Reason for Going-Around [Archive]

mad_jock

18th Aug 2011, 13:39

Don't worry we will usually yell immediately if its something serious.

And asking after we have sorted our poo out somewhere downwind or leveled off on a vector will get you your answer.

I have only had two pilot GA's in the last 5 years and two times had to tell the controller to standby for the details. And for the record one was unable to confirm a landing clearance after getting it at 8 miles and both us not being 100% sure we had one after a ruff approach. And the other one was the electrics for the gear indications going tits up just as we selected gear down.

So I know where the OP is coming from. Its more of a when you ask than if you ask. TWR asking while your still in the guts of flying one isn't the best time.

AdamFrisch

18th Aug 2011, 14:15

Maybe someone should tell Manchester ATC that. They seem to be more interested in knowing the reason for the go-around, asking the pilots in an accusatorially voice no less than four times adding to a high workload situation... Maybe they should do their job and give them a heading instead of badgering.

Pakistan Airlines Boeing 747 GO AROUND !! - YouTube

HEATHROW DIRECTOR

18th Aug 2011, 14:46

Adam.. I didn't bother to listen but it sounds as if you were breaking the law by listening in to the airband...

Ninja Controller

18th Aug 2011, 15:03

Adam, I think you'll find it less surprising when I tell you that some of the more recently valid controllers at Nats and a vast proportion of the up and coming validations have never set foot on to the flight deck of an aircraft. Some of them haven't even been on a plane as a passenger.

Lack of familiarisation with what happens on the flight deck is a problem which is going to become markedly worse for Nats ATCOs in the near future. :ugh:

John R81

18th Aug 2011, 15:27

Actually, it all sounded very professional, and no hint of badgering. You are adding the frequency change and the new controller request - I don't see it that way.

And you can see why the request - unstable approach means routing the go around. Failed landing gear means getting time to action a checklist to clear, or rolling the emergency ground assets for the upcoming drama.

Me - I just drive helicopters so a go around is most often sparked by conditions changing at the target site making it advisable to circle round and check again before committing to land. For example, last time it was at a show ground temporary helistrip. The heli ahead of me decided to begin back-tracking (180 degree turn) on the helistrip instead of clearing left (90 degrees) to the parking area. As we were at 90 seconds spacing it got interesting right from the start. My radio call was "XXX going around". No need to explain the reason as ATC already speaking to the other driver.

eastern wiseguy

18th Aug 2011, 15:35

Adam......nonsense.

Handled well by ATC. No badgering.

Hotel Tango

18th Aug 2011, 15:40

Adam.. I didn't bother to listen but it sounds as if you were breaking the law by listening in to the airband...

Am I breaking the law by watching and listening to this YouTube clip?

Please give it a rest now HD. Yes it's against the law - but everybody does it and have been doing so since I was a wee lad spotting at BHX back in the sixties. Never but never did a police officer (or anyone else) ever challenge any person listening to a VHF receiver.

mad_jock

18th Aug 2011, 15:59

The tower controller was good the radar could have left him alone though.

It was similar to what I had with my gear issue. Until we had managed to semi fix it we didn't have a clue what was wrong either. It could have been hydralics, turned out to be a gen failure with a bus tie that refused to reset.

The radar controller kept on asking even after being told to standby so I ignored him.

I was told afterwards "but we need to know", apparently the fact it detracts from flying the machine, breaks up your flow in checklists, diverts your attention away from maintaining a safe flight profile and breaks your concentration away from a sick machine isn't a valid excuse. Yes give us headings etc to keep us away from hitting the ground and other aircraft but reason and other such stuff as POB can wait.

Unfortuantely I have never managed to get to a TRUCE but the pilots I know that have been on one say that this sort of thing gets quite interesting on the debrief.

ATC are trained that we will answer their questions about reasons and POB etc. Pilots are trained to fly the machine and ignore none safety RT traffic.

You would have thought by now that NATS would have got together with BA and got some sim footage about whats going on in a GA and other standard and none standard procedures.

To add though this was PIA and I think 2007 was when they were having quite nasty tech issues with things falling off aircraft and gear bursting into flames after landing. Also culture comes into it as well with some cultures not wanting to tell anyone when they have a serious problem if not forced to.

Talkdownman

18th Aug 2011, 16:14

There is a chance of a Missed Approach from every approach.
There is not a chance of a Landing from every approach.
Therefore there should be no element of surprise...and no need for a 'standard missed approach' instruction...

Barnaby the Bear

18th Aug 2011, 16:30

I dont think the Radar controller was unreasonable. Her tone was calm and the questioning to the point. As mentioned before the pilot could always have said 'Standby'.

Standard Noise

18th Aug 2011, 16:32

They seem to be more interested in knowing the reason for the go-around, asking the pilots in an accusatorially voice no less than four times adding to a high workload situation... Maybe they should do their job and give them a heading instead of badgering.

Dear god, save us from the armchair ATCOs who pass judgement against us, lead us away from the path of enlightenment where surely we will find out the reason for the missed approach and deliver us from the temptation to call out the RFFS in case a problem really exists.

Also culture comes into it as well with some cultures not wanting to tell anyone when they have a serious problem if not forced to.
I think you've mixed up the word 'cultures' with the word 'professions'. It still amazes me that people in the aviation industry think that it's acceptable for the smartie tube drivers to hold back 'when they have a serious problem'. Who do they think calls out Fireman Sam, the tooth fairy!? :ugh:

mad_jock

18th Aug 2011, 16:45

Why don't you just call them out anyway if its so much of an issue you not knowing. It is by far the safest option compared to not calling them out and leaves the crew in peace to fly the aircraft.

And I didn't intend to imply that its is acceptable to not declare if there is a problem. But it is an issue in quite a few cultures. Its not helped either that if you do declare in quite alot of places outside europe you will be issued a bill for the energency call out and the aircraft won't move until its payed. Sometimes the bill is not even to the company either its to the PIC.

rodan

18th Aug 2011, 20:50

Why don't you just call them out anyway if its so much of an issue you not knowing. It is by far the safest option compared to not calling them out and leaves the crew in peace to fly the aircraft.
Because it's not just the RFFS, it's local authority FB and ambulances as well. Lots of ambulances if you're in an airliner, which is unfortunate for your gran if she's having a heart attack on the other side of town and they're all at the airport because the pilot has a macho aversion to admitting he screwed up the approach.

Jim59

18th Aug 2011, 21:34

Heathrow Director
Adam.. I didn't bother to listen but it sounds as if you were breaking the law by listening in to the airband...

Like many people I have an ICOM handheld airband tranceiver, I also have it licenced via the CAA (on behalf of Ofcom -for an annual fee) and an allocated callsign of "XXX Mobile" for use ground to air. I don't believe that I am breaking the law when using it to listen to the airband.

I don't think that you can assume that everybody listening is breaking the law.

SUMBURGH DIRECTOR

18th Aug 2011, 22:09

re: PIA go around.
IMHO I beg to differ. Far too many questions asked by ATC. They were going around from fairly low height. Constant chatter from ATC, these guys on the flight deck are busy, just arriving from a long journey and going around on a heavy not very far from the ground. Are you gonna give them a chance to talk to each other in the flight deck?

why did he go "Standard missed approach, QNH etc etc" They were flying the approach on the QNH!! The sky is gin clear, they are not gonna crash into a mountain range just outside Manchester, are they?
Standard missed approach... it's called standard for that reason.. That's what the crew briefed for!! I don't think we need to tell them, at the start of the approach "In the event of go around, standard missed approach!"

a "roger" would have been sufficient. Let the crew get back to you when they're ready. If they believe they are in immediate danger, no doubt they will let you know!

But then again. WTFDIK. I work at ABZ offshore. Not band 4 Royalty like those involved ;)

mad_jock

18th Aug 2011, 22:47

Who is saying anything about refusing to admit an unstable approach after we have got things squared away in the cockpit?

Your actually trying to get pilots to go against there training by replying to you. Its quite a common command exercise with the TRE trying to overload you with ATC questions while you are sorting a problem out.

The setup is usually an engine fire at about 1000ft to go. And then they just keep loading you up.

We are not talking about not saying anything until after we land just let us do our jobs flying the aircraft until we have finished with the high work load period.

Not much point saying we went around because we screwed up the approach 30 seconds later to end up pilling into granny in her sheltered housing mid heart attack because we also screwed up the go-around. Lets face it if we screw up something that we do anything between 10 to 100 times a month whats the likely hood of screwing up something that we do maybe 5-10 times a year if at all outside the sim.

By far the most likely reason for a fatal accident after a go-around or on approach for that matter is the crew loosing spatial awarness and having a CFIT. From memory the Comoros crash after go around is a perfect example.

Maybe you can provide an example where ATC knowing the reason for the go-around and calling out the RFFS has prevented further fatalities but realistically there are very few on airfield crashes with prior warning. Soux City is the only one that springs to mind. There are more than a few examples though of crew getting distracted and shutting down the wrong engine or missing important items of checklists which have turned a relatively safe situation into a full blown emergency unfortunately quite often resulting in a fatal accident.

HEATHROW DIRECTOR

19th Aug 2011, 12:25

<<I don't believe that I am breaking the law when using it to listen to the airband.

I don't think that you can assume that everybody listening is breaking the law.>>

By the letter of the law you are operating illegally. Even pilots and controllers are not legally entitled to listen to the airband except in the course of their work. I know it sounds daft and thousands contravene the laws. However, I have always believed in letting people know what they are up to when they come on a public forum and talk about what they have heard.

Chro

19th Aug 2011, 15:38

On the PIA go around

I think it was great handled by the atc, if you as a pilot don't what to be bothered you can just say something short like.

"we got some problem with the landing gear and need a moment to assess the situation and we'll call you back." If you get a followup question on a statement like that you can complain about bad controllers.

It's important to know the reason even if it's as simple as "not stableized" or to know if you can expect an emergency, if you need prio, or if you can expect problems with other A/C behind you.

It's also a fact that pilots tend to make mistakes in go-arounds. For example at my airport we got frequent issues with levelbursts during go-arounds.

Helen49

19th Aug 2011, 16:33

Looks to me like a classic example of 'one half' not knowing what 'the other half' is doing.

Too many ATCOs have little appreciation of what goes on, on the flight deck [unlike the good old days], to a significant extent because of security regulations.

Too many pilots have little idea about what happens in a control tower/centre, possibly due to lack of interest [?]. Try getting pilots to attend a TRUCE session [UK] or help with a training session where a pilot input would be helpful. Well nigh impossible.

Mutual understanding of each other's roles is invaluable and would doubtless have assisted in the examples mentioned above. Probably the lack of a financial incentive is the root cause?

H49

mad_jock

19th Aug 2011, 20:07

Chro in the UK we shorten that to "standby" which is standard training for pilots in the UK. In fact if you stray outside this you may very well have a lengthy chat on the subject as a debrief point after a sim session depending on if its one of the TRE's current bug bears.

Taking the PIA if the time line hasn't been compressed I would suspect that the information given to the controller was suspect anyway.

I am not 747 rated but even in my crappy TP we would have just been about to start the go-around checks if it had been a none memory item issue, when the radar controller was asking for the reason. So as such we still wouldn't have checked to see if the aircraft was on a safe flight profile/configuration. And we certainly wouldn't know if everything was fine for another appaorach unless it was an unstabilised approach which personally I would have said on the initial go-around call to tower. (Maybe a change to CAP 413?)

You could hear in his voice that he was distracted, proberly monitoring and cleaning up the aircraft. All he was interested in was if he was pointing in a safe direction and what the aircraft was doing. So by the extra RT you have 250 tonnes of aircraft going up like a fart in a bath on TOGA power crew monitoring to make sure the AP is going to capture and you not going to go plowing up into the downwind traffic and making sure they arn't going to bust any configuration speeds. And they are now distracted.

If it was a gear indication issue I really wouldn't have though they would have had time to complete the GA checks then get into the guts of a QRH checklist. And to be honest I can't see how you can state that you have cleared your indication problem when your gears up.

So by pestering the pilot you do have something on tape I will grant you, but has it done anything to improved the safety of the situation?

All that is require is to hold back asking until the controller can see the aircraft has leveled off and speed has stabilised. Then if the crew hasn't got back to you with the reason give them a nudge. If it is something serious eg an engine fire/failure they will tell you quite quickly if not on the intial call. (well I bloody would).

As a note the Cork crash report is going to throw up a whole heap of issues and I would hope that controllers can find the time to read it when its eventually out. There will be a whole heap of human factors linked to GA's and crew.

Chro

20th Aug 2011, 10:14

I believe the diffrence in opinions here is that pilots are only intreasted in the safety of thier flight and ATC of all flight. We don't ask just becouse we're curious we can really use any information given to improve saftey of the overall situation.

And i'll asure you that if the atc even have time to ask about the reason you are on a safe course and level.

however short answer you give just say anything that indicates 1. how serious it is and 2. what we can expect you to do. If you think my example was bad just say. "gear indication, stand by"

I.e. If someone tells me they got a gear issue I normally persume other flights will not be affected, that you in the best of all worlds whould like to climb a few thousand feet and get a safe course for 3-4 minutes, and that there will be sufficent time to prepare in case the PIC declares an emergency.

The African Dude

20th Aug 2011, 10:31

Chro, I understand what you are saying but
2. what we can expect you to do.
If it's a standard missed approach, surely that answers the question?

If there's a problem which requires a hold then most procedures terminate in one and we can get back to you ASAP once settled in the hold in the worst case.

If the procedure ends in "or as directed" then, as you say, you will do whatever is best for the safety of all traffic. Surely distractions in a critical workload scenario aren't best for the safety of all traffic - at least not for the first few minutes. It's also a fact that pilots tend to make mistakes in go-arounds. For example at my airport we got frequent issues with levelbursts during go-arounds.
If you know this already, the why would you want to distract us further? Or is that the cause for the issues you mention? Who knows?

mad_jock

20th Aug 2011, 11:19

Its not really opinion it comes down to how the pilots are trained which is to fly the aircraft first. Then navigate, then communicate.

And does it improve the situation? As a pilot I would say it lowers my personal safety distracting me away from the aircraft. And nice as I am I really don't want to be the one dead.

There seems to be a fundemental divide between what ATC are trained to expect and want and what pilots are trained to do. I am quite sure alot of things have developed over the years as good ideas we can do x or y with this information which will make things safer. But nobody has gone back to the other end of the mic and actually found out what the implications are for these new ideas. Also as well local "good ideas" involving actions by pilots are great in theory but only when you can get a change for the complete collection of pilots operating internationally in the world.

At no point have I said that the question is unreasonable just that its priority to the pilot is low in the scheme of things. And safety from our point of view which to us will always be paramount because our arses are strapped in the machine will come first. By pestering for an answer you are lowering the safety of that aircraft. And saying the RFFS were called doesn't really help us because as histroy has proven most accidents happen off airfield and are invarably fatal when the pilots are distracted and cock it up.

Jim59

20th Aug 2011, 11:25

Heathrow Director

<<I don't believe that I am breaking the law when using it to listen to the airband.
I don't think that you can assume that everybody listening is breaking the law.>>
By the letter of the law you are operating illegally. Even pilots and controllers are not legally entitled to listen to the airband except in the course of their work. I know it sounds daft and thousands contravene the laws. However, I have always believed in letting people know what they are up to when they come on a public forum and talk about what they have heard.

I don't know where you get that idea from. There are thousands of private pilots who are allowed (licensed) to use air band radio - and most of them are not allowed to fly for hire & reward so they are definitely not at work when they operate their radios! Glider pilots do even need a licence to operate a radio on sporting frequencies (but the radio does). Many AGCS stations are operated by unpaid volunteers so are not at work. Currently one does not even need a licence to be an AGCS operator (or even a certificate of competence - although that is about to change).

Mimpe

20th Aug 2011, 12:31

Go arounds are not that common.
Wind shear would be one frequent reason.

The aircraft has to be flown safely firstly (aviate)
If Atc ask for more info and yr too busy aviating a simple request to standbye would suffice and the recovery/ missedapproach heading or proceedure woukd be useful(navigate) once the aircraft is stable.

Finally when the aviate and the navigate are fully sorted, ATC can have your brief explaination, but not before.... in my book.

mad_jock

20th Aug 2011, 13:09

Jim he is completely correct.

You can work all day long using an aviation radio as a controller or pilot but if you were so inclined it would be illegal to go home and listen to exactly the same thing on an airband radio. You are allowed to listen to it as part of your duties but thats it.

It dates back years and nobody as ever had it changed but what HD has stated is completely correct even though in this day and age its a bit bonkers and also nobody ever applies the law.

mad_jock

20th Aug 2011, 13:39

just found this

Awesome Finnair MD-11 Go Around The Complete Approach And Landing Cockpit View - YouTube

Interesting to note that either the finair Captain has been trained by the same line trainers as I have or there really is international words in aviation.

TC_Ukraine

20th Aug 2011, 18:31

Once my colleague hasn't asked crew about the reason of going around. Then investigators blamed him (controller) in it, as he said "Cleared ILS 36R" instead of "Cleared ILS approach runway 36R".

Mimpe

21st Aug 2011, 13:10

great video Mad Jock.

AirTrafficOne

21st Aug 2011, 13:33

As both a former military and civilian air traffic controller AND pilot, I can see both sides and have been on both sides. As a tower supervisor I never bothered a pilot in the throes of a go 'round but its fairly important to know whats going on as soon as things settle down in the cockpit so that ATC can make room for the aircraft either as NUMBER ONE or to slot it back into the busy sequence somehow. And for goodness sake, if its serious yell PAN or MAYDAY and don't be afraid to do so! I have watched aircraft smash into the ground killing all aboard as we had no idea there was an emergency until too late. If we had have known, we just may have had enough assets close enough to rescue someone!

mad_jock

22nd Aug 2011, 08:40

Just double checked our QRH and everything that requires memory items has a 7700 change as part of the follow up actions (which would be before we would be ready to speak to you) and also at the end of the check lists which require an immediate return, inform ATC.

I don't know what other operators are like (but it has been the same for all the ones I have worked for, its the OEM emergency checklist) but I am presuming JAR aircraft at least will already have the when to talk to ATC plugged into the flow of of the emergency checklist if required.

Spitoon

22nd Aug 2011, 09:46

A couple of points...

First (and I am clearly turning into a grumpy old man), there is no definitive, always right answer to all of this. It comes down to situational awareness and professional knowledge - from both pilots and controllers. I'm a controller, I've never flown professionally.

But I think I have a pretty good understanding of what goes on on the flight deck of a modern aircraft, and I think I have a pretty good understanding of the differences that can be found on a 25-year old aircraft, and I think I have a pretty good understanding of how a GA aircraft is operated. How? Well, for GA I've been there and done it myself, as for other types of aircraft I've done fam flights, sim rides, flown with friends, talked with crews, been involved with TRUCE and...so on.

I can work out when workload is likely to be high on the aircraft and I'll leave the crew alone unless there's something I really need to know or to tell them. But I also have the ATC and airport knowledge and maybe this affects what's important to know at any particular time. It's unfortunate that the crew often do not have a very good understanding of what goes on on the ground or what needs to be done to prepare for, say, an emergency landing.

Sadly professional judgement seems no longer to be valued and (in the UK, at least) many problems reported by the crew of a large passenger-carrying aircraft will result in a 'Full Emergency'. This usually brings in the local authority fire and ambulance services, sometimes closes access routes to the airport, sometimes closes A & E Departments to new admissions and clears out walking wounded...and the list goes on. As you can imagine there is sometimes pressure not to do all this too often! The controller often has a list of what gets the full treatment and what gets a local response. This may explain why a controller badgers a crew for more information.

mad_jock asks why not just call the RFFS out? Even this doesn't always go down well. I once had an aircraft taxiing out, just in front of the tower as it happened, when a jet of flame came out of one of the engines. Probably a hot start while taxiing I thought but I called the aircraft, described the flame/engine and asked 'ops normal?'. No answer, so I hit the big red button and within about 45 secs all the RFFS vehicles were on their way out to the aircraft as it stood at the holding point. Pilot not at all happy because it upset his pax to look out the window and see fire engines. I could see his point but I stood by my judgement call. FWIW, a bit of investigation after the event did indeed show that it was a hot start and the crew missed the call because the were monitoring the engine closely.

You win some, you lose some!

mad_jock

22nd Aug 2011, 10:49

Well the crux of it is that the pilots training and SOP's dictates that we don't answer you until we are safe and all the aviating out of the way.

ATC view is that we are less proffessional not answering but in pilot terms we are more proffessional because we put flying the machine first.

I really can't imagine post incident a pilot being taken to task for not answering you. I could well imagine the CP and head of training saying well done for not being distracted by ATC.

And your not coming across as a grumpy old man just one that is frustrated because two groups have different SOP's for the same situation and one group is truely international and it would be nearly impossible to change the way they do things.

This whole issue needs someone outside both camps to sit down have a look at the statistics. Look at what factors are going to increase the risk and what actions are going to improve surviability.

I will admit that I am very much in one camp but looking at the case studys which most pilots do. By far the most likely cause of an accident is pilots loosing thier SA and plough into the ground. Incidents that can in there completeness be put down to mechanical reasons are only 20%. It usually has the crew (and I include ATC in the crew as well) cocking it up at some point.

Statistiques diverses (http://baaa-acro.com/Statistiques%20diverses.htm)

Nearly 70% of accidents are by human error and 50% during the landing phase.

Out of the 130,000 fatalities since the statistics started 91,000 are due to human factors. And very few of them are actually on the airfield after an incident in flight. Although by far the biggest fatal accident is still Teneriffe.

Everything I have seen and been trained about suggests that minimising crew distraction and maximising thier SA has far more affect increasing the safety of a flight or incident than any other factor. So although you think that having the reason and getting the emergency services geared up saves lives your actually increasing the likely hood of lives being lost you have taken the incident from a mechanical one into a human factors one which as we know you are 3.5 and half time more likely to have a fatality off. And to make matters worse they are more likely to be lost off airfield where all the resources are.

Neptune262

22nd Aug 2011, 11:41

So far we have all focused on the needs of both parties to get their respective jobs done, in the case of a go-around.

I wonder if you will all allow me to propose a possible solution, as I feel that discussing solutions is useful.....

The pilot(s) know why they are initiating a go-around, so why not just report that in the same report of ".....going around due xxx."

A lot of ATC units have instant playback of RTF calls, so the ATCO would be able to listen to the call again and again, if he/she missed it and would save asking the pilots. Then when the pilot(s) has the aircraft under control and cockpit workload permits, a dialogue for a solution can be discussed between ATCO and pilot.

This is just my 2ps worth........please feel free to comment or add your own possible solutions!!

:ok:

John R81

22nd Aug 2011, 12:08

Try doing a running commentary as you drive your car - say outloud what you are seeing, thinking and doing.

You will find that it is quite easy whilst things are going well, but when the situation gets more demanding you will dry-up. Now impagine that as part of your evasive manouver (for a car pulling out of a side road in front of you) that you need to make that commentary whilst you are looking for an escape route and steering / braking the car. It just ain't going to happen. You will only be able to add the commentary after you miss the idiot and get "straight and level" again.

Same thing for me driving a heli. Only it's a far more mentally demanding environment in my single-engined unstablised cab than driving a car. That's why you won't get anything more than basic until I have mental capacity and time to do something else.

Seems to me that the best solution is for pilots to spend some time in control rooms and for ATCs to spend some time in the cab. That way we really will understand each others needs a little more.

Guy D'ageradar

22nd Aug 2011, 15:03

Seems to me that the best solution is for pilots to spend some time in control rooms and for ATCs to spend some time in the cab. That way we really will understand each others needs a little more.

Always has been and always will. That and the debrief at the local hostelry afterwards. Did 2 sectors in the jump-seat of a 737-800 this morning - always a learning experience - even after 20 yrs and quite a few previous fam flights.

When you coming to visit?

John R81

22nd Aug 2011, 16:08

If you are anywhere near EGKR I can offer "swaps" - EC120 or R44. I would be very interested to see things from your side.

I did offer a few months (perhaps a year back) got no takers.

John

Northerner

22nd Aug 2011, 17:22

First I'd better point out that I'm an Area controller, not Approach or Tower, but I wonder about this... If the reason you went around is something that will affect other aircraft behind you as well (windshear, something on the runway that the controller hasn't seen, sure there must be others but I can't think right now) then it would seem professional to tell ATC so reasonable steps can be taken to stop it happening to others behind you and possibly overloading the controller with many problems at once. For any other reason I would suppose that you should be left to sort yourselves out and tell us when you're good and ready.

I was always taught that even with aircraft in emergency crews should not be bothered but given minimum instructions in order to allow them the time to do what they need to, something I still try to do to this day. There will be things ATC need to know, but mostly the aircrew will tell you when they can. As a supervisor as well though I also know the planning required for not just your possible emergency but all the other domino effect problems that might happen, several agencies will often be pestering us for information that only the pilot knows. Doesn't make it right to bother you though.

This all comes down to the eternal balance between who is in charge with pilots/ATC. As pilots you are, absolutely, totally in charge of what happens with the plane you are flying and your passengers. Unfortunately to ATC you are just one plane with others to sort out too. If your reticence to speak led to others having an incident then I would imagine you would not be keen on that, as the next day it could be you having the incident because another pilot did not speak up. As others have said, more understanding of each others jobs and more liaison in both directions will help us all to help each other.

John R81 I'm sorry that no-one took you up on the offer. Unfortunately I'm a fair way from EGKR and don't deal with Heli's so probably not best for me, but I hope that others do take you up on that and you get to ATC too. I'm going to refresh myself tonight on our visitors policy so that I can try to get some pilots in for a visit - please keep asking.

Cheers,
Northerner

"Keep smiling - it makes people wonder what you're up to..."

mad_jock

22nd Aug 2011, 20:46

Windshear your not very likely to get anything out of us. Its very intense we are playing with single Knots of airspeed very close to the stall one pilots attention is nailed to the airspeed and attitude and the other one is calling out rates of decent. There are stick shakers going off and all manner of alarms, to be honest we proberly wouldn't hear you.

Neptune that would require every pilot in the world to be retrained to communicate, aviate then navigate. And I really don't think it would improve survival rates or for that matter decrease the number of accidents.

No pilot on this thread has said that we won't speak to you when work load permits, its just that its a growing trend that you want information and demand information when work load doesn't permit. In my discussion post event the units MATZ part 2 was quoted as the reference document that said that the pilot would give ATC the information when asked for it.

This is a very important topic and could well do with some number crunching safety academics having a proper look at the subject. Getting some emprical data into if pilots getting distracted and ATC getting the info in this situation is safer than leaving them alone and getting the information after the crew have sorted the aircraft out and are back on a safe flight profile.

Even if it proves the current status quo of pilots not talking at least it empowers the ATCO to tell who evers asking to knob off and leave them and the pilots in peace. If it proves that it is beneficial and they change our SOP's and training to reflect it I will be more than happy to comply with it.

John R81

23rd Aug 2011, 11:15

As Mad Jock says.

In any case, all on frequency heard the "going around" call so we know something is wrong ahead of us, even if we don't exactly know what it is. Until we hear why - and find that the reason is not going to affect us (like a technical problem with gear) - we are alert to the increased chance that we will also have to abort the approach.

In short, early information about "why" does not always provide significant extra safety margin to those of us behind. All information is helpful, but the workload of the pilot / crew in an "unusual" situation is significant and (IMHO) takes priority.

NOTE: I fly single engined heli either single or double pilot. I have no experience of large jets, don't have a stick shaker, can't stall (but can VRS and plumet like a stone!!), and I don't fly IFR / IFR approaches so keep in mind my experience / ability when reading my posts.

mad_jock

24th Aug 2011, 07:22

I don't think the fact you are VFR or IFR makes any difference to be honest. And neither does the flying complex machines or puddle jumpers, experenced or none experenced. It will just change how long it takes them to sort themselves out until they have enough capacity to communicate.

The simple fact is that when pilots get over loaded and/or distracted they have a nasty habit of killing themselves and and PAX with them.

The accident at Southend springs to mind with the solo student.

radarman

24th Aug 2011, 10:12

Why has this thread generated three pages of posts? It's all very simple if you forget about the ATC niffnaff and trivia, and get back to basics. As has been said so many times before, it's Aviate, Navigate, Communicate. Communicate is last in the list for a reason. Think about it!

In my very early days as a controller a hairy old squadron leader once tried to describe the pilot's workload on go-around. He suggested controllers should get hold of a copy of the missed approach procedure and a copy of an aircraft's go-around checklist. Then suddenly put themselves in an unstable position (he suggested stand on one leg) and go through the checklist with hand and arm movement to simulate resetting throttles and flaps, at the same time reading out the go-around procedure, all without falling over. We tried it, with the SATCO interrupting with questions about our intentions. It was well nigh impossible without missing or confusing items on the checklist, or toppling over (losing control). Try it at the next TRUCE session!

Piltdown Man

24th Aug 2011, 23:34

Not surprisingly, I have done quite a few go-arounds. To date, I've not been badgered by ATC as to why but I have been politely asked a few minutes after for the reason. I don't object and many controllers (incorrectly) assume that that may have contributed to the go-around. To date, I have not had a go-around due to an ATC error (if such a word can be used). The finger trouble has all been mine. Too fast, too high, too rushed, not noticing tailwinds - all my mistakes! There have also been quite a few technical malfunctions causing go-arounds. Again, I let ATC know about these, even if just to let them know that I don't need their help and they can carry on reading their newspapers :O.

PM

Ninja Controller

25th Aug 2011, 11:30

veloo maniam

25th Aug 2011, 13:34

A number of years ago, while being a rookie Tower Ctler, a F27 went around.
I was curious as to why and the pilot politely reported " Python crossing runway". Succeeding aircraft was informed and was cleared to land after python had vacated runway. Both me and the 2nd acft thanked the 1st guy for that immediate info. BTW the python ended up in someones kitchen that nite. It does help sometimes. Those were the days of pioneers, caribous and F27s etc etc etc. Today I am an Approach Radar Ctler and I just wait for the Crew to let me know if at all they want me to know. My 2 cents. Cheers:ok:

1Charlie

6th Sep 2011, 08:36

No controller should be caught by surprise by an aircraft going around, although in good weather they're not common, every sequence has been arranged with the possibility of a GA in mind.

Any well trained ATC should know not to talk to crews during high workload situations such as takeoff, landing, and go around / missed approach unless its an emergency situation. It is a requirement here that pilots advise going around (although its certainly not a priority) and my response to that is "roger, when ready report intentions". If its really that serious, he has already called "MAYDAY!"

Here controllers are required to complete 10 hours of flight deck time prior to being issued with an ATC licence, is this not an ICAO requirement?

TC_Ukraine

7th Sep 2011, 10:59

Any well trained ATC should know not to talk to crews during high workload situations such as takeoff, landing, and go around / missed approach
Why do think there are at least 2 (two) pilots in a cockpit, called PF and PNF?)

sunnySA

7th Sep 2011, 12:22

Windshear your not very likely to get anything out of us.I'd like something like "going around, wind shear". That way as the Air Traffic Controller I am able to provide a service to other aircraft, the a/c at the holding point, following a/c on final, a/c on the adjacent rwy, a/c on different freq.

I know you are busy but a couple of key words provides sufficient info. Followup later on about the height, severity, type of w/s.

Spitoon

7th Sep 2011, 16:28

Why do think there are at least 2 (two) pilots in a cockpit, called PF and PNF?)I do hope you're not suggesting this means that you don't need to worry about crew workload and can call an aircraft at any time.

TC_Ukraine

7th Sep 2011, 20:40

I do hope you're not suggesting this means that you don't need to worry about crew workload and can call an aircraft at any time.
I can and I will call a/c every time I NEED (to provide safety of course). If pilots are really busy, performing some actions, they can just ignore my message

Guy D'ageradar

7th Sep 2011, 21:06

I can and I will call a/c every time I NEED (to provide safety of course). If pilots are really busy, performing some actions, they can just ignore my message

Hmmmmm..... are you one of those guys that insists on giving taxy instructions to a/c whose wheels have JUST touched the runway, I wonder? :=

While I do agree that we need to know the reason for a go around, everything has it's time and place - let the guys get out of whatever trouble they may be in before you start to badger them for non-urgent information. If you feel you can't let the next one make the approach without said info, then a) break them off or b) give them the info you DO have (eg preceeding went around, reason unkown) and let them make their own decision - it's what they're paid to do.

1Charlie

12th Sep 2011, 04:49

Hmmmmm..... are you one of those guys that insists on giving taxy instructions to a/c whose wheels have JUST touched the runway, I wonder? :=
I know a controller that did this until finally a pilot said, "say again, I couldn't hear you over the reverse thrust". :cool:

classic

framer

12th Sep 2011, 06:35

If its really that serious, he has already called "MAYDAY!"

There is a disconnect here, a misunderstanding about the basic concept of Aviate, Navigate, Communicate. If it is really that serious (as you say), talking to ATC is third on the list and another sensory input (ie you asking a question) slightly increases the workload of the pilots (ie decreases safety). If it is really that serious, neither pilot may have the mental resources to dedicate to assesing what call to make apart from the standard call...."ABC going round"

Why do think there are at least 2 (two) pilots in a cockpit, called PF and PNF?) Again , a complete misunderstanding about flying aircraft in non normal situations.

I'd like something like "going around, wind shear".
I know you are busy but a couple of key words provides sufficient info. Thats great that you'd like those words but there may be higher priorities. The last time I had windshear on finals, nothing showed on the radar, it wasn't reported on the ATIS, the previous a/c had no problems, the following a/c had no problems, and we got shook up so bad that I could only intermitantly read the instruments, we were IMC, we had several different aural alarms going off at once. It was a full time job maintaining controlled flight for about three seconds. Strangely enough the data indicated that the miss was flown accurately with no overspeed of flaps or gear but I tell you what, we had no brain space left for anything other than flying that aircraft. After the event there were several warnings that neither of us could recollect, our brains simply ignored them as they were overloaded. The controller was a bit surprised that we had gone around but didn't ask for the reason until an appropriate time (level at the missed approach altitude ), she was surprised because the weather seemed a bit rough but nothing unusual, nothing that would normally cause a go round.

I can and I will call a/c every time I NEED (to provide safety of course).
And that is a judgement call as to whether it will increase or decrease safety. Nobody else can make that decision for you, it's yours, but your comments about it being 2 crew so whats the problem demonstrate a lack of understanding required to be successfully judicious. The only solution is understanding each others roles and priorities as has already been stated. We need to do regular swaps of the work environment to achieve this.
Just my 2 cents.
Framer

Guy D'ageradar

12th Sep 2011, 11:33

framer - nicely put.

another angle on this is the recent (where I work) decision that all go-arounds MUST be investigated as incidents - and here was poor old me thinking that performing a missed approach was a) a pilot's RIGHT and b) a standard procedure! :ugh:

missy

12th Sep 2011, 12:42

the following a/c had no problems

Great, but don't you think they like to have known about your wind shear event before they continued the approach?

Had an aircraft report wind shear after they had been parked at the gate for 15 minutes. I guess everyone's ANC is different.

framer

12th Sep 2011, 16:11

Great, but don't you think they like to have known about your wind shear event before they continued the approach?

I'm sure they would have liked to know, they probably would have liked lots of things but I wasn't the one to be giving them anything right at that point in time. Everything I had mentally was being allocated to Aviating, so much so that there wasn't even much Navigating going on, if I could get the wings into a semi level state and the nose somwhere near 15 I was winning. Much more sensible for you to pass on the information that we went around than to ask us why we were going around. Much safer in that particular situation.

radarman

13th Sep 2011, 20:25

Just to emphasise what framer says. A few years ago we had a met situation where turbulence on finals was expected. An A320 went round, but said nothing. I said nothing either as it was obvious what was going on. About ten seconds later the pilot's mike opened, but nobody said anything. Sounds of alarms going off on flight deck, and suddenly a very shaken voice loudly exclaiming 'F*ck me!'. Mike closes. Some fifteen seconds later the pilot safely completed the Aviate, Navigate part, and found time to Communicate. Good on him for getting his priorities right. Now, come on all those controllers who advocate diving in with all sorts of questions - just what would you have gained here by interfering with a pilot frantically trying to control his aircraft?

tdk90

13th Sep 2011, 22:05

Reminds me when I was a young Flying Officer Air Trafficker on my first tour when we had a GR1 divert in, everyone and his dog came up to the tower and caused a huge distraction, OC Arm Flt or similar was even there and piped up what kind of weapons did said GR1 have on board at which point SATCO told him to f...k off out of his tower and everyone else left as well..it was a priceless moment...

mad_jock

16th Sep 2011, 12:04

If pilots are really busy, performing some actions, they can just ignore my message

The simple fact you have spoken to them has distracted them away from what they are doing. They still have to commit processing power to listen and make sure it isn´t an avoiding action. Which to be honest is the only thing I would take any notice of.

As a following aircraft I really don´t mind not knowing what the reason is with the aircraft in front. Yep it puts me on standby for something to happen that might not be normal. I would much prefer not to know than the one in front get distracted.

We know what might of happened and to be honest ATC seem to be more concerned about us not knowing than us. I suppose its a bit like constant wind updates on approach when its under 15 knts and less than 10degs off runway track. That gets a stiff ignoring as well.

hangten

18th Sep 2011, 13:28

Some stories:

In the early days of A319s, when a large airline was in the process of introducing them as replacements for older type 737s all I received was a slightly ruffled and very confused, "It's going around!"

After a request for the tower telephone number following landing, a humble phone call received after parking with the admission that the FO 'pressed the TOGA by mistake looking for his pen'.

Both of which are good enough, frankly! Tell us if and when you can. It's only for paperwork generally and if it's serious then you know when to tell us, either for self preservation or preservation of those following you down the approach. I'm not aware of any requirement to inform us of a reason but if you don't then we'll just make one up (but it won't be one that says it's my fault. :E :ok:)

'Pilot initiated - reason unknown'.

For ATCOs here that want an answer ASAP just be patient, read some of the stuff here about workload. I don't see any reason to talk to a flight crew in the go around except for immediate provision of separation (or other safety critical information).

The African Dude

18th Sep 2011, 13:55

If pilots are really busy, performing some actions, they can just ignore my message

Somebody hassling you in your ear is a distraction, irrespective of whether or not they make the decision - hint: added task - to ignore you.

The equivalent is transmitting on a new frequency without listening out beforehand. I'm sure you would get pretty hacked off if we all did that, wouldn't you?

Edit: Didn't see mad_jock's post... beat me to it.

CuitoCuanavale

19th Sep 2011, 00:25

Framer, from a technical perspective, exceptional description!! I hope as many controllers as possible read your thread.

bob9

20th Sep 2011, 18:27

All,
I am a current RAF fast jet pilot and have stumbled accross your site and read the posts with interest. There was a comment about how we should share each others world and I have to say that happens routinuely in the forces. As a pilot I sit as the aircrew SME in the tower and give advice to the controllers if they wanted it and we understand each other very well.

My only question is this. Why do any small aircraft problems immediately become the most dangerous ever and affect all other planes if one aircraft has a problem? We are all sequenced and believe you me we have a vague understanding not to turn 180 degrees and fly into the ground or another aircraft!!

The reason is simple. Pilots will fly the plane and talk only if important. ATC controllers are as intelligent(or more) but work in an environment where everyone is constantly checking on each other and the smallest perceived mistake will lose them their ticket. They are not allowed the flexibility to run with a situation but need to seek clarification. I have seen it all over the world. Exceptional people and professionals but working to different rules to us.

In short, aircrew think that 95% of our work happens away from the airfield and ATC think that 95% happens around it. We also work to completely different rules. Until this changes, I think these conversations will continue. The only thing to do is accept it give each other a bit of slack i think no?;)

Doug E Style

22nd Sep 2011, 08:50

Was recently on approach to LHR, number 3 with usual min. spacing. We saw the number 1 aircraft going around and before ATC had requested the reason he stated that it was due to severe turbulence on short final. Thus, we and the aircraft ahead had a bit of a heads up and were prepared for this eventuality. Such timely information was a big help considering how dense the inbound traffic was. Forewarned is forearmed! As it turned out, the wind at 150' was a 5 knot tailwind so it seemed the vortices of the preceding aircraft were being blown over the glideslope. We had a bit of a wobble at 150' and it was interesting to watch everyone experiencing the same thing as we taxied back.

FlightPathOBN

22nd Sep 2011, 21:24

well stated Framer...aviate, navigate, communicate....

I am sure that any controller understands that the pilot does not take a go around call lightly....

BOAC

22nd Sep 2011, 21:39

and found time to Communicate. - from what you describe he had already done that bit:)

Grob Queen

28th Sep 2011, 21:24

Hello, this is a very interesting thread. As there don't seem to be any obvious student pilots posting messages here, i thought I would add my experince so far...after 34 hours.

Ref the Go-Around reason...I am so pleased that pilots don't have to give the tower a reason for going around, otherwise, the number of times I do when practising Touch and Goes I would sound like a worn record "sorry, c**ked up the approach again..." at my airfield with all the ab initio pilots, thats all the tower would ever hear!

I do not as yet have experience of a purely civvy run airfield/Tower...I am a member of an RAF Flying club at an RAF Airfield where small and large, Prop and Jet aircraft work around each other extremely well, and its better for my R/T and airfield sense such as flying oval ccts and learning the initials join; as our air traffickers don't take any nonsense!

I believe that its good to visit the Tower. I visited ours and DSATCO was brilliant, I think she and her personnel really appreciated that I had taken the time and effort to visit them and see it from their side.

loubylou

11th Oct 2011, 09:52

The Missed Approach at Manchester off 23R and 05R involve a sharp right turn away from the other runway - so the procedure is to re-iterate this and also to give a QNH check.

Also - on the vid it would appear that all the other R/T has been removed so it seems as if the controllers are leaving the pilot with no time to think - I would really doubt that that was the actual time line involved.

I agree that of course you Aviate, Navigate, Communicate, but I don't think that a request to advise the reason for the Go Around when able is unreasonable, once the aircraft appears to be stabalised.

And frankly - you guys could make the effort to come into ATC to spend a few hours listening in to expand your knowledge of ATC, ask why things are done in ceratin ways and also to use that opportunity to educate ATC about issues you have.
I can't recall the last time there was a locally based commercial pilot that came in for a visit.

Louby

mad_jock

11th Oct 2011, 10:06

But I don't think that a request to advise the reason for the Go Around when able is unreasonable, once the aircraft appears to be stabalised.

Its not :ok:

Unfortunately I don't think the time line has been squished.

I certainly don't have a problem with you restating the go-around procedure as long as your not looking for a reedback.

Although if its a windshear event as described by the poster above I wouldn't be surprised if the aircraft didn't have the performance to turn. It really is a case of keep the wings level and set the pitch and just hang in there. You can't even put the gear up because it creates to much drag. All the time the PNF is calling out the vertical speed when you get to +100 you stop hearing your heart beat between calls. The come down off the adrenalin surge isn't very pleasant either and it maybe a couple of mins before you get a coherent reply out of us.