KLM AMS-MSP 4 go-arounds

[av8sean]

Sounds like a busy day. https://flightaware.com/live/flight/KLM655/history/20180701/0735Z/EHAM/KMSP

[DaveReidUK]

Not wishing to be picky, but it landed from the 4th approach, so 3 go-arounds. :O

[wiedehopf]

To at least make give some background to this non-event:

First go-around was runway 12R 16:38 UTC and landed 17:27 UTC.
Subsequent approaches to 30L.

First go-around due to the wind shifting to the tail the rest probably due to gusts and heavy rain.

Other flights diverted as is quite usual when there is heavy rain and strong gusts.
KLM had enough gas to stick around and give their passengers a wonderful ride.

Relevant METAR
201807011631 SPECI KMSP 011631Z 16008KT 2 1/2SM R30L/5000VP6000FT RA BR
OVC007 21/21 A2966 RMK AO2 CIG 004V013
P0007 T02110211=
201807011649 SPECI KMSP 011649Z 32026G37KT 3/4SM R30L/3000VP6000FT +RA
BR BKN007 BKN010 OVC018 18/18 A2967
RMK AO2 PK WND 28037/1644 P0015=
201807011653 METAR KMSP 011653Z 33021G37KT 1SM R30L/3000VP6000FT +RA BR
BKN007 BKN010 OVC029 18/17 A2967
RMK AO2 PK WND 28037/1644 SLP044
P0022 T01780172=
201807011700 SPECI KMSP 011700Z 32021G35KT 2SM R30L/4000VP6000FT +RA BR
SCT007 BKN010 OVC029 18/17 A2969
RMK AO2 PK WND 32035/1655 WSHFT 1642
PRESRR P0004 T01780172=
201807011716 SPECI KMSP 011716Z 33024G43KT 1 1/2SM R30L/3000VP6000FT +RA
BR BKN009 BKN023 OVC041 17/17 A2970
RMK AO2 PK WND 31043/1709 WSHFT 1642
P0015 T01720167=
201807011728 SPECI KMSP 011728Z 32025G36KT 4SM R30L/5500VP6000FT -RA BR
SCT009 BKN014 OVC023 17/17 A2970
RMK AO2 PK WND 31043/1709 WSHFT 1642
P0018 T01720167=

[The Ancient Geek]

Well done KLM.
Diversions are best avoided if possible, having a few hundred pax and their luggage a few hundred miles from their expected destination waiting around for buses to complete the journey by road is not a happy scene.
Many moons ago I was expecting to land at LHR after a long flight from JNB when the Nigel announced that LHR and LGW were both fogged in and he was diverting to London Prestwick (yes,thats what he called it). Hang around for 2 hours while they rounded up enough buses for a 743 load of people then 7 hours by road.
Some rather unpleasant scenes from the disgruntled masses and definitely not good PR for BA.

[DaveReidUK]

Many moons ago I was expecting to land at LHR after a long flight from JNB when the Nigel announced that LHR and LGW were both fogged in and he was diverting to London Prestwick (yes,thats what he called it). Hang around for 2 hours while they rounded up enough buses for a 743 load of people then 7 hours by road.
Some rather unpleasant scenes from the disgruntled masses and definitely not good PR for BA.

I expect that in those days, BA still had some staff who could remember the outcome of an attempt to land at LHR below limits.

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.gmforum.com-vbulletin/590x350/scotland_plane_613421_0228806f3eaeedba2d0ea8be7c0f9b4f82e847 02.jpg

[eckhard]

The unmistakeable cockpit fenestration of a Guard’s Van. I believe a combination of low vis, tiredness, poor attitude IF and lag in the VSI produced this sad result. Was it off the third approach?

[ehwatezedoing]

ah, MSP/KMSP as.... Minneapolis.
It sure sounds cool (or trying to look pro!?) Mentioning an airport just with its code.

/Sarcastic mode

[Hotel Tango]

OFF TOPIC:

ah, MSP/KMSP as.... Minneapolis.
It sure sounds cool (or trying to look pro!?) Mentioning an airport just with its code.

This is an aviation forum. Therefore, in my opinion, the use of official IATA/ICAO designators should be the norm. If one does not know the designator given, it only requires a few seconds on a well known search engine.

[cappt]

ah, MSP/KMSP as.... Minneapolis.
It sure sounds cool (or trying to look pro!?) Mentioning an airport just with its code.

/Sarcastic mode

Most anyone in the biz or at least with an interest would do the same, no? Not being pre-cleared through customs adds another level of diverting complexity to consider so if you have fuel you might as well stick around as long as you can. MSP has had some of the worst WX I can remember this spring/early summer. Add in 100% humidity with high temps and it has turned it into a sweltering jungle, bugs included. It's just incredible how the seasons change there. A few hundred miles north the Hudson bay is still partially covered with ice.

[MaximumPete]

Eckhard, Yes it was in October 1965 and on the go-around the Captain raised the flaps to 5 degrees or up and the co-pilot flying the monitored approach in accordance with standard operating procedures over-relied on the pressure instruments. The lag in the ASI and VSI caught him out. We used to fly monitored approaches on the V701 and it didn't even have a VSI on the F/Os side. It's a bit out of the ice age.



https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.gmforum.com-vbulletin/2000x1504/imgp0024_a1fdbe4c54b0fd7a9aa4d7b8c8c72278d0c2f9f9.jpg
Viscount 701 F/Os flight instruments

[cojones]

Also disorientation in the G/As The semicircular canals, during acceleration, gave a signal to the brain of a pitch up and the control column was instinctively moved forward to counteract the illusion. This is what I heard from the AAIB.
My Dad missed the flight from EDI and gave BEA ground staff such a bollocking. He could see the Vanguard at the gate and they told him he was too late to board. He felt rather sheepish.....and grateful..... the following morning.

[cojones]

Eeeeeeee, lad, you woz looky....looks like you had an RMI. I only 'ad an RBI !!

[The Ancient Geek]

Quote:Originally Posted by The Ancient Geek https://www.pprune.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/610663-klm-ams-msp-4-go-arounds.html#post10186592)Many moons ago I was expecting to land at LHR after a long flight from JNB when the Nigel announced that LHR and LGW were both fogged in and he was diverting to London Prestwick (yes,thats what he called it). Hang around for 2 hours while they rounded up enough buses for a 743 load of people then 7 hours by road.
Some rather unpleasant scenes from the disgruntled masses and definitely not good PR for BA.



I expect that in those days, BA still had some staff who could remember the outcome of an attempt to land at LHR below limits.

For the sake of clarity I was not suggesting that limits should have been busted, indeed I have always been a stickler for limits.
My point is that KLM should be congratulated on carrying enough fuel to avoid a diversion.
Regarding the historic Prestwick diversion it would probably have been a better idea to consider Cardiff or Birmingham, both within 2 hours of LHR by road or maybe Manchester at 3 hours. For some obscure reason BA have/had a propensity to dive for Prestwick as their preferred diversion at the cost of massive passenger inconvenience and in this case a total JNB-LHR journey time of just under 26 hours. Interestingly on that day SAA opted for Manchester, called ahead and had a fleet of buses waiting.

[pattern_is_full]

ah, MSP/KMSP as.... Minneapolis.
It sure sounds cool (or trying to look pro!?) Mentioning an airport just with its code.

/Sarcastic mode

And it IS one of the easier codes to figure out - Minneapolis/St. Paul (the Twin Cities, remember?) - better than, say, MCO/KMCO (Orlando International, formerly McCOy Air Force Base)

[P40Warhawk]

Well done KLM.
Diversions are best avoided if possible, having a few hundred pax and their luggage a few hundred miles from their expected destination waiting around for buses to complete the journey by road is not a happy scene.
Many moons ago I was expecting to land at LHR after a long flight from JNB when the Nigel announced that LHR and LGW were both fogged in and he was diverting to London Prestwick (yes,thats what he called it). Hang around for 2 hours while they rounded up enough buses for a 743 load of people then 7 hours by road.
Some rather unpleasant scenes from the disgruntled masses and definitely not good PR for BA.

What is worse? Bad PR because of diversion or due to a crash killing or injuring people? Good job to KLM Pilots.

[The Ancient Geek]

What is worse? Bad PR because of diversion or due to a crash killing or injuring people? Good job to KLM Pilots.

Please read what I wrote up there in #13.

[DaveReidUK]

For some obscure reason BA have/had a propensity to dive for Prestwick

When London is socked in, Manchester may or may not be, but Prestwick almost certainly isn't. It's not known as "the fog-free airport" for nothing.

[no nonsense]

Most airlines have a limited amount of go-around`s...as per procedure...
Spending fuel at destination is nice if you have enough but arriving at the alternate with something to spare is also nice
KLM`s fuel policy is on the numbers by the way

[ehwatezedoing]

And it IS one of the easier codes to figure out - Minneapolis/St. Paul (the Twin Cities, remember?) - better than, say, MCO/KMCO (Orlando International, formerly McCOy Air Force Base)
Says the guy in Denver :p

You will notice that I put two and two together wih AMS and KLM.
KLM is going into various countries in the world from Amsterdam and initial poster dropped the K on KMSP.

I’m aware about “say no to Kilo” But on an International aviation forum, not everything is necessary centered into US of A.



Kind off a stretch doing 3 missed approaches though.....

[B2N2]

You get paid to make a decision not to keep trying till it works.

[MaximumPete]

I think it might have been partly due to the Vanguard accident at Heathrow that a mandatory landing limit for RVR was introduced which raised my companies limits from 200m to 600m for Cat 1 ILS operation.

[Livesinafield]

Its common to only fly 2 approaches with go arounds and a third approach ONLY if there is significant improvement in the weather, this is in place because there is substantial evidence to suggest that the more approaches and go arounds you do the more likely there is for an accident to occur.

[Capt Ecureuil]

Well done KLM.
Diversions are best avoided if possible, having a few hundred pax and their luggage a few hundred miles from their expected destination waiting around for buses to complete the journey by road is not a happy scene.
Many moons ago I was expecting to land at LHR after a long flight from JNB when the Nigel announced that LHR and LGW were both fogged in and he was diverting to London Prestwick (yes,thats what he called it). Hang around for 2 hours while they rounded up enough buses for a 743 load of people then 7 hours by road.
Some rather unpleasant scenes from the disgruntled masses and definitely not good PR for BA.

[mischievous mode on] 743 passengers :ooh: or a 747-300? I suggest that you haven't got all your facts correct [mischievous mode off]

"London Prestwick" A reminder to not express wit or humour on a PA.

What were the landing limits of SAA? perhaps they made an earlier decision to divert.

How full was the ramp at MAN when the diversion to PWK was made?

Crew hours? Was the plan to fuel and go but the hours ran out?

All in all a pretty dumb post IMHO

[tescoapp]

Personally I have a bit of sympathy for their mental state after that length of flight.

They must have been knackard when they got on the ground. Hope it was a couple of days off afterwards not min rest.

[Doors to Automatic]

And it IS one of the easier codes to figure out - Minneapolis/St. Paul (the Twin Cities, remember?) - better than, say, MCO/KMCO (Orlando International, formerly McCOy Air Force Base)

Or Indeed Chicago O'Hare (ORD), formally ORcharD Field.

[DaveReidUK]

[mischievous mode on] 743 passengers :ooh: or a 747-300? I suggest that you haven't got all your facts correct [mischievous mode off]


Come to think of it, BA (the airline in question) never operated 747-300s, did they ?

[The Ancient Geek]

Hmmm - now I am having doubts, It was definitely before the -400 series and the aircraft in question was an oddball with all of the passenger labeling such as seat instructions in Chinese/Japanese script which means that it was either on lease or bought secondhand. It might well have been a -200, memories of the 1980s tend to be a tad vague. I have memories of looking out of the terminal windows at Smuts before boarding and noticing a long top deck which would suggest a -300 but I could very well be confused.
Was there a -200 with the stretched upper deck ?.

[Capn Bloggs]

Capt Ecureuil[/color] (https://www.pprune.org/members/320489-capt-ecureuil)]All in all a pretty dumb post IMHO
That's a bit harsh. Geek's post made perfect sense to me...

[slast]

I think it might have been partly due to the Vanguard accident at Heathrow that a mandatory landing limit for RVR was introduced which raised my companies limits from 200m to 600m for Cat 1 ILS operation.

Although it's not really relevant to the issues of conducting multiple go-arounds especially in dynamic changing wind conditions, for those interested, attached is a summary report of the Vanguard accident.

There's also a summary of the history of changes to operating minima at How Operating Minima developed. | PicMA (http://www.picma.info/?q=content/how-operating-minima-developed)

At the time of this accident the concept of Decision Height had not been developed. One post implies that this approach was "busting limits" but that was not the case, and it did lead to a general increase in ILS Cat 1 minima from 350 to 600m.
As a personal opinion I did fly the Vanguard for a brief period as a newly qualified Captain. The combination of flight instruments and low altitude flying qualities was horrible and were certainly the major elements in causing this accident. The Smiths Flight System SFS2 had an awful attitude display which IIRC had a very small movement for pitch change with a variable horizontal datum, and when combined with the lags in the pressure instruments produced a monumentally confusing mental picture of what was happening.

Incidentally AG, re your PWK diversion, I believe there were some -200s with a stretched upper deck including JAL. Quite why one would have been operating a JNB-LHR sector for BA I have no idea!

[NWA SLF]

I'm sure they would have left with extra fuel due to the terrible weather we have been having lately and Sunday's forecast. It was bad across the state Sunday, probably the reason the flight deviated a long way east before heading straight west into MSP. We in the north were having a miserable stormy day. A problem MSP has is availability of other airports that can handle a loaded A330 through immigration. Usually they end up diverting to ORD which means an additional hour's fuel. A couple weeks ago I saw Delta flight from London divert to Detroit while an Icelandair flight divert to O'Hare, both after spending more than a half hour circling MSP.

[wiggy]

I don’t go back as far as the early 747 days at BA but AFAIK it was 747-100’s, 200’s (the “Classics” ) and then latterly the -400’s. ..never any -300’s.

No stretched upper decks on the BA Classics.

Asian script? There was a - 400 with “ British Asia Airways” (?) external paint work (Far East politics and routes issue) but don’t recall much if anything different about the interior decor verses the rest of the Fleet.

[Airbubba]

Was there a -200 with the stretched upper deck ?.

There was indeed a B-747-200 SUD (Stretched Upper Deck) variant operated by KLM, and perhaps later by Corsair (or was it UTA?).

Boeing 747-206BM(SUD) - KLM - Royal Dutch Airlines Aviation Photo #0514462 Airliners.net (http://www.airliners.net/photo/KLM-Royal-Dutch-Airlines/Boeing-747-206BM-SUD/514462)

JAL operated a B-747-100SR SUD

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:JA8170_B747-146SR_SUD_JAL_Japan_Airlines_HND_23MAY03_(8473400794).jpg

These -200 SUD's were all conversions and led to the production B-747-300's with the similar upper deck. Seems like Singapore Airlines used to run a print advertisement about how if you could discern the differences in the pictured B-747-300 instrument panel, they wanted you to apply for a DEC position. I couldn't tell the difference, so I didn't apply. ;)

As far as I know, the B-747-300 was never operated in pax service by U.S. carriers (possibly due to lack of an evac demo) but I'm thinking I've seen one in freighter livery somewhere.

[tdracer]

There was indeed a B-747-200 SUD (Stretched Upper Deck) variant operated by KLM, and perhaps later by Corsair (or was it UTA?).
Those were retrofits - once the engineering was done for the 747-300, Boeing made the offer to retrofit the -300 stretched upper deck to the -1/200. Set up a special line in the Everett factory to do it.
IIRC, KLM was the only customer to get it (although those aircraft may well have eventually ended up at other operators), zero recollection of the JAL airplane linked above. Memory says they did 20 aircraft, but don't quote me on that.

[DaveReidUK]

I believe there were ten 747-200 SUD variants built/converted - 8 with KLM and 2 with Air France. Most of them subsequently went to other operators.

[The Ancient Geek]

It seems like the pedants of pprune have shown that this oldphart has confused some 40 year old memories.
Perhaps a few senior moments are not a great surprise at 3 score and 13. It is entirely possible that I have conflated some of many JNB-LHR flights into a single "memory". Some of these flights were BA, some SAA and later KLM to Bristol via Schipol to avoid the mess that is LHR, ending up very close to home.

[Airbubba]

I believe there were ten 747-200 SUD variants built/converted - 8 with KLM and 2 with Air France. Most of them subsequently went to other operators.

And I think the Air France SUD's were originally delivered to UTA (as was the first B-747-300):

https://www.planespotters.net/airframe/Boeing/747/F-BTDG-Air-France/3DALFdk4

https://www.planespotters.net/airframe/Boeing/747/F-BTDH-Air-France/79qDfDYy

zero recollection of the JAL airplane linked above.

The two JAL -100 SUD's were late models of the -100 series apparently converted in production prior to initial delivery.