Question around Go-arounds

[curiouspassenger]

Hi,

Might be nothing but i'm in the air a lot and never seen this before. I've spent the last few hours googling as I was really interested in what goes on behind the scenes.

Tonight my flight from CPH -> EDI had a go around: Easyjet U26984 / EZY78QL

This appeared due to the cabin crew not getting anything ready a summary of my experience i emailled to easyjet head office:

The cabin crew received a "ten minutes to landing" message over the tannoy from the captain.
No seatbelt light came on, which i thought was strange
Coming over Livingston deep into the descent a panicked stewardess came on the tannoy and sped through the fasten seatbelt for landing announcement
They ran around the cabin, checking - by this time we were getting very close to runway
Around the same time they sat in their own seats the plan hit full power , began accelerating and turned north to the Firth of Forth.
Captain came on and stated they had to go-around due to the cabin not being secure, stated it was standard procedure and we'd re join the queue




I'm not in the aviation industry, simply a passenger.

Just wanted to know:

Was i in any additional risk?
Does this happen often?
Is this as unprofessional as it looks from the outside?

[AerocatS2A]

You weren’t in any additional risk.
It doesn’t happen often.
Mistakes happen. Unprofessional would be continuing the landing with an unsecured cabin.

[Harry Wayfarers]

I'm of the impression that it is the flight deck that switch the 'seat belt' sign on that is above their heads and the cabin crew react as obeyed from up front.

[Blackfriar]

You weren’t in any additional risk.
It doesn’t happen often.
Mistakes happen. Unprofessional would be continuing the landing with an unsecured cabin.

You've not flown on Iberia then. Took off from Madrid with cabin crew walking up the aisles. I thought it very unprofessional.

[PAXboy]

Downright dangerous. If there was a high speed RTO?? Who would pay the insurance claim? Further, if the CC were not just thrown down by such an event but thrown onto pax who also experienced injury?
Terrible lack of discipline and common sense..

[OvertHawk]

You can be certain that EZY will take this very seriously and that it will be fully investigated (not just because of the cost associated with the GA)

They may be a LoCo operator but they have a very proactive safety system staffed by good people.

If mistakes were made then they will be shared and learned from.

And no - I do not work for them and never have, but I do know what I'm talking about on this subject.

As earlier poster mentioned - no increased risk to the pax since the approach was abandoned.

Not unprofessional - not everything works perfectly all the time. What would have been unprofessional would have been to land with an unsecured cabin.

OH

[pax britanica]

I was flying to Sri Lanka in January-normal flight normal pre landing checks- for whatever reason once we were down on all three landing gears the plane (A330-300) decelerated incredibly rapidly -most radically in 40 years of intense pax travel and a real shock and reminder about why seat belts were there-anyone standing in the aisle would have been flung forward with frightening force . A lot of passengers commented on it as we were disembarking and I am sure there was a good reason for it but the most common sentiment was my god I will never forget to fasten and check seat belt again or flip it open when the wheels touch.

I also thought it a graphic demonstration of how much braking effort is built into a modern airliner very impressive after the shock had worn off , and believe me it was a shock .

[kit344]

I'm of the impression that it is the flight deck that switch the 'seat belt' sign on that is above their heads and the cabin crew react as obeyed from up front.

Does the flight deck or cabin crew operate the seat belt warnings ?

Is there an option for either to do it ?

Does it vary according to aircraft type or carrier ?

[Cymmon]

Both, yes and no.... :-)

[kit344]

Thanks, I searched for a bit more on this https://www.pprune.org/cabin-crew/336297-captain-has-switched-fasten-seat-belt-sign-feel-free-ignore.html

So either cc or fd CAN operate the seat belt warnings, but who Usually does it ? It appears to be part of the pre landing check list.

[Atlas Shrugged]

Oh goodie.... another go around thread!

It's a normal aviation event. A go around is carried out because the option to continue would have resulted in something undesirable. They are always the safest choice. They are not dangerous. They are not reportable.

[S.o.S.]

Hello curiouspassenger and welcome to the 'cabin' of PPRuNe. Yes, Go Arounds are a standard part of airline life but one of the reasons this PPRuNe forum exists is to answer old questions for the first time! Some of us have been travelling for many decades and never experienced one, others have had them very early on in their passenger life. Please stay around to contribute more as it is only very occasionally that I put on the Seat Belt sign. :cool:

To make it clear - we do not criticise posters (especially new ones) for asking perfectly reasonable questions.

[Harry Wayfarers]

My understanding, based on personal observations and knowledge, is that at the appropriate point of a flight as part of their pre-landing checks, the flight crew would activate the 'seat belt' sign, the cabin crew would then make a PA to the effect of seats to the upright position, tray tables up, seat belts on etc. and do a walk-round or two checking that all pax have done as instructed before informing the flight crew, to the effect, "cabin secure" or as one Australian purser I knew would joke "set to jet", and unless the flight crew have received that feedback from the cabin crew then their pre-landing checks are not complete and they, as it seemed they did on this occasion, perform a go around.

Why no 'seat belt' sign came on, that is a mystery!

[Pax Mancunia]

Reminds me of a Hemus Air Tu134 from London to Plovdiv, last minute change of charter after Balkan Bulgarian went pop.

Captain Gregoriev wasn't a man for hanging around and hit the throttle while the cabin crew were still checking seatbelts. Result - a heap of ladies at the rear of the cabin!

Shouldn't laugh but what else can you do?

[strake]

In the mid 90's, for six months I was required to fly Alitalia a couple of times a week. For some reason, the cabin crew always seemed to be male (and lots of them), wearing well-cut uniforms with peaked caps, gold bars, wings and stripes everywhere. There was a definite relaxed macho attitude prevailing throughout the flights which appeared to often extend to optional or very, very last-minute seating for landing. I often imagined two or three of them hurtling towards the rear should the thrust levers be pushed forwards at the last minute...:E

[419]

Oh goodie.... another go around thread!

It's a normal aviation event. A go around is carried out because the option to continue would have resulted in something undesirable. They are always the safest choice. They are not dangerous. They are not reportable.

Surely whether or not it is a reportable occurrence depends on the reason for the GA.

A few years ago I was on a flight that was landing in St Lucia, a route that I had flown on about 50 times previously so I knew when to expect the landing gear to descend. (and as I'm normally in the front row of WT, it's extremely clear to hear when the gear is lowered or raised).
On this occasion, the aircraft was approaching the field and had gone well past the point that the gear was normally dropped and this hadn't happened. Then when the aircraft wasn't too far from the end of the runway, a go around was performed.
On the second approach, the landing gear was lowered where I would normally have expected it and the captain or co-pilot gave an announcement stating that the reason for the go around was due to a misconfiguration of the aircraft but he didn't go into any more detail.

I would have expected that this go around would have definitely been a reportable occurrence.

I know that with all of the automated warnings on modern aircraft that it's hard to believe this happened, but what I stated is exactly what occurred.

[ShyTorque]

Better to have gone around and wished you'd landed than to have landed and wished you'd gone around.

[Harry Wayfarers]

Surely whether or not it is a reportable occurrence depends on the reason for the GA.

A few years ago I was on a flight that was landing in St Lucia, a route that I had flown on about 50 times previously so I knew when to expect the landing gear to descend. (and as I'm normally in the front row of WT, it's extremely clear to hear when the gear is lowered or raised).
On this occasion, the aircraft was approaching the field and had gone well past the point that the gear was normally dropped and this hadn't happened. Then when the aircraft wasn't too far from the end of the runway, a go around was performed.
On the second approach, the landing gear was lowered where I would normally have expected it and the captain or co-pilot gave an announcement stating that the reason for the go around was due to a misconfiguration of the aircraft but he didn't go into any more detail.

I would have expected that this go around would have definitely been a reportable occurrence.

I know that with all of the automated warnings on modern aircraft that it's hard to believe this happened, but what I stated is exactly what occurred.


Why would that GA be a reportable occurrence? ... There was a reason why the aircraft couldn't land, the crew took appropriate action and at no time were the passengers in any danger!

[easyflyer83]

All GA’s are reported via an ASR.

[DaveReidUK]

Every approach is treated as a potential go-around and briefed as such.

GAs happen for a whole bunch of possible reasons, very few of which satisfy the ICAO definition of a Reportable Incident.

[OhNoCB]

All GA’s are reported via an ASR.

That depends on the carrier. They were only reportable if executed below 1000' in my previous company and they are only voluntarily reportable in my current one (unless for a couple of MOR related reasons)

[419]

Why would that GA be a reportable occurrence? ... There was a reason why the aircraft couldn't land, the crew took appropriate action and at no time were the passengers in any danger!

I know that there was no danger to the aircraft but surely if the aircraft had passed the point at which the gear was normally lowered and was then unable to land because of this, an error must have been made by the crew, hence my reason for thinking that a report should have been raised to highlight the error.

[rudestuff]

surely if the aircraft had passed the point at which the gear was normally lowered and was then unable to land because of this, an error must have been made by the crew
ATC commanded go around, not visual at DA? Are these crew errors?

[DaveReidUK]

ATC commanded go around, not visual at DA? Are these crew errors?

Clearly not. Nor are they anything to do with not being able to land because the gear hasn't been lowered, either.

[S.o.S.]

Thank you A320ECAM and welcome to the 'cabin'. On some flight deck videos I have seen a 'Cabin Ready' signal appear on the man display, rather than a phone call. Unfortunately, I cannot recall what the type was.

[Antonio Montana]

Surely whether or not it is a reportable occurrence depends on the reason for the GA.

A few years ago I was on a flight that was landing in St Lucia, a route that I had flown on about 50 times previously so I knew when to expect the landing gear to descend. (and as I'm normally in the front row of WT, it's extremely clear to hear when the gear is lowered or raised).
On this occasion, the aircraft was approaching the field and had gone well past the point that the gear was normally dropped and this hadn't happened. Then when the aircraft wasn't too far from the end of the runway, a go around was performed.
On the second approach, the landing gear was lowered where I would normally have expected it and the captain or co-pilot gave an announcement stating that the reason for the go around was due to a misconfiguration of the aircraft but he didn't go into any more detail.

I would have expected that this go around would have definitely been a reportable occurrence.

I know that with all of the automated warnings on modern aircraft that it's hard to believe this happened, but what I stated is exactly what occurred.


With the greatest of respect 419,
How do you know it was not reported?
You were not in the flight deck, your perception of the normal time the landing gear is extended could be wrong?
It was a non event, you landed safely.
Who is to say that there was not a problem dropping the landing gear?
Just a thought.

[419]

With the greatest of respect 419,
How do you know it was not reported?
You were not in the flight deck, your perception of the normal time the landing gear is extended could be wrong?
It was a non event, you landed safely.
Who is to say that there was not a problem dropping the landing gear?
Just a thought.

I have no idea if it was reported or not. I was simply giving my opinion to the comment stating that they are not reported:
A go around is carried out because the option to continue would have resulted in something undesirable. They are always the safest choice. They are not dangerous. They are not reportable.
Correct, I wasn't in the flight deck but after going into St Lucia on 50+ occasions at the time (now well over 100 times), I can generally estimate at what part of the approach the gear will be lowered and on the flight in question, I know for a fact that when the GA was initiated, the aircraft gear was still up despite the aircraft being far closer to the end of the runway than is normally the case.
If as you say, there may have been a problem with the dropping the landing gear then surely this just confirms my earlier comment of:
Surely whether or not it is a reportable occurrence depends on the reason for the GA.

[Harry Wayfarers]

I know that there was no danger to the aircraft but surely if the aircraft had passed the point at which the gear was normally lowered and was then unable to land because of this, an error must have been made by the crew, hence my reason for thinking that a report should have been raised to highlight the error.

You presume that the aircraft went around because the crew forgot to lower the gear.

It is called a 'go around' for a very apt reason, that it involves going around, normally maintaining runway heading before a circuit to land, so the fact that the crew continued in the direction of the landing runway would be normal procedure, they can hardly break off the approach and do a 180 when it is likely that other aircraft are on the approach also.

[DaveReidUK]

You presume that the aircraft went around because the crew forgot to lower the gear.

It is called a 'go around' for a very apt reason, that it involves going around, normally maintaining runway heading before a circuit to land, so the fact that the crew continued in the direction of the landing runway would be normal procedure, they can hardly break off the approach and do a 180 when it is likely that other aircraft are on the approach also.

Interesting.

The previous poster is suggesting that the aircraft continued the approach well after the point where the gear would typically be lowered (but wasn't), and then a GA was initiated just short of the threshold.

In other words, having omitted to drop the wheels the crew subsequently decided (or were instructed) not to land in the absence of 3 greens.

Or maybe it was just a coincidence ?

[Harry Wayfarers]

Interesting.

The previous poster is suggesting that the aircraft continued the approach well after the point where the gear would typically be lowered (but wasn't), and then a GA was initiated just short of the threshold.

In other words, having omitted to drop the wheels the crew subsequently decided (or were instructed) not to land in the absence of 3 greens.

Or maybe it was just a coincidence ?

Or perhaps there was another reason why, before the point where the gear is normally lowered, the crew had already realised that they needed to go around, in my experience it is SOP to only lower the gear when the intention is to land.

[ExSp33db1rd]

........... to only lower the gear when the intention is to land.

Precisely. I have experienced exactly that situation. Approaching an airport., all normal at that stage, the Approach Checks were commanded which at that stage included the first stage of flap extension, but although that happened the associated leading edge flaps did not extend. The co-pilot was handling so I told him to continue with the approach, which included intercepting the final approach path whilst the F/Eng. and self went through checks to ascertain the L/edge problem. Although we were getting closer to the airfield I did not extend the gear and was prepared to go around if necessary. To have extended the gear would have been contrary to the normal check list sequence, for a start the Landing Check, which included the gear, had not been asked for as we had not completed all the checks prior to the Landing Check, and to have lowered the gear would have meant carrying out a check list item -t he gear - out of sequence, with the possibility of missing something important that might have been necessary prior to gear extension, e.g. do not interrupt the check list sequence, or if you have for some reason, then start again at the beginning. QED.

[DaveReidUK]

Precisely. I have experienced exactly that situation. Approaching an airport., all normal at that stage, the Approach Checks were commanded which at that stage included the first stage of flap extension, but although that happened the associated leading edge flaps did not extend. The co-pilot was handling so I told him to continue with the approach, which included intercepting the final approach path whilst the F/Eng. and self went through checks to ascertain the L/edge problem. Although we were getting closer to the airfield I did not extend the gear and was prepared to go around if necessary. To have extended the gear would have been contrary to the normal check list sequence, for a start the Landing Check, which included the gear, had not been asked for as we had not completed all the checks prior to the Landing Check, and to have lowered the gear would have meant carrying out a check list item -t he gear - out of sequence, with the possibility of missing something important that might have been necessary prior to gear extension, e.g. do not interrupt the check list sequence, or if you have for some reason, then start again at the beginning. QED.

Interesting scenario.

I did not extend the gear and was prepared to go around if necessary

Forgive me asking (just curious) - did you go around, or was there ultimately no necessity ?

[ExSp33db1rd]

Yes, USA Honolulu, Hawaii, airport, and ATC subsequently "reported" that we had ignored two advisory calls, No Gear, Go Around until the 3rd call. No one subsequently recalled hearing ATC order a Go Around, so was that just ATC indulging in "knocking" a British Airline, as had happened to me once before at JFK, or were we too pre-occupied with trying to correct the flap problem to enable us to continue to land ? (shades of the accident into the Everglades when the crew were too pre-occupied in sorting out a failed nose gear green confirmatory gear extended - or not - light ? )

In any event, long before any need to alarm the Tower with a gearless approach, I instructed the co-pilot, an experienced Captain returning to flying after a medical issue, to execute the go around, and with application of go around power the leading edge flaps extended - a clue there somewhere?

We advised the Tower that our problem was solved and got vectors back for a successful second, visual, approach. The issue of the supposed ATC warnings only came to light at The Subsequent Court of Enquiry by the company, during which our actions were not exactly congratulated, but at least approved.