety Incident Report Form. The report is usually 'Go around performed due to preceding acft vacating late, or G/A performed due to stabilisation criteria not met etc'. This does not mean a G/A is considered abnormal, it is for trend analysis.:ok:

[kellykelpie]

Get a life Beaver