A380 low pass or go-around?

[Lost in Saigon]

http://youtu.be/lE_aVsPs4Sw

It turns out it was a go-around.

From Transport Canada daily occurrence reports:

A British Airways Airbus A380-800 (G-XLEH / BAW5VY) from London, England (EGLL) to Vancouver, BC (CYVR) elected to go around at 0221Z due to an aircraft handling issue. The aircraft was vectored for approach and landed without further incident at 0236Z. There was no operational impact.

[Pontius]

Why on earth would he make an intentional 'low pass' at YVR? What a ridiculous opinion to have, made only worse by an irrational desire to post such rubbish.

He flared too high and the power came off too late. He was going to land long so he went around. Absolutely the correct thing to do and certainly not deserving of the drivelling speculation you postulate.

[SMT Member]

Because, BA doing low-passes over a random Canadian airport, is common these days?

[linedriva]

I'm sure that Nigel was thinking 'I hope there's a plane spotter that's going to get some good video footage of me today - how cool will I look doing a low pass after a Trans Atlantic crossing'

Pontius had it right, methinks....

[Hotel Tango]

Lost in Saigon, looking at your profile, you are obviously a B777 airline pilot in your own little fantasy world. You have made that abundantly clear from your ridiculous post! Oh, and it's also neither a rumour nor news!

[TANUA]

What is the issue-the PIC elected this as the correct procedure-landed normally. Well done.

[TANUA]

HT
You need to do some research before you come out with this sort of comment.

[wiggy]

One things for sure if he/she had landed and managed to stop OK after that float it would at the very least have been a no tea no biscuits interview....

What is the issue-the PIC elected this as the correct procedure

Yep...

[Hotel Tango]

TANUA, so should you! If you check the times you will note that the O/P changed his post before you read it. And it's still neither Rumours nor News!

[Lost in Saigon]

Not news? An A380 floating down the runway in a mishandled approach that looks almost like a low pass is news in my opinion. Transport Canada also made it "news" by including it in their Daily Occurrence Report.

CADORS: Report (http://wwwapps.tc.gc.ca/Saf-Sec-Sur/2/cadors-screaq/rd.aspx?occdtefrom%3d2016-04-20%26occdteto%3d2016-05-16%26srchfldcd%3d3%26txt%3da380%26srchtype%3d1%26rt%3dWS%26h ypl%3dy%26cnum%3d2016P0660)

[JW411]

Lost in Saigon:

Actually, I quite agree with you. It IS news. Had this happened at LHR then it would have been plastered all over the UK media "News".

However, you have to realise that the Nigels can do no wrong and they will do everything they can to close ranks and try to persuade the rest of the world that such events are quite normal.

Now, I have absolutely no criticism of the captain's decision to make a go around from such a situation. Having floated halfway down the Vancouver runway, to try and continue with a bad situation could surely have been catastrophic so he (or she) did absolutely the right thing.

Surely the big question is why did they get into this situation in the first place in what must be the most automated and expensive bit of kit in the skies?

Now THAT would be of great interest to the rest of us if for no other reason than to stop the rest of us from getting into the same situation.

To say that indulging in visual circuit training in an A380 at YVR is a "non event" is surely somewhat disingenuous?

[DaveReidUK]

Not news? An A380 floating down the runway in a mishandled approach that looks almost like a low pass is news in my opinion. Transport Canada also made it "news" by including it in their Daily Occurrence Report.

Hmmm. An airport like Heathrow, for example, gets around 50 GAs every month, with roughly a quarter of those attributed to unstable approaches.

GoPros at the ready, chaps ...

[Hotel Tango]

LiA, as the experienced pilot that you are, you of all people should know how many GAs there are around the world every day for a variety of reasons. The crew did what they had to do and did it professionally. So, no, it's most definitely not news.

[ExXB]

The approach into YVR can be quite spectacular. Can't blame anyone for wanting to do it twice ...

[Lost in Saigon]

LiA, as the experienced pilot that you are, you of all people should know how many GAs there are around the world every day for a variety of reasons. The crew did what they had to do and did it professionally. So, no, it's most definitely not news.

This not one of those GA's that are done every day around the world. This particular GA is unique in that it was initiated very late in a botched landing flare. Yes the crew did the right thing but it is something that has never been seen on video and something you may never see again. That makes it newsworthy.

[Pakehaboy]

Quote""The approach into YVR can be quite spectacular. Can't blame anyone for wanting to do it twice"" ........that's funny

Yeah mate,totally agree.Not a hard approach by any means,winds can be a little pesky,but the scenery on a clear blue day is awesome.

[philbky]

The announcement to the pax might have been interesting as would the faces of the cabin crew when no positive contact was made with terra firma from being so low.

[Hotel Tango]

This particular GA is unique in that it was initiated very late in a botched landing flare.

Loads of late GA videos to watch on a well known site. They happen, and they happen for a variety of reasons best known to the guys/girls up front who made the approach. I'd be more concerned with a "botched" GA rather than a perfectly well executed one, whatever the reason for making it.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<An airport like Heathrow, for example, gets around 50 GAs every month, with roughly a quarter of those attributed to unstable approaches.>>

Interesting. During 31 years working at Heathrow I do not recall any go-around attributable to an unstable approach. I just wonder where these stats come from?

[DaveReidUK]

<<An airport like Heathrow, for example, gets around 50 GAs every month, with roughly a quarter of those attributed to unstable approaches.>>

Interesting. During 31 years working at Heathrow I do not recall any go-around attributable to an unstable approach. I just wonder where these stats come from?

Heathrow publish GA stats in their annual Flight Performance Report:

http://www.heathrow.com/file_source/HeathrowNoise/Static/Heathrow_flight_performance_annual_report_2015.pdf

They don't break down instances by category, so I'm reading across from the corresponding LGW stats where they do, hence my use of "roughly".

[Amstrong]

Anyone looked closely the sequence ? I can count at least 3 power-up during the final approach last one beeing right at flare height, no doubt it gave to much energy hence the float and go-around. Trust mishandling but why ? New guy on type unsure how to do fine adjustments ?

[HighSpeedAluminum]

Might well have been an auto landing fault.

[RAT 5]

What ever happened to "drop a wing if you are floating."? Surely an A380 will accept that and kiss one set of bogies onto the runway.

[Mr Mac]

All
Quite surprised to see the same flight number last night (18/5) quite low overhead my home. Not spinning cone trails and only at FL27. Normally up in the mid 30,s when passing over Yorkshire so 10k below the normal height at which the west bound heavies pass over. Did not seem to be much traffic about so maybe height constrained further south.


Regards
Mr Mac

[DaveReidUK]

Not spinning cone trails and only at FL27. Normally up in the mid 30,s when passing over Yorkshire so 10k below the normal height at which the west bound heavies pass over.

You might want to bear in mind that Flight Levels equate to the altitude in hundreds, not thousands of feet. So 37,000 feet would be FL370 rather than FL37. :O

[Mr Mac]

DaveReidUK
Sorry typo on my part.


Regards
Mr Mac

[Doors to Automatic]

The aircraft passed the last set of touchdown zone markers at around 0:36 whilst still a good few feet in the air. I am willing to bet that some carriers would have continued with the landing with some 5-6000ft still available ahead but in BA the rules are very clear - no landing in the touchdown zone and it is either a go-around or tea and biscuits.

I believe the same is true about achieving a stable approach by 1000ft. In fact rumour has it that a flight recently appeared in BA's monthly safety brief which wasn't stable by 1000ft and didn't go around. This particular flight was "only" stable by 950ft!!

[wiggy]

Fundamentally what Doors said.

I am lead to believe ;) the company involved have very little tolerance these days for either unstable approaches even slightly below 1000', and certainly not for long landings.

Other points - Autoland fault: not impossible I guess but unlikely given the weather was good. Given the number of landings per month these guys get there's a tendency grab manual landings if circumstances permit.

Dropping a wing if floating: Not a taught or approved method of saving a floater in BA AFAIK, in fact doing that on one of the big Boeings would very definitely result in being invited to office for a discussion about pod scrapes - not sure how vulnerable the 380 is to the same.

As far as the video is concerned I'd be wondering if there was training involved and and was Bloggs being given a bit of time to recognise the decision that had to be made, (and eventually was made) - but I don't know the actual answer.

[Doors to Automatic]

I also heard a rumour of an incident of a 319 landing on 27R at Heathrow (almost 10,000 ft still available beyond the touchdown zone) where it narrowly missed the last set of markers. This was still deemed an incident worthy of discussion even bearing in mind that the plane could comfortably stop three times over in the remaining space. The piece was allegedly full of reminders about timely touchdowns or a go-around. That is the level of safety that is drummed into crews over and over again at this airline. Contrast that with the way some Indonesian flights are operated (with the inevitable results) and I know who I would rather be flying with!

[+TSRA]

Transport Canada also made it "news" by including it in their Daily Occurrence Report.


No they didn't. An astray fart will be included into CADORS, so don't read into that as being news. They simply reported a go around.

[RAT 5]

Doors: I understand the philosophy behind the thinking, but IMHO 1000' and a calm severe clear day, long runway, is more than overly 'on the safe side'. Regarding the story quoted; a GA is made, minimum reserve full in the tanks, radar round SE England and now number 6 in sequence. Which is safer, land the thing or end up fretting? Is commander's discretion (common sense) so frowned upon? I suppose a strong minded captain could invoke deviation from an SOP in light of a flight safety issue: landing at 1500' on a 10,000' runway or be floating around the skies of London with only 40mins fuel. Just a bar-room discussion; nothing more.

[+TSRA]

but IMHO 1000' and a calm severe clear day, long runway, is more than overly 'on the safe side'. and I suppose a strong minded captain could invoke deviation from an SOP in light of a flight safety issue

When you're dealing with an airline you can't think like that. There has to be one rule and only one rule.

A single pilot on their own or a small company...sure make a rule for good weather and bad weather, but when you're dealing with a company where the pilot numbers start running into the high thousands, you have to keep it simple. Not every pilot is at the same experience level, so what is safe for pilot 1 may be unsafe for pilot 2. Better to err on the side of the lowest common denominator - even if that only applies to half a dozen of your pilots.