Gatwick go-around

[Kirstey]

I assume this a non event - with an oh so original journalistic twist!!

--------------


Two airliners carrying more than 500 passengers came within five seconds of disaster at Gatwick Airport.

One of the jets had to abort its landing as the other tried to take off directly into its flight path.

The Northwest Airlines DC-10, carrying 330, banked and swerved to avoid the Emirates Arlines Airbus setting off for Dubai with 220 on board.

Onlookers said the DC-10 was just 100ft from touching down when air traffic controllers raised the alarm.

The incoming airliner recovered and circled over the airport for ten minutes, then made a successful landing when the runway was clear.

No one was hurt but several passengers in the DC-10, arriving from Detroit, were left in shock.

One witness said: "It was so close. I was bracing myself for an explosion."

Another said: "Everyone drew in their breath as they watched what was happening."

Gatwick officials today insisted passenger safety was not put at risk.

A spokesman said: "What happened is what we call a 'go around' where the aircraft coming in to land are given a signal by air traffic control not to land because another plane is on the runway.

"In this case the aircraft aborted the landing and circled round before landing safely ten minutes later.

"There was no danger to the passengers and the safety distance between the planes was never compromised. It was simply a precaution."

Air traffic controllers described the manoeuvre as a textbook "go around".

Civil Aviation Authority spokesman Richard Wright said: "With only one runway at Gatwick it is busy with planes using it to land and take off.

"Near misses don't usually take place at airports, it is normally in the air.

"It is dramatic and it is disconcerting for passengers because they can't see what is going on but the pilots can, and they are in full control of the situation."

A voluntary redundancy programme will see Air Traffic Control shed 226 jobs across the UK this year.

[Final 3 Greens]

Shock Horror – Aircraft Impacts Ground In Essex

There are confirmed reports from North Weald airfield of an aircraft hitting the ground.

The PA28 flown by Dickie Fender-Bender had its earth encounter on runway 20 when the pilot cut the power at low altitude.

When interviewed afterwards, Mr Fender-Bender (43) said “this is a perfectly normal operation that pilots call landing – it involves flying near the ground and reducing power so that the aircraft returns to terra firm.”

An eye witness said “it was horrible, the aircraft just kept getting lower and lower and then the engine seemed to cut.”



:D

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

There are two types of rubbish - the stuff you put in your dustbin and aviation journalism. I bet the Gatwick controllers are falling about over thisd one.

[BigJETS]

Does anyone ever write to the newspapers that print this stuff and give them the lowdown on these incidents from your point of view? Would be especially nice if the paper printed your comments.
Years ago, an aunt of mine was on a flight into ORD that went around for the exact same reason (usually is). She vowed to never fly into Ohare again. It was just too busy/dangerous she thought. To her, it was practically a near death experience and deserved to be on the evening news. Apparently shes not alone.
Completely nuts to most people with aviation experience who can rationalize controlled flight inside 200,000lb machines.

[ALFIEDOG]

I presume as the DC10 crew were below cat 1 ? and could'nt see the A330? it must of been foggy in which case LVO would of been in force go-arounds at Gatwick or any other airport are not uncommon.

[Kalium Chloride]

I refer the honourable Heathrow Director to the reply I gave several posts ago. :rolleyes:

Reports in the Sun are not 'aviation journalism' and if you* can't be bothered to learn the difference then you're* probably ideally qualified to be writing for the rag instead of just reading it.

Indignant rant terminates here.




*not Heathrow Director personally but those irritating people who insist that 'aviation journalism' and 'story in the paper about (duh) a plane' are somehow the same thing.

[Lou Scannon]

Gatwick controllers are a great bunch who do their utmost to avoid delays by utilising the single runway to the full.

Sometimes an aircraft cleared on to the runway for take-off suffers some delay over a minor problem. The aircraft on the approach is then given the instruction to "go-around" as the runway is obviously not available.

It is no more dangerous than that, and to suggest otherwise can only display a basic lack of knowledge or a journalistic attempt to fill space in a newspaper.

Please can journalists try engaging their brains before writing this sort of drivel.

[Spiney Norman]

Just a minute you guys! The 100ft is in the journo report not the official statement from the NATS publicity guy!! Don't believe the s***e or you're falling for the rubbish that puts the fear of God into a lot of the non-aviation people that read this sort of sensationalist trash! I bet if any of the Gatwick guys could actually tell you at what range the DC10 went around it was alot further out but they can't print comments!

Spiney

[j17]

Alfiedog

Are you really a pilot or a MS simulator pilot?If you hold a cpl/atpl you would know when LVP,S come into force and what rules apply as to acft departing and landing,rather than it was foggy and the DC10 crew could not see the departing traffic

[ALFIEDOG]

j17

I was just pointing out how silly it all was the crew or ATC can call go-around so should never get as close as witness said.

ps MS flight simulators are to tricky.

[t'aint natural]

Works of journalism and eye-witness estimates of separation should be treated with the same absolute disdain. Quotes from un-named "witnesses" who were "waiting for an explosion" are invariably made up.
It's not that journalists almost always get aviation wrong, it's just that they almost always get everything wrong. Sometimes it's deliberate fraud, other times its sheer lazy, incompetent, pig-ignorance.
This is not a rant, simply a statement.
Anyone know what separation was in this case?

[120.4]

Kalium Chloride:

I find your remark re The Heathrow Director somewhat hurtful.

The trouble is that most readers of The Sun don't know that the reports are masquerading as "aviation Journalism" and so swallow them, hook, line and sinker. If ONLY The Heathrow Director, (who is a very well respected and qualified member of the Heathrow team) were writing the aviation stories for The Sun it wouldn't be sensationalist rubbish that is often written by ignorant journalists. I rather agree with his sentiments.

He is indeed IDEALLY qualified but would a truthful and professional assesment of a non event sell papers? And that I believe is the point.

:)

Point 4

[Puritan]

Was this the go-around I saw from the environs Crawley industrial estate (just south of the LGW runway) on the morning of Thursday 4th April at about 10:40'ish ?

If so, and as a professional pilot viewing it from the the ground, I have to say that (inspite of what's been written above) it looked VERY 'impressive' indeed - as in the "Holy Sh!t, just what the **** is going on up there ?!" type of impressive ! :eek:

[t'aint natural]

Puritan: I suggest you call the papers quick.

[Puritan]

t'aint natural - I know what I saw, and what I saw was not what I would describe as a 'normal' looking go-around - and I should know, I've done enough. ;)

That said, I also have a 'healthy' suspicion of the press - so I'll not be contacting them thank you.

[AtlPax]

Last summer a flight I was on returning to ATL had to go around. Evidently the plane that had landed ahead of us was taking too long to vacate the runway. (The airport was busy having been closed due to weather earlier.) I would guess we were around 10-20 seconds from the runway threshold.

::YAWN::

Nobody else on the flight seemed concerned. The aircraft movements were all very smooth. Seemed almost routine. The captain, though, when he came on to explain the go-around, indeed sounded quite perturbed! (Blamed ATC :D)

[HOMER J SIMPSON]

Not even worth a comment ............ Doh!!:rolleyes:

[Kalium Chloride]

I'm voluntarily withdrawing this post. It's not worth the effort.

[halo]

As a controller in a very similar vein to Heathrow Director, I've had many go-arounds. The whole point of them is to stop the inbound plane from landing on the outbound plane, or an inbound plane from landing on the previous inbound plane. Now for some basic maths, brace yourselves..... An inbound aircraft on the approach to a runway will be doing approximately 3 miles a minute. This means that with 3 miles spacing between inbound aircraft, the front one would be touching down as the next inbound was at 3 miles (approximately 60 seconds away). If the front one were to stop and remain on the runway then the next inbound would be up his chuff in 60 seconds flat. Now take into account the fact that sometimes runways are wet, sometimes pilots miss turn-offs, sometimes there is windshear, sometimes inbound aircraft don't fly the correct speed, and then you have a situation requiring a go-around. These things will always be "seconds apart" because as stated above, 3 miles between aircraft is literally 60 seconds, which even the dullest of people will realise does not give a huge amount of leeway!!

All this sensationalist c**p ends up doing is giving the ordinary person the impression that a go-around is suddenly a life-threatening situation, whereas in reality it is the life-saving situation (i.e. not bumping planes together). This is where some of it comes down to the crews on the flight deck.... The passengers should be told that this is a normal, non-threatening, completely safe procedure, instead of them leaving the aircraft thinking that they've just nearly ended up at the pearly gates!!

[Hand Solo]

Oooooooh! Touchy touchy!

Perhaps you should be less holier-than-thou yourself KC! The reason 'professional' journos get such a hard time on this forum is that at least 99% of the time the stuff your colleagues write is complete and utter garbage, without so much as a nod in the direction of truth. Thats not just the red-top tabloids, I also include the nonsense we often hear from certain rent-a-quote 'experts' representing 'industry journals' we regularly see on TV. Its not that they try to get it right and fail, its that they just don't care. Perhaps you are the diamond in the dungheap who is informed, conscientious and wishes to report facts in non-sensational ways, but you really are in a tiny minority in the UK. If the professional aviation community operated to the same lax degree that your profession operates then you really would have the 'one major accident per week' scenario they are so keen to predict.

[120.4]

I seem to remember being taught during my flying training that every approach was an approach to "go around". It is only if everything is as it needs to be that an approach is then continued to land. I know of a DC10 going around at Gatwick having spent some time with its main gear on the runway. (I was the catcher. Wet and gusty tailwind approach, the nose wouldn't come down quickly enough - full power and round again.) The last thing the pilot of a fast jet approaching his carrier does before he crosses the roundown is apply full power, IN THE EXPECTATION that he is going to bolt. Catch a wire - close the throttles, miss the wires - close the speed brake.

I have also seen a Tristar going around from about 100' and then being turned over Crawley to separate from the B747 just rotating underneath it. It did look like an airshow yes but appropriate intervention kept it safe.

We have become so good at getting it right that when occasionally things don't work it is sensationally blown up into something horrific. Never let the truth get in the way of a good story eh?

Point 4
:)

[Navy_Adversary]

I do not usually buy the Sun, however from time to time I do read it at work . I was totally flabergasted by the crap written by the Sun journo about the LGW go around, imagine what that story did for a nervous flyer thinking of booking their summer holiday flight to PMI that day. It's about time the CAA brought newspaper editors to task over this melodramatic clap trap:mad:

[Suggs]

I saw a DC 10 going over my house on thursday, it was not foggy, I looked up thought something had gone pair shaped and carried on doing whatever I was doing, didn't think it would make the papers. My only go-around at LGW didn't, but I'm not bitter!!!
But then that was also a none event.

[Self Loading Freight]

I'm with Halo. I know that during a go-around everyone's very busy and having a calming chat to the pax isn't high on the checklist, but it would do a great deal of good to let people know what happened at some point before they get off. Doesn't have to be a full debrief, just "I know some of you will be wondering what happened just then, it was a normal routine to ensure good safety margins on landing. We didn't land first time around because the a/c in front of us was a little late departing the runway, and in such circumstances it is standard procedure to go around and give everyone more time." Or whatever. If you're not comfortable doing PAs (I've heard a few mumbled announcements that really should have started "Unaccustomed as I am to public speaking..."), practice something along those lines when you've got a spare few minutes so you'll be ready when it happens next. It WILL be appreciated.

Lots of passengers are very nervous about flying, and it's not just those who only fly once in a blue moon or look as if they expect the worst. It's very noticeable how quickly the atmosphere down the back gets tense as soon as things start to depart noticeably from expected -- and you may not think it's right, but a couple of hundred people who really thought their next in-flight briefing's going to come from the Archangel Gabriel is worth a story.

I'm not defending shoddy journalism -- which annoys me far more than it annoys you, trust me! It's no fun being in a business which attracts such opprobrium -- but everyone has a role to play in making it harder for the sensationalists to get away with it. You have a captive audience who want to know what happened: get to them before the Klingons do. Who knows -- there may even be an editor back there who'll spike the next bit of non-event nonsense that passes their desk as a result.

R

[Hand Solo]

It doesn't matter what you say to the pax because they won't be the ones writing the rubbish in the paper. I remember a recent event when an aircraft being positioned with crew only ingested a bird on short finals and declared an emergency due to a burning smell. It was reported in the paper next day as 'Terror as jet packed with holiday makers makes emergency landing when cabin fills with smoke!'.

[jdoe]

Anyone have the URL for the sun story?

[ALFIEDOG]

The point is go-arounds are the safe option, air trafic controllers may be right 99% of the time and are our best friends, the 1% is up to the flight crew so they will always have the final say. Gatwick only has 2.5 miles approach separation so only about 55 seconds from 50 feet to getting off the runway, but in this case the A330-200 was taking off so the crew did have time to make the best decision, upsetting passengers and making the news is a small price to pay. In our operations manual it says a professional pilot does a go-around. History shows that many more pilots should have done this.

[Dockjock]

Perhaps airlines should see the light and be more aggressive in making ie. "creating" the news, with reams and reams of press releases. Carefully craft and spin everyday normal occurrences with the hope of heading off the ambulance-chaser journalists.

example,

April 5, 2002- London
ABC Airways flight 345 inbound to Gatwick airport arrived 10 minutes late today due to a routine air traffic control-related delay. The majority of the flight's passengers were returning from their yearly holiday to the sunny south, and therefore welcomed the delay as it slightly postponed their return to the daily grind.



Easy huh?

[Niaga Dessip]

Ok, I go along with most of the scepticism here, particularly when the Sun is involved. But let me play Devil's advocate here for a moment:

WHAT IF the go around was called a bit late?
WHAT IF separation was close to the 100' quoted?

I am willing to bet that Mr. Airport Spokesman will declare that "no passengers were placed in any danger." Perhaps it could be argued that is the way it should be, particularly prior to the outcome of any investigation and bearing in mind the desire not to upset the customer. However, it seems to me that too often we end up a crap news report and a crap official statement. I think the relationship between the press and the aviation industry needs to be tackled from both ends.

But then again, as you know, I remain
Niaga Dessip;)

[Kalium Chloride]

It's strange that, as an aviation journalist, I've made the effort to read dozens of books on airlines and aircraft systems, meet the people who influence the industry, sat in cockpits during flights to chat with the flight crews about their work, walked around air traffic control centres across the world, spoken to controllers to ask their opinions and listen to their concerns, attended dozens of conferences hosted by ICAO, IATA and god-knows-who-else and sat through hundreds of lectures by you good people (and your bosses) on everything from satellite navigation to budget carrier network planning.

Now I know most of you are busy, but I can't recollect ever seeing more than one or two pilots -- let alone air traffic controllers or airport managers -- in my office, despite its being home to one of the most established aviation publications around. Ya know, one of you guys is gonna have to tell me how you've learned SO much about our job, our integrity and our professionalism. Please don't disappoint me and say that it's all from the Daily Mail Fount of Wisdom :D :D :D

Personally, I'd be happy just for a grudging admission that there is a difference between people like me, and people like Scoop Dogshyte, ace tabloid reporter. Perhaps that's a bit much to ask from one or two of you. But I do agree with a lot of your sentiments...I wish the tabloids would stop their sensationalist tosh -- not only because the public gets misled, but because it reflects badly on me too. :rolleyes:

I've no great desire to be called unprofessional, inaccurate, or a liar. Especially because I can't hide behind a User Name in a publication. My byline's real, and I stand by everything I write. Yes, really -- some of us are very proud of our work.

Looking forward to meeting some of you at a future Bash (if I can find a way to make myself look presentable rather than like scum straight out of the gutter, of course) :D

[Woodman]

I agree with KC that there are excellent journalists working for respectable magazines. They put their personal reputations on the line with every story they write.
The hacks who work for the national newspapers, TV and radio have different values and don't care about the story they are writing and are more interested in filling space in what they see as a readable interesting way rather than informing accurately.
The point that really worries me is that I can see how wrong they get a story when I know what happened. But I still read the other 99.99 per cent of stories and have to accept what I read. And I still buy a paper most days. And it influences my opinions.

[steamchicken]

I think we should also remember that the journalists themselves are harried by a stack of bastards right up to THE EDITOR himself to get more profit-increasing punch. There is a vast difference between a "Writers' Paper" like the Guardian or, back in the pre-Murdoch day, The Times, or the Washington Post, and the Sun. Not only is the Sun a whizz-bang-bull**** bigoted tabloid, it is also terribly authoritarian. Any pro writer will tell you that what they file on a paper like that has surprisingly little to do with what gets printed after it has passed through a subeditor and a section editor and the news editor and possibly even the editor himself. And it is one of those who will write the headline. We all loathe management who demand that we endanger our professional standards - the journalists have bastard bosses too, and they have all seen stories of theirs twisted and ****ed up by the paper for commercial reasons or the Boss's political views.

Being turned into a liar without knowing it must be pretty bad.

[t'aint natural]

Steamchicken:
You are entirely wrong in differentiating between The Guardian and The Sun in terms of the amount of drivel they generate. The only difference is that The Sun does it in eight pars, The Guardian in eighty. They both exist to drive their own agendas and make some money, and the journalists on the so-called "writers' paper" are as puerile and ill-informed as those on the red-tops.
There are good journalists, but they are one per cent of the rabble.
Incidentally, BA has excellent relationships with most newspapers, but their PR efforts are geared towards financial journalism and political lobbying. Where it matters, they limit themselves to blanking enquiries with the no-passengers-were-put-at-risk mantra.

[Neo]

See the G MONX thread about the article on this aircraft in the Sunday Times by their "insight" team. This team is supposed to be highly respected for it's journalistic work, but I'm afraid that if they are amongst the best in the media then the rest must be unspeakably dire, judging by the poor quality of the article in question.

I know professionals in other fields who have tried to co-operate with journalists only to have their efforts spurned in infalmmatory and sensationalist articles. Unless the press and media start cleaning up their act and start reporting events such as these in a more balanced and factual manner, then they will receive a great deal less co-operation in future, and that will not be healthy.

It is for the media to act; after all, reporting events is their living, not ours. They would be well advised not to bite the hand that feeds.

[ajamieson]

Kalium Chloride for President.

Woodman you're right in most respects, but wrong in one. I am a news editor for a daily national newspaper. The other week I was offered a story about a run-around but I spiked it because I knew that to run it would be pointless and irresponsible. Oh, and the source of the story was a senior airport worker. :rolleyes: Having said that, I agree with you; good to see you still buy papers. :D

[FlapsOne]

Run-Around ????????

There rests the case for the defence.

Don't forget, many 'Senior Airport Workers' have absolutely nothing to do with aircraft except perhaps to have a vague idea of what they look like.

[ajamieson]

FlapsOne the senior airport worker was one of the airport managers and a key figure at BAA which is why I was not more specific. I am actually capable of remembering that airport workers - a broad term - will have varying degrees of knowledge about aviation. I do hope your keen understanding of semantics is put to good use, because it certainly wasn't in your post.

[Yacht Man]

Fair point ND,

We all know the pressure on ATC is now greater than at any other time.

When you consider the fact that if a tower controller doesn't achieve the 'required' number of movements per hour he's going to get a phone call because this costs the airport operator big bucks over a year. This puts controllers under pressure and that puts us under pressure.

How many times a week do you sit there on finals saying "is he, isnt he, get that speed back" or something similar. Low go arounds are becoming a much more common event - sadly.

Airport operators are never going to admit to putting controllers or Pilots under pressure. They will always claim safety was never at risk...... I do wonder sometimes!!


TOGA Flaps 5' !!






:mad:

[FlapsOne]

ajamieson

I do indeed have a keen understanding of semantics - and the fact that this was an airport manager indicates little to suggest that he/she would have the faintest idea what may or may not have been involved in a go-around......not run-around - that was a tv prog for kids some time ago.

[Hand Solo]

Half our airline managers don't know the first thing about an aircraft, why should the airport managers do any better. We even have to put pictures of aircraft on our staff travel website to remind 80% of our staff what an aeroplane loks like!

[Wiley]

steamchicken, I hadn’t read your post when I wrote the post below, but see you’ve pretty well said the same as I have in your post of 7 April.

********

The FACT is, the ‘Sun’ journo (or ‘journo’ [sic] as many of you would have it) achieved absolutely EVERYTHING he attempted to achieve with the article in question and his editor will be congratulating him for it – and the proof of that is in the ‘n’ outraged posts it has attracted on this thread.

He writes for a tabloid publication that makes no pretense at being high literature. His job – his JOB – particularly on a ‘slow news day’, is to turn the most mundane event into a four inch headline that will sell newspapers.

If he’d turned in a factual, (read ‘boring’) account of the event that has us all so outraged, his editor would have thrown it back in his face and told him to sensationalise it – or far more likely, mark him down for the chop in the next staff cuts. And the ‘hack’ knows this.

It ain’t perfect, in fact, it’s frequently annoying as hell to see what we know to be the norm beat up into ‘seconds from death’ bullshyte, but sadly, it’s what sells newspapers, particularly (at the risk sounding smug and middle class) to those among our population who buy publications like ‘The Sun’.

The most important lesson we should all take to heart from this is to treat any story on any other topic on which we don’t have inside knowledge with healthy skepticism – but at the same time, thank God we don’t live in a society where we only get to read what the Government deems we should and should not read.

And yes, a newspaper will put whatever ‘spin’ fits its political or other agenda to any story that crosses its editor’s desk. I love the old yarn from Australia in the 70’s about the then Prime Minister Gough Whitlam, who had (and continues to have!), shall we say… a rather high opinion of himself. The word was that, urged on by his adoring disciples, he (He?) stepped out and walked across Canberra’s Lake Burley Griffin. The newspapers next morning were full of this astounding news – except for Rupert’s flagship (Rupert had decided by this stage that GW was no longer the flavour of the month). Rupert’s headline? ‘Whitlam Fails In Bid to Swim Lake Burley Griffin!’

[Rongotai]

A while ago I produced a training simulator package for non-aviation journalists writing about aviation. Here it is.


NARROW ESCAPE IN JUMBO JET EMERGENCY

Penguin knocks out air safety radar


An Air New Zealand British Aerospace 737 jumbo jet narrowly escaped disaster on a Christchurch to Wellington flight this afternoon. The incident started when a Little Blue Penguin crossed the runway at Wellington, forcing air traffic control to halt all flights for five minutes.

This forced the Air New Zealand 767 to abandon its approach at the northern tip of the South Island and go round in a huge circle. “We don’t do this very often these days,” said an Airways Corporation spokesman, “Our new flow control software means that it is very rare to put aircraft into a holding pattern.”

Air New Zealand told reporters that the procedure was ‘just routine’, but Marlborough farmer, Wayne McDougall, who was mustering sheep on his property when the stricken A.340 began its circuit, disagreed. “You could see it was in trouble,” he said, “the whole time I watched one wing was lower than the other.”

Some passengers became distressed. Airline management consultant John Taverner noticed that his sauvignon blanc was at an angle in its glass for at least two minutes. “What was even more worrying,” he said to our air correspondent, “was the sun. One moment it was shining in my eyes, then it disappeared completely, and a moment after that it appeared outside the window on the other side of the plane.” Taverner also said that when he looked out of his window he could see the sea.

There was little panic according to Hilda Blowhard, another passenger. “It was the ANZAC Gallipoli spirit,” she said, “that Kiwi capacity to remain phlegmatic in the face of certain death. Most passengers just went on reading their magazines, although one or two looked a bit irritated when the captain told us that we would be delayed.”

Those awaiting loved ones and relatives at the airport were critical of airline staff. “They didn’t tell us anything,” said a woman who declined to be named for fear of airline reprisals to her Air Points account, “The plane was due at half past four, but nothing happened at all. After five minutes I went up to the Air New Zealand woman at the gate and asked her what was happening. She just grinned and pointed at the runway, and said ‘there it is now’. As I watched, the plane’s wheels hit the ground and a huge puff of smoke came out. But the airline woman just ignored it and pretended nothing had happened.”

Air New Zealand claimed that the flight crew were fully trained and adequately experienced, but some passengers reported that one of them only had three rings on his sleeve and looked very young. Despite the acknowledged presence of alcohol on the plane the crew managed to walk up the jetway in a straight line, although others had noticed earlier that the penguin had been ‘waddling’ when it crossed the runway.

Air New Zealand also denied last night that the aircraft involved was old and suffered from mechanical problems. However last month the company announced that it was replacing all its domestic TU 134 jets with Embreech 1900D’s. Industry insiders told us that Embreech, a Brazilian company, had established its place in the airliner market with the assistance of a lot of bandits.

[MTOW]

As much as p-one-sses us off to see drivel in print about all things Aviation, Wiley’s got a point. The Tabloid journo’s job is to sell papers, certainly not to provide ‘hard’, accurate news – at least since the likes of Rupert, Maxwell and way back as far as Randolph Hearst got their grubby mitts into the “news”paper business.

As for a particular newspaper always providing its own ‘slant’ on a news item, y’all oughta see the ‘unbiased, disinterested, give-both-sides-of-the-argument’ reporting on a certain crisis just East of Amman in my local paper over here in the Sandpit – (which I suppose provides a balance to CNN’s ‘unbiased, disinterested, give-both-sides-of-the-argument’ (!) reporting from the opposite perspective).

Oh, and I enjoyed your ‘training package’, Rongotai. A bit too close to the bone.

[t'aint natural]

A selection of comments about (and in some cases by) journalists:

"[Journalism] is full of lying, cheating, drunken, cocaine-sniffing,
unethical people. I love it." -- Piers Morgan, Editor, Daily Mirror

"[Journalists are] a lower quality of human being, who'll do anything for a story. (...) At press awards they jeer, boo, fight, get pissed, and that's just the cream." -- Max Clifford, in an interview for the Radio Times

"I have spent half my life trying to get away from journalism, but I am still mired in it--a low trade and a habit worse than heroin, a strange seedy world full of misfits and drunkards and failures." -- Dr. Hunter S. Thompson

"Facing the press is more difficult than bathing a leper." -- Mother
Teresa

"Somewhere along the line, many Americans relegated the media to a notch on the morality scale only slightly above that of child molesters." -- Gregory Kane, Baltimore Sun, 1997

"A journalist is a reporter out of a job." -- Mark Twain

"Some editors are failed writers, but so are most writers." -- T. S. Eliot

"In terms of ravenous egos, sensitive ambition and backstabbing, the atmosphere was actually diluted compared with the behaviour of most foreign correspondents." -- Anthony Loyd, The Times

"To a newspaperman, a human being is an item with skin wrapped around it." -- Fred Allen

"No wonder the newspaper is rotten. We need more drunkards." -- Edward G. Robinson in "Five Star Final"

"If a person is not talented enough to be a novelist, not smart enough to be a lawyer, and his hands are too shaky to perform operations, he becomes a journalist." -- Norman Mailer

and my personal favourite:

"Everywhere I go, I'm asked if the universities stifle writers. My
opinion is that they don't stifle half enough of them." -- Flannery O'Connor

[Young Paul]

Well, as a pilot who regularly (monthly, maybe?) sees go-arounds from about 200' at Heathrow, I just think "Oh look, they've gone around, then." And then watch to see whether they follow the missed approach procedure and raise their landing gear. The two things that are the easiest to forget....

Yes, it does look impressive, but pilots are taught it from the time they have about 6 hours flying experience, so it's hardly a big deal. I daresay the pilots in the go-around in question probably had a hunch from about 1000' that they weren't going to be landing off the approach.

[pushapproved]

I can't believe all the fuss about a go-around! Heathrow Director was right (05 Apr 02) We were rather amused at KK by the newspaper report, particularly, "We drew our breath in" and "I was waiting for the explosion." :D
Of course it wouldn't be worth putting in the papers if the headline was more reflective of the real world, "Nothing unusual happened at the Airport today!" As most of you know, go arounds are initiated by ATC or the pilots for safety reasons, so it can be irritating, but understandable, when the general public experience what they think is near disaster! Almost as irritating as when you tell someone what you do and you know that the next thing they will say to you is, "Oh, that's a stressful job isn't it?" or "Are you moving to that new place at Southampton soon?". I imagine, (appreciating different opinions!), that it would be quite hard to collide a couple of aircraft what with TCAS and the runway incursion systems we have these days. (Unless you were that way inclined of course!)

Take it easy! :cool: