Very late go-around at Geneva

[Doors to Automatic]

I was a passenger on easyJet flight 904 yesterday (24/1) from Luton to Geneva. We set up for an approach to Runway 05 and everything appeared completely normal in reasonable weather conditions. We crossed the runway threshold seemingly perfectly set up for landing.

Then, at a point which I would estimate as being about 100-200m past the threshold and a height of no greater than 30 feet (possibly less)there was a very sudden application of power and we went around.

There was no announcement after this incident and both myself and my colleague spent the next few minutes trying to reassure some very nervous passengers around us that there was nothing to worry about.

After about 10 minutes the captain came on and said that we couldn't land because the cabin was not secure for landing.

I have been in two go-arounds before from decision height (which I assume is 100 feet). On both previous occasions the whole procedure was conducted smoothly from a greater altitude and an announcement was made almost immediately.

My questions are therefore

1. If the cabin was indeed not secured why was the decision to go around carried out at literally the last moment before touchdown? Is this part of the easyJet SOP?

2. Why was the announcement not made sooner?

3. Can anyone shed any further light on the incident.

Despite being a regular flyer and knowing a lot about what is going on I still found this incident a little disconcerting and I would very much appreciate any comments or insights that anyone may be able to share. Thanks in advance.

[Long Range Cruise]

Cant say i know what happened or why it happened, but can say that it couldn't have been something easy to deal with if the pilot didn't inform the probably concerned pax. I prefere an informative note over the PA to be made immediately and discuss this with my F/O before T.O. As you do, and although i am not aware of the reason for this G.A, would say that the crew a)forgot about the passengers, b)was unaware of the problem so could not really make anything over a PA which would have been really helpful to the pax and c) were too busy complaining at the head attendant for not securing.

Colleagues, do you not all agree that the securing of the cabin should be carried out pretty early as possible? Maybe a lack of communication before landing?

[Long Range Cruise]

On that note, ignore what i said about the head flight attendant. Was in two minds at once. I dont make this habit dont worry!

[Zeppelin]

With regard to the delayed PA, the period after a go-around can be a time of high work load- clean up, talking to ATC, radar headings, re setting the approach etc. And on this occasion seeing if the cabin was secure. Sometimes it is just not possible to do an immediate PA, the priority being to fly the aircraft, remember this is also an area of high terrain.

[DVR6K]

Surely "cabin secure for landing" is one of the final points of the landing checklist and if it can´t be completed should you not go around before DH? 30 feet seems a strange time to decide to have another go because the checklist isn´t complete?

[PAXboy]

Firstly, I appreciate the nervousness of some passengers at what was - unbeknown to them - a routine procedure conducted for their saftey. I have just been reassuring a friend of mine who was doing LHR-YYZ with AC yesterday and had a turn back due to (stated) auto pilot failure). They returned LHR for replair/swop. She said that she felt very nervous because she did not understand. Of course, it is not easy to explain certain failures to folks.

To this incident, given that the senior cabin crew does not know the reason for the G/A, under what circumstances can the senior CC give a reassuring P/A?

[Iain]

>>I agree with Zepplin. Although I am not a real airline pilot, I do a lot of sim flying, but to it's highest realism<<

What is this world coming too?? <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0"> <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0"> <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">

[springbok449]

Obviously none of us were there so rather difficult to make a judgement but we all have a good go at it! As was pointed out above, GVA has lots of high ground around so I think there were more pressing priorites to the pilots however if it realy was for a cabin "non" secure that the manoeuvre was initiated it was as it seemed left rather late as it is the first item of the landing checklist on the EZY 737. I am sure this will be persued by the company and delt with in an apropriate manor.. .Safe flying regards Bokkie449.

[???pax]

Just a quick question regarding the role of the auto-pilot in the go-around.. Do modern FMC databases contain go-around procedures for most of the major airports?? If they do then the presence of high ground around Geneva should not be a problem as the "computer" is there to guide you away from it. Am I assuming that the auto-pilot is relied upon too much here, especially in tight situations such as this one seems to be?

[Pilot Pete]

???PAX

yes they do.. .The FMC is NOT the autopilot.. .The presence of high ground is never a problem if the FMC is correctly guiding and the autopilot is correctly following. We're there to ensure this.. .The autopilot frees the pilots up from the manual manipulation of the controls and 'evens' out the workload between the two pilots. In the event of flying a manual go-around (which this one may well have been) the workload on the PNF is very high as the PF has to concentrate most of his attention on the flight path. It is a balance. Good airmanship is using the available resources to give yourself more capacity for thinking ahead and making decisions, but you must keep practicing the skills so they don't get rusty for when you have to rely on them.

PP

[???pax]

Thanks for that Pete, and thanks for correcting me.

[flufdriver]

What is this industry coming to?

computer-game players offering authorative opinions on issues that professional pilots are reluctant to comment on in absence of all the facts.

Passengers offering advice on proper course of action in a situation requiring quick decision making.

What's next?. .Flight crew consulting with passengers and acting on the consensus of that consultation on anything that deviates from normal course of events.

"Ladies and Gentlemen, this is your Captain speaking, I am seeking your input on a possible deviation from course, due to what appears to be a CB about 100 miles ahead of us. Please forward your opinion regarding the type of avoidance maneuver you would favour in this situiation, if any. In the absence of a conclusive decision prior to reaching said CB, my colleague and I propose to enter into a holding pattern, untill you have had time to deliberate and consider all options at our disposal. Further and with your permission, we propose to be allowed to declare a fuel emergency without further consulting you, should it become necessary"

Thank you for your assistance in this matter and as always, we appreciate your invaluable input.

[flapsforty]

Hey Fluffy, mind the blood pressure! <img src="wink.gif" border="0"> . .The way to put an end to percieved "stupidity" on these pages would perhaps be to inform people rather than take the p!ss out of them?

Funny though............ :)

[BRL]

Good call Fluff..........

[Herod]

Just a thought. Perhaps there was some other reason, like the guy was too fast (we've all done it if we're honest), and he certainly wasn't going to tell THAT to the passengers.

[chiglet]

Two things <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0"> . .I once saw a LH B737 overshoot/Go around at about 15 feet. [Snow squall] No idea of the pax chat!. .On a "Fam Flight", I had a Go Around at 250ft due to "insecure cabin". Vis apc was carried out,BUT no chat to the pax.... <img src="eek.gif" border="0"> . .we aim to please, it keeps the cleaners happy

[flufdriver]

Don't worry about my BP Flaps, I'm way beyond that and cool as a Cucumber.

I'm wondering what the comments might have been if it had been an aborted landing, rather then a Go-around. I recently did one of those, due to 2 dogs humping on the runway.. .That was fun to explain to the pax!

[Doors to Automatic]

I can appreciate that workload is very high in these situations - I was merely stating that there was a long time before a PAwhen compared to what happened during the previous two go-arounds that I have been in.

Herod - There didn't appear to be any visible reason for the go-around. The first approach seemed identical to the second in terms of speed/height etc

BTW we were actually landing on 23 rather than 05 as initially stated.

[320DRIVER]

With 20/20 hindsight: Why wouldn't the flight-crew have continued the landing without a "Cabin secure" signal from the cabin staff at that point? The pitch change, acceleration etc. of a go-around can certainly cause as much havoc to an "unsecured" cabin as a normal landing (if not more).

Obviously, I don't know all the facts and I am in no way advocating the practice of landing without the "Cabin secure" signal, but I think the essence of this forum is to promote a healthy discussion.

So, what is your view?

[ 29 January 2002: Message edited by: 320DRIVER ]</p>

[411A]

The flight crew...there for a reason...FLY the aeroplane. PR is the LAST consideration, to be done "as time permits".. .Cabin crew, also there for a reason, basic safety and pax service (little of THAT in todays market) and they should NOT be making any announcments about go-arounds...heck, they could not even secure the cabin, it would appear.. .As I mentioned on another thread, thick at times.. .Back for retraining perhaps?

[starship]

Many CA1/Purser/IFS Courses will include the awareness of the "GO-AROUND" PA. Why should the No.1 not do a PA in this situation? Many airlines have one, and having seen it used, I would agree that it should be standard SEP. The flightdeck should be able to rely on their No.1 to make this PA, until such a time as they are able to speak to the pax.

cheers,

starship <img src="cool.gif" border="0">

[411A]

Oh, I presume then that these same CA1's also have inital and recurrent sim training...as pilots...and therefore know ALL about go-arounds.. .No?. .Well then, they should keep their traps firmly....shut. <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">

[no sig]

411a

Wrong! Cabin Crew do have a role to play in keeping the passengers informed. If an operator has a SOP which includes a brief announcment to the pax by the cabin crew then that is perfectly reasonable. The pax, on occasion need re-assurance, and while the F/D sort out what ever the problem then it is no bad thing to keep the pax informed.

[ 30 January 2002: Message edited by: no sig ]</p>

[411A]

Well no sig...could be in your company, but in most, the cabin crew wouldn't know a go-around from the back end of a horse.. .Better for them to...keep quiet.

[The Islander]

Was on a Monarch flight into Gibraltar last year when the said procedure was initiated on very short finals. The flight crew didn't say a thing, but one of the flight attendants did. She used a few simple words of a non-technical nature that put the minds of the pax to rest.

What else is required?

[CaptainSquelch]

411A,

[quote] The flight crew...there for a reason...FLY the aeroplane. PR is the LAST consideration, to be done "as time permits".. .Cabin crew, also there for a reason, basic safety and pax service (little of THAT in todays market) ....<hr></blockquote>

So far I agree. This happened before but not too often.

[quote] and they should NOT be making any announcments about go-arounds <hr></blockquote>

In my company the No1, called purser like our beloved FlapsForty, is actually expected to make a short standard announcement. This includes the fact that we made a Go-Around, and the expectation that the Flightcrew will make an announcement as soon as there is time for it. Funny but this fulfills two of your two reasons they exist. .1) basic safety: the pax's inclination to panic is subdued.. .2) pax service: they are informed of what happened (in case they did not notice)

I know that some Cabin crew don't notice some Go-Arounds. Particularly the extremely smooth ones at an early stage of the approach but I am convinced that a G/A at 30 feet will not go unnoticed. Not even by the blondest basket cases.

Sq

[ 31 January 2002: Message edited by: CaptainSquelch ]</p>

[starship]

411A, in a non attacking, but debating way, let me put these points to you.

Your profile states that you are a Captain. You, as a professional pilot I am sure would NOT under any circumstances operate a sector unless you had complete trust in your crew, their SEP ability and CRM. You are overall answerable to your employer for the safe operation of the aircraft that you command, its passengers and crew.

With this in mind, let me ask you the following questions. These are not aimed at you personally in any way, but should be considered by anyone with your views.

If you can not trust your CA1 to recognise a go-around and subsequently make a simple but reassuring PA, can you :

1. Trust him or her to recognise a CLEARLY CATASTROPHIC situation and initiate an evacuation before it is too late? (If you are unable to do so due incapacitation)

2. Rely on him/her to recognise that your FIRST OFFICER, on becoming incapacitated has had a heart attack, and take appropriate action to ATTEMPT to save a life while you are organising your diversion?

3. Trust him/her to make judgement that the crew will have the best chance of executing a PREMEDITATED drill for real by ensuring a good SEP knowledge at the briefing?

Power In, Gear UP, and a high R.O.C close to the ground is not a normal approach to land, and is indeed easier to recognise than a borderline catastrophic situation.

"Ladies and Gentlemen the Captain has considered it necessary to discontinue the approach into X, and will shortly provide more information on his intentions. There is no cause for alarm. For your own safety please remain seated with your seatbelt fastened at all times"

SIMPLE. The PA reassures the pax, stops disgruntlement when the CA's can not get to answer the many call bells pressed, and keeps them in their seats at a critical time.

Just some food for thought.

cheers,

starship <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

[ColdnFoggy]

Interessting discussion.. .Guess it really boils down to: WHEN TO PANICK!!!. .If I was in the back as pax in this situation and 10 sec after the go around started, I hear Capt Cool on the PA... THEN I Panick.

[411A]

Starship--. .Just noticed your reply, and must admit that, under the circumstances you describe, the PA anouncement would be appropriate.. .Having said that, consider the following--. .Aircraft after landing, taxiing on the parallel to the parking bay, speed 15 knots, has a #1 engine rundown/tailpipe fire. F/E noticed same, initated the appropriate drill, and made an announcement to the CC to remain seated and await further instructions.. .CC (L3) sees the torching, opens the L3 door and tries to start an evac...right into the flames.. .This is the type of CC that I have had to deal with over many years in the ME/Asia.. .Under this scenario....you must see why I generally do not want CC interfering unless instructed.. .The third-world is a bit different than Europe.

[flapsforty]

[quote] heck, they could not even secure the cabin, it would appear.. .As I mentioned on another thread, thick at times.. . <hr></blockquote>

411A Your obvious contempt for the cabin crew you flew with can't have made for a very good CRM environment.

FA-ing is no rocket science, and a situation like you describe in the post above is covered by training. Any properly trained FA knows not to open a door to deliver pax into a burning meat grinder. Did you ever take up with the training department the percieved incompetence, "thickness" and lack of service-mindedness of your FA's?. .Or where you quite happpy to Captain an aircraft where the pax were in the hands of a bunch of nincompoops?

Anything unusal scares the pax 411A. The CC are there for the pax (and to feed & water you, and check that you're still breathing) So if an announcement to these same pax can calm their fears and keep them quiet, this is part of the FA's job and in no way shape or form can be qualified as interfering!

If I tell you what flap setting to pick or that you are high on approach I am interfering. If I tell the pax that you have decided to abort the landing I am doing my job.

General point. In our mob we do not make a "cabin secured" report to the cockpit. Unless specifically stated otherwise, the pilots presume the cabin ready for landing.. .(Squelch could tell us how often he gets told that it ain't <img src="wink.gif" border="0"> ). .It seems to work fine and avoids an extra call & distraction to the cockpit at a time of high work load for the pilots.. .Comments?

Question. I've seen that on some airlines it's the CC who give the command "doors to automatic/arm slidebars" and vice versa, as well as the command "doors may be opened". With us this is done by the pilots.. .Anyone care to tell me what you percieve as the pro's and cons of either of these 2 ways of doing things?

[Capt Pit Bull]

Further to Pilot Petes reply, for the benefit of non flight crew I should point out that not all airliners are equipped with Nav systems that are capable of providing the autopilot with flight guidance during a missed approach procedure. Even if capable, they may not be certified to do so.

Hence it is entirely possible that a Go Around will involve a high workload from a Navigational point of view. There are several fields whose Missed Approach Procedures involve the use of multiple Navaids that must be selected, identified and tracked in rapid succession.

May not have been the case in this instance of course.

CPB

[411A]

Well, let's put it this way, flapsforty--. .In MY aircraft, I am not concerned with the feelings of the cabin crew. They are there because they are trained and assigned by the company to do a particular job. The cabin crew supervisor (let's call him/her the cabin captain) is also there for a purpose...to manage the cabin crew and to report to me any problems that develop. If there ARE any problems then I will assist as needed....otherwise I leave the cabin ALONE and in the care of the supervisor, period. In this way, the supervisor KNOWS that the rest of the cabin crew had better behave...or else.. .And, the company backs me up on this...so it works very well indeed.. .If it ain't broke....don't fix it.

[Few Cloudy]

Or Else... The mind boggles. I would say that the goings on in the cabin are very much relevant to the captain.

Pax can very easily screw up a secure cabin by going to the john at the last second. It isn't necessarily the crew's fault for being slow (cabin) or poor info about short cuts (cockpit).

However, as has been suggested above, I tend to land on in this circumstance if the landing is assured, as it shakes up the cabin less than a GA. This is not according policy but is a judgement call I reckon.

For the pax/non-cockpit types out there, a Go Around begins with lots of standard actions, all of which have to be done right to get a safe flight path, followed by some navigation, with or without FMC track (which may drift off on some types in Manual tuning) and then a further plan - all punctuated by chat to and from the controllers and possible frequency changes. As for an announcement, as soon as practicable one should be made - again , when is a judgement call.

[flapsforty]

411A, your post explains clearly how you run your ac. . .Different strokes for different folks.

I do not see in it an answer to my question Or were you quite happpy to Captain an aircraft where the pax were in the hands of a bunch of nincompoops?. . .Perhaps I'm slow on the uptake, perhaps you did not intend to answer the question? . .Anyway, I am still interested in an answer if you would care to provide one.. .If not, that's fine too.

[Full_Wings]

I agree with Few Cloudy on this one.

If you sit in the back of a simulator and watch, what are the most 'ballsed-up' scenarios when carried out under short notice? RTO's probably first, but GA's come a close second.

The company I work for has started (through risk analysis) to assess various situations/failures/incidents in terms of danger to the operation, and a go-around comes out as quite a risky event.

The scenario described at the beginning (in my experience) is not an uncommon occurence (although I think most pilots would have made a decision one way or the other a little earlier...).

Whenever this has happened (the _possibility_ of landing without 'cabin secure') to me, the outcome of the flight deck discussion has always been to land anyway, as (for me) it has normally been at the end of a long duty day into an unfamiliar arfield with weather and terrain problems.

As has been put forward by others in this discussion, the changes in body angle and accelerations produced by a full-blooded go-around are probably greater than that of normal landing followed by an autobrake rollout, so nothing is being saved and the aeroplane and passengers are being exposed to a potentially risky manouvre.

[Flip Flop Flyer]

I just have to respond to good old 411A and his drivel. Listen up mate, 'cause a few things seems to have slipped your attention.

1) You do not fly aeroplanes, you fly payload. If there was a way to transmorph people and cargo around the world, avaition would come to a grinding holt in a split second.

2) The most important asset of any airline is not the captains or any other profession, it is the payload.

3) The guys and girls who look after the payload are much more important to the payload than whether or not you are a happy chappy up front. They are the front line fighters and deserve all the assistance and back-up that you, the driver, can afford to lend them.

4) Under normal SOP's the payload will not even notice that there are a couple of living breathing guys of front, except for the occasional "this is your captain speaking ....". However, on every single flight the payload will be in constant contact with the cabin crew and it is based on their performance that the "quality" of the flight is being judged. Not whether or not you executed a smart SID or shot a neat approach.

I resent totally the "MY" flight for several reasons. Primarily I will assume that flying with captains of that mentality, which are mostly found with carriers of a dodgy safety reputation, is a very unpleasant experience for the rest of the crew. And secodarily, you are there to secure the safe and comfortable transport of the payload. But I've already covered that.

[Long Range Cruise]

If no one minds, i would like to pass my opinion on this one.

Flip flop Flyer, your profile indicates you deal with passengers/cargo, in other words, nothing to do with "the aircraft". If you had the responsibility of the flight crew in all areas, perhaps you would come to understand the skill and stress involved.

Secondly, there is unfortunately NOT a way to transmorph people and cargo around the world and if there was, we would not be the only people out of business! <img src="wink.gif" border="0">

Thirdly, i agree "that the most important asset of any airline is not the captains or any other profession, it is the payload". However, no pilots means no movement of payload, so you will have quite a backlog of problems...terrible isn't it <img src="tongue.gif" border="0">

Fourthly, you siad "the guys and girls who look after the payload are much more important to the payload than whether or not we are happy chappies up front". I dont quite agree with this statement, as i have gone into work quite stressed out, i would like to note that it was because of you guys and gals but thats another story i dont wish to continue referring to. The captain is in charge and responsible for anyone and anything on his aircraft, when he is on it, so maybe dont go and suggest who are the most important people as when i am around, for exmaple, you will always be second in charge! :)

Finally, (thank god), i think you'll find that the payload WILL be concerned if a pilot did not fly an SID very neatly, because, as i mentioned, the pilots are under a lot of stress, and flying properly and 'neatly' as you put it, are components of the stres a pilot is under. How each one handles it is irrelevant, and will vary between people, we are all human...some more than others perhaps. :)

"Flying with captains of that mentality, which are mostly found with carriers of a dodgy safety reputation, is a very unpleasant experience for the rest of the crew". WHAT? A captain with a reputation like you suggested will either not be a captain following dismissal, or will be in a mental hospice...perhaps you should show some more respect to people like us. I am grateful for the work you guys and gals do, but i do not feel it my business to tell you how to do your job, and give you opinions of what the payload thinks when i have no evidence to prove it.

I hope this has been an interesting thread <img src="cool.gif" border="0">

On a final note, i am thikning of looking for a new job because ive heard rumours about transmorphing machinery entering service :) Careful chaps!

[411A]

Well flapsforty (and others).... .Sorry if you are offended by my opinions, but it is MY aircraft, and the company so agrees...so,. .a) the cabin crew supervisor has my COMPLETE confidence...what he/she says...GOES, period.. .b) If any member of the cabin crew has a different idea, he/she will button it up and take their ideas to the respective cabin crew management, OR will be off-loaded, forthwith. There will be NO second-guessing the cabin boss, in this case the cabin crew supervisor. . .c) This works very well indeed...an aircraft is NOT run by commitee. It is run by folks who know how. AND, the company agrees.... .d) For those that disagree, the unemployment line forms to the right.. .e) The cabin crew supervisors all like the above arrangement....works good, lasts a long time.

[ 09 February 2002: Message edited by: 411A ]</p>

[alpha charlie]

411A, offened by your comments no, surprised however, that a professional pilot as I presume you are, would use language such as 'MY aircraft'. What seems to be missing is any recognition that YOU are part of a crew, in Command yes, however, you can't operate the aircraft without the rest of them, and if you ask, I think your Company would agree.

[411A]

Alpha charlie---. .As Harry Truman once said...."the buck stops here".. .If there are any problems, I am responsible. That is why I deligate to others as needed.. .When the First Officer flies the aircraft, I certainly do not interfere (within reason) because he has been trained properly. If he asks, I offer suggestions. In this way, confidence is enhanced.. .Likewise in the cabin, the cabin crew supervisor has been assigned by the company and is responsible for the other cabin staff. If there is assistance required, I will certainly offer any help possible, otherwise I let them get on with their job.. .Pilots should stick to the pointy end, and leave the cabin to the professionals, IMHO.

[Flip Flop Flyer]

Long Range Cruise,

Let me start by saying that my previous post was very much inspired by 411A's "Sky God" attitude. Luckily not all crew members are like that, and you may rest assured that I will offer all the respect due for any staff member, if he or she in turn shows respect for other professions. Sadly this seems not to be the case with 411A and thus he will not be shown any respect from my side. I am sure he couldn't care less.

As you said, nothing moves without cockpit crew. I will venture to say that the same goes for virtually any profession in the business, be that cabin crew, engineers, loaders, fuellers, dispatchers, ATCO and on and on. However, it seems that some, and I do stress some, cockpit crew members are under the illusion that they are the end all and be all of aviation. I will beg to differ.

I did not write the post to start an anti-pilot thread; I belive that we are all "on the same team", and merely wished to confront 411A with that. Finally, I do appreciate that flying the aircraft "nicely" is imperative to the comfort of the pax. However, that is what the passenger expects just as well as they expect a certain level of service offered by the cabin crew. And, let's face it, nobody down the back would ever notice your stress level however high it might get (short of an accident). The same cannot be said of the cabin crew, as they will convey any stress direct to the pax.

Trust this clarifies.

[411A]

Well flip-flop...lets put it this way, in our company the cabin crew will do as they are told...or will be dismissed, period.. .Any questions?

[Long Range Cruise]

I think this shines some light on how different aircrews run their aircraft. Interesting to say the least. Perhaps the confrontation could cease? We are professional, right? <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

[Few Cloudy]

Now there's a co-incidence - just had to do a GA at Gatwick today, as a very slow line up took place ahead of us. We started from about 400ft. To help us get in quickly, the tower gave us a heading and a freq change during the clean-up.

Nevertheless there was a quiet enough moment in between the action and the checklist to inform the pax (one language only) what was going on - I reckon within one minute of the pull up. After landing we managed a bit more detail as we rolled up 08L. It worked seemingly as the pax were appreciative on disembarkation.

[flapsforty]

Few Cloudy, isn't that the beauty of this place? Lots of the things we discuss here are very readily applicable in our daily lives, and for me personally, the things I read here, and the differing opinions and views, ceratinly shape my attitude aboard.. .A very useful learning experience.

411A, seems as if once again the words got in the way of the basic meaning. . .Reading your last two posts I'd say that underneath your "tough guy macho talk" and my "bleeding heart wimin's lib talk" we basically agree on the subject of who runs what and who is responsible for what on a cicvilian airliner.

Another misunderstanding cleared up. http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/smilie/up.gif

[DeadFlyer]

Get outta here, they weren't going around because the cabin wasn't secure... they were going around for some other reason. Could be ATC spacing, could be as one of you guys said "dogs humpin' on the runway". I could think of, right off the top of my head, about half a dozen things that would have caused that flight to go-around.

In reality, sometimes us pilots lie to the passengers. Back in '93, the Captain I was flyin' with told the passengers that the reason they were circling was because "the machine that beats up and looses your luggage is inoperative and is in need of repairs". Do you honestly think that's true? :)

I usually just say "Ladies and Gentlemen, this is the Captain-speaking, we had to go around, we're gonna circle around and try again." (I've been a Captain since '96) That's it. I usually don't lie, I just omit. But some pilots make up stuff. The "machine that beats up and looses your luggage" was simply a sillier (and much funnier) example. I recall busting out laughing when I heard that one actually :) .

[Few Cloudy]

Well no matter how embarrassed or uncomfortable it may make you feel, I found out that honest information is the best way. The passengers feel that they are being taken seriously and appreciate it.

I once had to tell them that a tyre had broken and gone into an engine (MD-81) and that we had a complicated bit of trouble shooting to do. Turned out later that some of them could see the remnants of the tyre sitting over the inlet vanes. Everyone stayed calm and waited while we got on with it.

On another occasion when I was copilot, my captain informed the pax that the delay for startup was due to an ATC slot. On this occasion they could see their late arriving luggage being loaded and were not too happy.

BTW, I happen to know that the reason for the EZS 904 GA was indeed an insecure cabin following one of Geneva's famous short cuts. The subject of whether a landing is preferable to a GA is being looked at right now.

[Doors to Automatic]

Few Cloudy - Thanks for the clarification. I'm relieved to hear that it was nothing more serious.

Still begs the question why the decision was taken so late ?

[Few Cloudy]

Not sure Doors. I think they waited until the last second but got no thumbs up.

[flapsforty]

A411, I see that you have removed the spiteful post that was here a few hours ago.. .Well done, I was starting to wonder if you had experienced a case of hydraulic failure last time 'round. <img src="wink.gif" border="0">

[411A]

Actually flapsforty, I was in the process of editing, but deleted instead.... .But just to show that I never cut the cabin any slack.....the cabin crew got it wrong once again, it would appear...perhaps more training would help <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">