Warning passengers about a go-around

[Nicholas49]

Evening all

Bit of a 'what if' question, but hope you can help out.

If you fly an approach where there is an increased chance of a go-around (i.e. in rubbish weather), is it common practice / SOP for the Commander to brief the passengers about the likelihood of a rough approach / go-around in advance? Or do you prefer to explain why there was a go-around only if you need to do one so as not to cause unnecessary 'concern'?

I am sure there is not one answer, but am interested to know what you think.

Thanks,
Nick

[DBate]

Hi,

I have never (and probably never will) given any information about a go-around in advance. Passengers will for sure start to worry if you do so - even more than some of them already do; there are always a lot of people on board which are afraid of flying, or at least feel uneasy.
Giving them a heads-up before performing a go-around would be like in that Monty Python sketch where the pilots make an announcement saying 'Ladies and Gentlemen, there is absolutely nothing to worry about.' :}

If a go-around is performed, then the passengers will be informed about any reasons in due time.

Besides that, every approach is a go-around with an optional landing ;).

My two cents,
DBate

[411A]

Keep mouths firmly shut on the possible go-around...it is NONE of the passengers business.
After the fact, a short announcement may be desired, depending on the circumstances.

[SNS3Guppy]

"Warning" the passengers?

After the fact, to keep the passengers informed, perhaps. But "warn" them?

"Folks, this is your captain speaking. We're beginning the final segment of an instrument approach which presents considerable risk, and may require us to abandon the approach at any moment due to severe weather. While the airline does have a policy of no cell phones until we're taxiing to the gate, I'm giving you permission to make a final call to your loved ones before we hit this monster head on. That is all."

or how about

"Ladies and Gentlemen, this is your First Officer speaking. That's what we at XYZ Airlines call a 'copilot.' We'll be attempting to land momentarily. I say 'attempting' because there's a strong probability we won't make it. If things go badly, we'll try to 'go-around.' That's what we call trying to save a messed-up attempt to land. If that happens, it will feel a lot like a 'take-off,' which is what we did to get here in the first place. That is all."

or how about

"Ladies and Gentlemen, this is your Flight Attendant. The Captain has informed me that we're beginning our arrival to Loxahatchee, Please fasten your seatbelts and put in your mouth guards. We'll be landing shortly. In the event we try to land, but can't, please remain seated, because we'll be really close to the ground and completely blind, or partially out of control, or having a real problem with airspeed, or something really bad. At that time, you'll receive another announcement telling you something reassuring to assuage your fears, and we'll discretely tell you what comes next. As always, have a great day, and thank you for flying what's left of XYZ airlines."

or how about

"Folks, this is your captain speaking. We'll be landing shortly but I'd like to take this opportunity to tell you that while we realize you have a choice of which airline to fly. Today we feel that you may have made the wrong one. Plan accordingly."

or how about

"Ladies and Gentlemen, although there's a distinct possibility we won't be able to safely land, we're going to try it anyway. If it turns out the way we think, we'll be going around. You may feel a frightening change in pitch and power as we abandon the approach and climb like a ruptured duck, back into the storm. If that's the case, we're asking you not to worry. The Flight Attendant will be around shortly with strong drinks and eye shades to help you forget what's happening. Thank you for flying with XYZ Airlines."

Are we getting warmer, yet?

[musicalaviator]

If you start the approach expecting to need to go around, why did you start the approach?

If you have enough time to tell the passengers you are about to go around, why not just go around once you make that decision?

The only time they should be starting an approach with the expectation that it will turn into a go around with a 100% probibility is during training for go arounds.

If you tell passengers you are probably going to go around, but don't go around and proceed to land, why are you misinforming people.

If you well passengers you are probably going to go around, what can they do about it? what does "go around" mean to a pax? That you will be late on arrival time? Why not just tell them there's a delay?

Doesn't make sense.

[Exaviator]

Nicholas,

I have flown over 22000 hours as pilot in command on international routes and experienced the year round changes of weather that go with it.

In that time I have made less than half a dozen missed approaches due weather If the destination weather at the time is already below limits the chances are that the airport will already be closed, or you have already diverted. If it is marginal, the chances are you will get in.

Why cause unnecessary apprehension amongst your passengers?

In my P.A. to the passengers prior to commencing the descent I would have given them the actual weather, and if I have expected the approach to be turbulent then I would have mentioned that as part of the briefing - referring it to being a "Little Bumpy on approach".

In the unlikely event of an overshoot, once the aircraft is cleaned up and at a safe height, time permitting would then advise why it had become necessary, and what my intentions were - holding or diversion etc.

By all means keep your passengers informed, but not apprehensive :ok:

[Fark'n'ell]

"Warning" the passengers?

Nice one Guppy.:ok:

[Nicholas49]

SNS3Guppy: there is no need to be facetious. I do not appreciate your sarcastic comments. In fact, I was quite surprised by your reply, given that you normally provide helpful, informative answers. OK, so I shouldn't have used the word 'warn'. I should perhaps have said 'Giving passengers a heads-up / briefing the passengers there is the possibility of a go-around' or some other less 'emotional' word. In any case, you knew full well what I meant. Either that or you can't read a question properly. I have re-named the thread title so as not to cause you further offence.

DBate: thanks for the laugh. :ok:

[etrang]

SNS3Guppy, :), would love to be on one of your flights.

[Avitor]

I am always attentive to announcements from the cockpit, however, as a passenger I don't think it is my business what the pilots needs to do to satisfy the terms of my ticket.

If you are somewhat afraid of flying, that's your problem, not the pilot's.

[Nicholas49]

I am not in the slightest afraid of flying. I love it!

I seriously think some posters have massively mis-interpreted the slant of my question. I wasn't asking it from the point of view of someone who is afraid of flying / thinks a go-around is a near-death experience etc. etc. I asked the question simply to understand what the policy / accepted practice is in such situations. Hope that clarifies.

[Avitor]

I am not in the slightest afraid of flying. I love it!

I seriously think some posters have massively mis-interpreted the slant of my question. I wasn't asking it from the point of view of someone who is afraid of flying / thinks a go-around is a near-death experience etc. etc. I asked the question simply to understand what the policy / accepted practice is in such situations. Hope that clarifies.


I meant nothing personal, Nicholas, my apologies for being a little clumsy.

[SNS3Guppy]

I do not appreciate your sarcastic comments.

That's a crying shame. It really is.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

Wind it in a bit Guppy, you're starting to come across as a bit of a plonker.

Neither of your posts have contributed anything useful to this topic so I wonder why you bothered in the first place.

A need to belittle and ridicule others to make yourself feel better perhaps.

[Nimer767]

ladies and gentle man , this is your captain speaking , while we were flying our final approach me and my buddy the first officer missed up everything so i think we need to make another approach , thanks for choosing us and i hope you fly with us again :)

[SNS3Guppy]

Neither of your posts have contributed anything useful to this topic so I wonder why you bothered in the first place.

What you wonder about my posts is neither helpful nor contributory, and is entirely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

That said, I believe the point was quite clear, and fully in accordance with what every other poster stated. In other words, given that I also noted that "warning" passengers about a go-around is improper, you've scarcely room to complain. Neither does the original poster, as his question was answered.

Which part of "after the fact, to keep the passengers informed, perhaps. But "warn" them?" do you not comprehend? Having a little difficulty with the English language, or simply taking potshots in the dark again?

You need to read the post, you see, before you whine about it. Either you failed to do that, or failed to comprehend what was written. Which one applies to you?

It would seem the original poster has edited his post to remove the language which earned his responses in the first place. As always, if you don't like the answers, don't ask the question. If you do ask the question, editing it out after the fact still won't change the answers. Back peddling doesn't change the fact.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

Which part of "after the fact, to keep the passengers informed, perhaps. But "warn" them?" do you not comprehend?

I comprehend it well enough thanks. But, that is where you could and should have stopped. Everything else was just unnecessary and nonsense.

What you wonder about my posts is neither helpful nor contributory, and is entirely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

As is 99% of your waffle.

or simply taking potshots in the dark again?

Again implies additional, you will find that I haven't taken any pot shots at you before. Perhaps you are confusing me with other fans of yours.

[SNS3Guppy]

Everything else was just unnecessary and nonsense.


Ah, jealousy, then. You wish you had put words in my mouth.

Perhaps you should stick to your own, and see if you can come up with something to contribute to the thread. You've yet to address the topic, you see. I entered into the thread to address the topic,and did. You entered into the thread to attack another poster.

Do you see the difference? Ah, it's that comprehension thing, again.

[LH2]

Just giving a bit of background here.

Neither of your posts have contributed anything useful to this topic so I wonder why you bothered in the first place.

That might have been the case, but at the same time I seem to remember the OP used to spend his time writing utterly childish nonsense in the French forum and had a penchant for disrupting serious discussions in that manner (which is why he's in my ignore list). If he's now complaining about people being sarcastic and unhelpful... well, too bad, but what goes around... :cool:

[Nicholas49]

LH2: Not that you can read this, but you've got the wrong person. No need to apologise.

SNS3Guppy: what, exactly, is your problem? I am absolutely stunned by your responses and attitude here. Why? Because you have answered questions of mine in the past (which I'm sure were equally 'stupid') in a patient, helpful, comprehensive manner. What's different this time? Have you had a bad experience where a passenger has shouted at you after you performed a go-around? Is it really that I used the word 'warn'? Or did you just get out of bed the wrong side? Please, help me out here. I am genuinely at a loss.

For the record, I flew on an established UK airline last year where the Captain did brief the passengers that the approach would be rough ('choppy' I think was his word). So it seems your apparent attitude of contempt is not shared by all your colleagues.

Incidentally, despite changing the name of the thread, it has remained the same in the list of threads.

[SNS3Guppy]

For the record, I flew on an established UK airline last year where the Captain did brief the passengers that the approach would be rough ('choppy' I think was his word).

Did the captain of this established UK airline brief you to expect a missed approach?

I didn't think so.

One generally doesn't brief contingencies during a phase of flight that are the natural to that phase of flight.

"Ladies and gentlemen, we'll be climbing to thirty six thousand feet, but be forewarned that we might level off at twenty two thousand feet, first."

"Ladies and gentlemen, we'll be landing shortly. Be forewarned that while there is no reason to expect this to be the case, we might blow a tire and careen off one side of the runway."

"Ladies and gentlemen, we'll be flying an instrument approach to runway three six. Please be advised that we'll be putting the gear down shortly."

"Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for flying XYZ airlines. We're fortunate to have Captain Allen with us today, who just returned from passing a large kidney stone, and who talks in his sleep."

"Ladies and gentlemen, we'll be taking off shortly. Please be advised that we might not get off the runway in time. Let this announcement serve as a warning that we might be rejecting the takeoff and running off the end. In the event that we do so, please disregard the flame and fire you see out your window."

"Ladies and gentlemen, the captain has turned off the fasten seatbelt sign, as we've leveled off at thirty six thousand feet. Please feel free to roam about the cabin, but be forewarned that we might be slow because of a headwind. That is all."

"Ladies and gentlemen, please be advised that we're out of coffee. We've declared an emergency, and are returning to land immediately. Please be seated."

Have you ever been briefed as a passenger on an airline flight, regarding a missed approach or go-around? In the cockpit, we brief the missed approach procedure for every landing, even when the conditions are clear and calm. We may have to go around for any number of reasons, and the need to do so is not always in our purview.

Providing an advance "warning" to passengers of a go-around is not normally done, as I believe has been amply made clear to you. You're correct that the original language of your post, utilizing the word "warn" tends to suggest a need to be prepared for some impending event. A missed approach is part of the approach procedure, and warning of a missed approach is somewhat like warning passengers on landing that the aircraft might stop.

Whereas stopping is the intended point of landing, and an expected, intrinsic part of every landing, there's nothing to "warn" about regarding an approach which ends in a missed approach. It's part of the procedure. Explaining it to passengers after the fact, if time permits, is well and good. Most approaches and landings do not result in a missed approach. If one briefed passengers on each approach of the potential for a missed, one would be preparing the passengers for an eventuality which rarely comes to fruition.

Passengers are given safety briefings regarding threats to life and limb, such as emergency egress, the wearing of life preservers, and the use of seatbelts. Failure to find the exit in a timely manner, to leave one's belongings and proceed in an orderly manner to an exit in an emergency, and failure to adhere to the procedures for use of a lifevest, may cost lives, time and put the entire aircraft in jeopardy in an emergency.

Passengers not knowing about a go-around in advance costs...nothing. Explaining in advance to passengers about all the things that might happen or that one might do is superfluous, and without point. Explaining about impending turbulence is one thing; the turbulence is coming, and one is ensuring seatbelt usage and safety. Explaining about a missed approach which may or may not happen at some future time is...pointless.

[Piltdown Man]

I believe Mr Guppy has hit the level of passenger briefing required spot on. I don't think he has ever said that you should lie to passengers nor to falsely raise their levels of expectation. Personally I also don't think it wise to give passengers information which could be misconstrued or upset people who are ignorant of aviation. For example, would you announce that you will be departing on "minimum fuel?" Would it be sensible to say your destination is currently below minimums or telling everyone you've got some very "interesting" technical deficiencies in the aircraft. Tell people the truth but don't lie and try not to use emotive words or phrases.

So going back to where we started from, it is really sensible to start an approach which you think you'll be going around from?

[411A]

...it is really sensible to start an approach which you think you'll be going around from?


Absolutely.
I recall one time (long ago) at NRT, we started the approach with the weather/RVR below, then landed quite successfully...no problemo.
Why?
CX, with a preceeding takeoff with a B747, improved the RVR just enough for our landing....we were CATII approved at the time.
For those aircraft following our arrival?
Diverted.

Such is the nature of the game.
ONLY those flights that might be a tad short of fuel will have a slight problem.:ugh:

[con-pilot]

SNS3Guppy: there is no need to be facetious. I do not appreciate your sarcastic comments. In fact, I was quite surprised by your reply, given that you normally provide helpful, informative answers. OK, so I shouldn't have used the word 'warn'. I should perhaps have said 'Giving passengers a heads-up / briefing the passengers there is the possibility of a go-around' or some other less 'emotional' word. In any case, you knew full well what I meant. Either that or you can't read a question properly. I have re-named the thread title so as not to cause you further offence.


I enjoyed the hell out of it. :ok:

[Nicholas49]

You have an equally pathetic sense of humour, in that case.

[SNS3Guppy]

You have an equally pathetic sense of humour, in that case.

Nicholas, when one has nothing intelligent to say, one often begins attacking others in the conversation.

You're attacking others in the conversation.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

No he's not, he's stating his opinion. The Androgel didn't work I see.

When one has said what has needed to be said why does one continue to type.

[anotherglassofwine]

Hi Nicholas,
As a frequent pax I have had a number of go-arounds, but was never fore warned and I wouldn't want to be.

Generally, the Captain/FO has mentioned that the approach might be a little bumpy (in one case "sporty"). Flying into Krakow on one occasion the Pilot told us that there was fog at the airport, but he was going to have a little look anyway and a diversion to Katowisce was on the cards. No go around as such, but nice to know he was willing to take a look within the safety margins ..

I think SN3Guppy has answered your question in his very own style :)

As a pax I don't see any reason why the pilot would inform me that a go around was a possibility - maybe a bit more butt clinching, but we are there for the ride either way!

[SNS3Guppy]

When one has said what has needed to be said why does one continue to type.

The conversation is not over.

The Androgel didn't work I see.

I don't know what that is, but it's clear you've still nothing to contribute, here. Your sole failed attempt at contribution here is to enter and whine about what others have to say on the topic, though you've entirely failed to contribute anything, yourself. Interesting.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

The conversation is over when the relevant question has been answered. For example:

If you fly an approach where there is an increased chance of a go-around (i.e. in rubbish weather), is it common practice / SOP for the Commander to brief the passengers about the likelihood of a rough approach / go-around in advance?

No.

Or do you prefer to explain why there was a go-around only if you need to do one so as not to cause unnecessary 'concern'?

Yes.

Happy now?

Of course I could type up a load of sarcastic nonsense and waffle for pages following the answer but anything more is just chest beating.

[Nicholas49]

SNS3Guppy: so to follow your own advice, if one only 'attacks others' when one has nothing intelligent to say, would you care to explain why you said to me earlier:

That's a crying shame. It really is.

That doesn't strike me as a particularly 'intelligent thing to say' either.

[con-pilot]

You have an equally pathetic sense of humour, in that case.

Okay, please explain the relevance of the above post to the subject of the topic?

It appears to be just an insult to me, nothing to do with the question at hand.

If you demand a serious answer from me;

I agree with Guppy's posts. The answer is no. In over 21,000 hours and over 40 years of flying I have never warned passengers about a possible missed approach.

So sue me. :p

[Lord Spandex Masher]

It was about as relevant as the post he was replying to. That'll be yours.

Nicholas asked a question sensibly and recieved several posts full of sarcasm and idiocy. Relevant?

Hypocrisy rules.

[con-pilot]

Okay, so you did not care for my answer of;

I agree with Guppy's posts. The answer is no. In over 21,000 hours and over 40 years of flying I have never warned passengers about a possible missed approach.


Fair enough. Everybody has an opinion.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

Nope, I agree with that. I don't agree that this is relevant.

I enjoyed the hell out of it.

You have a problem with the relevancy of this:

You have an equally pathetic sense of humour, in that case.

But as it was in response to your equally irrelevant post you came across as hypocritical.

[Nicholas49]

Let me just clear a few things up here.

I am grateful to those who have answered my question, including Guppy for the later long post. To you too con-pilot for your reply, and to you LSM.

What I object to is the childish overreaction to a reasonable question. As I said, my question arose because I took a flight where the captain briefed passengers to expect a rough approach. So I do not think it is particularly far-fetched or unreasonable when one is interested in aviation to ask oneself: "I wonder if they would ever go as far as saying 'we may need to go-around in this weather'. I note that the answer is 'no'. For that, thank you.

Incidentally, I have noticed that American posters have taken particular issue with the word 'warn'. I wonder therefore whether there is a US/UK English issue here. I certainly did not mean it in the sense 'DANGER AHEAD'.

I think this discussion has run its course. Thank you again for all the sensible answers.