PDA

View Full Version : Concorde Go-Around


Ops6
30th Jul 2003, 00:26
Anyone hear about a Concorde go-around on Sunday at EGLL? Just out of interest as apparently it was quite a show........

:ok:

Globaliser
30th Jul 2003, 00:36
Funnily enough, I happened to see her from a pub by the river in Wapping, at about 1735. If I'd known she was going to come past again ...

NigelOnDraft
30th Jul 2003, 00:46
I operated with some of the Cabin Crew yesterday...

Gist of it was - Olympic failed to clear in time, Concorde went around from ~400'. Had come from BGI, so even shorter of fuel than usual (?). Mutterings about some further (minor?) problem meant they / ATC got it on the ground fairly quickly....

The Cabin Crew gave more details than I've given above, but am in no position to verify these, so will leave it at that!

NoD

WMD
30th Jul 2003, 02:35
Called a 'Mayday' I believe on the go-around due fuel!

So rumour has it......

:)

Hand Solo
30th Jul 2003, 06:27
Are you sure it was Sunday? I thought the BGI operated on a Saturday, which would tie in with a definite Concorde go-around on Saturday night when 09R was in use for landing. That was just one of a number of go-arounds due to a blocked runway that evening, and at least two of them declared emergencies due to low fuel after the go-around.

56P
30th Jul 2003, 11:25
Pardon my ignorance - where is BGI ?
Thanks in advance.

Kiwidan
30th Jul 2003, 12:05
The Airport at Barbados Adams is represented by airport code BGI
Barbados Adams is located in Barbados.

regards
Danny

millerscourt
30th Jul 2003, 14:07
Anyone know what fuel would be consumed in a Concorde go around with a reasonably tight circuit back to land???

Dude~
30th Jul 2003, 16:52
Well I once read that each minute of extra flight in Concorde beyond its scheduled flight time costs 1000 (!!)

Carduelis
30th Jul 2003, 16:59
From Airliners.net

I think this knowlegeable response by 'Atco' should help!

RE: Heathrow Go- Arounds
Username: Atco
From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2001, 119 posts, RR: 51
Reply: 8
Posted Tue Jul 29 2003 12:04:59 UTC+1 and read 578 times:

I can shed some light on the situation on Saturday as I was at work in the Terminal Control ops room.

The day started on Westerlies, however as the wind changed Easterly ops became necessary.
That normally means 09L landing and 09R departing. As 09R is not used as the landing runway during normal ops it is not configured as such.

Due to the construction of T5 and the associated infrastructure, there are now large cranes under the 09L approach building the M25 link road, and this meant that 09L did not provide adequate obstacle clearance for arrivals and it was decided that 09L would be departing runway and 09R the arrival runway.

This caused numerous problems as 09R does not have lead off lights from the runway onto the taxiways, and planes simply stopped on the runway unsure of where to vacate. Compounding this probelm was that work in progress meant Block 85 could not be used to vacate the runway, which was where many aircraft were coming to a stop. Even with 6 mile spacing there were inevitably some go-arounds. Even Concorde went around, and then declared a mayday at 10dme on its second approach. Of course it landed without incident, but the delays, combined with a bit of weather avoidance created an interesting day all round.

Regards

Garry

GT3
30th Jul 2003, 18:39
I was the one who sent the bird around. A combination of events led to the olympic being unable to vacate at his chosen turn Blk 85. The pilot tried his best to make 86 in time however with the poor weather and the speed of concorde on the approach the go-around became inevitable.

Sounded and looked good from the tower.

If anyone knows the pilots of the conc on saturday put them in touch as i owe them a beer!

Wubble U
30th Jul 2003, 19:04
Was it you that sent the BAW13L around as well? If so, can I have a beer? Or at least a dry cleaning voucher for my underpants? Bill it to the Iberia who didn't vacate in time.;)

GT3
30th Jul 2003, 19:20
Yes mate it was! You were one of 5 in about an hour that i sent around.

Beers are available!

Basil
30th Jul 2003, 19:32
Don't forget: a go-around is a perfectly normal flight manoeuvre (unless, of course, you're a bit short of gas :O )

Hilico
30th Jul 2003, 19:35
Is this where we start arguing about there being no such thing as a 'fuel emergency'? In the UK at least?

Taildragger67
30th Jul 2003, 19:38
The 'Airport' show on UK Horizons TV channel once had a bit from LHR tower where they sent Conc around off 27L when someone (I think an MS A340?) didn't get off in time... Think it was the same episode they got Tony B. away in a nice grey VC10.

david viewing
30th Jul 2003, 19:56
Could someone advise on what I have seen described (In the US) as a "snowstorm of paperwork" following a declaration of emergency? ( Carduelis: I presume Concorde declared an emergency, rather than actually calling Mayday, which I would have expected to see on News at Ten?)

It crossed my mind recently when delivering my Warrior to maintenance with minimum fuel (a field with a lot of uses where runway obstruction is not impossible) - I had sufficient fuel for return to base, but only just.

I think a lot of GA pilots would stop short of telling the truth about their fuel position for fear of the consequences and of course there is the recent case in the US of a pilot running out of fuel after a flight plan dispute.

Human Factor
30th Jul 2003, 20:12
In the UK, declaring an emergency means either a Mayday or Pan call. Anything else and ATC are perfectly at liberty to ignore you.

Within Big Airways, there is a requirement to declare a Pan if you think you are likely to land with less than minimum fuel, or a Mayday if you are certain that this will be the case.

As far as paperwork goes, from a flight crew point of view, you are required to file an MOR (or company equivalent) and hand in the flight documents (PLOG, loadsheet, etc.).

WHBM
30th Jul 2003, 20:44
Due to the construction of T5 and the associated infrastructure, there are now large cranes under the 09L approach building the M25 link road, and this meant that 09L did not provide adequate obstacle clearance for arrivals and it was decided that 09L would be departing runway and 09R the arrival runway.

This caused numerous problems...

I really cannot believe that construction equipment, engaged on, of all things, a project paid for by BAA, has been allowed to compromise the approach path. I sem to recall that 09L is used for LHR landings about 25% of the time. And speaking from the construction industry world, tower cranes are a convenience on a project, but not a necessity. It is perfectly possible to use alternative techniques. Hope BAA haven't just gone for the cheapest method.

Gonzo
30th Jul 2003, 20:57
The trick is to only allow the cranes to be erected when it's certain that we're going to be on westerlies! :ooh:

PAXboy
30th Jul 2003, 23:20
GT3 "... and the speed of concorde on the approach the go-around became inevitable.

Sounded and looked good from the tower."

So, with only 3.5 months to go to the end of operations, you just HAD to see her displayed beautifully from your vantage point. It's OK, you can admit it in the privacy of PPRuNe, we won't mind - just as long as you had the cameras running. ;)

gordonroxburgh
31st Jul 2003, 00:04
The cranes at the end of 09L was a one off for that weekend only , and was to allow them to lift the girders up for the new M25 Spur road bridge

The main construction works are between the runways, so have very little impact on approach paths.

The wind only swung round late on Saturday evening for a few hours overnight, I guess they simply got unlucky

Xeque
31st Jul 2003, 00:34
Guys, if anyone in the tower did get a picture of the Concorde go-round please publish it here. There are not too many photo ops left.:bored:

digidave
31st Jul 2003, 05:19
I have to agree with Xeque. I was at Fifield this evening and watched and recorded Concorde at 19:00(ish) but I've got a [email protected] camera!

I used to watch the prototype do circuits and bumps - I'd never seen a wing beat on an aeroplane before.

I'm never going to fly in her. :{

Sorry, got carried away

dd

Pie Man
31st Jul 2003, 05:29
Hilico,

<<Is this where we start arguing about there being no such thing as a 'fuel emergency'? In the UK at least?>>

Is that because Lightnings only fly in South Africa? :D :D :ok:

Regards

Pie

Hilico
31st Jul 2003, 14:58
Let's be fair, Pie Man - at least Concorde doesn't take off in a fuel emergency state.

frangatang
31st Jul 2003, 15:16
On a slightly different noise note, can any ATC tell me why ,on
numerous occasions the yanks ie. AA and united get away with using more than reverse idle when landing at lhr. Singapore
airlines are also guilty and before anyone mentions weather conditions l have noted these violations on dry benign days

Final 3 Greens
31st Jul 2003, 15:16
Hilico

Conc brings it's own dimension to 'fuel emergencies', since it does not use fuel as merely a energy source - wondering whether it was trim that caused the potential prob?

frangatang
31st Jul 2003, 15:20
Perhaps the captain should ring up brian walpole OBE
(over bovingdon empty) to fill in the ASR!

GK430
31st Jul 2003, 15:21
Would one correctly assume then that all departures that day, when the westerly breeze was still blowing, were off 27L due to the obst. limitations in the 09L undershoot?

NigelOnDraft
1st Aug 2003, 00:29
<<On a slightly different noise note, can any ATC tell me why ,on
numerous occasions the yanks ie. AA and united get away with using more than reverse idle when landing at lhr. Singapore
airlines are also guilty and before anyone mentions weather conditions l have noted these violations on dry benign days>>

Errr.... and why shouldn't they...??

And sorry - your profile does not give enough information as to why you are qualified to tell widebody Captains how to fly their aircraft??

NoD

Gonzo
1st Aug 2003, 01:35
NoD,

Think maybe he's getting confused with the bit in the AIP which says something like 'min reverse thrust comensurate with safety before 0600 local' if my memory serves me right.

Frangtang,

I want all a/c off my runway ASAP, unless I've told them to roll a bit. That's in the AIP as well.

Point Seven
1st Aug 2003, 01:37
Unlike GT3 who, it would seem, doesn't want them on his at all. :p

P7

Gonzo
1st Aug 2003, 02:20
He's just being kind to GMC, P7!!!!

NigelOnDraft
1st Aug 2003, 05:01
Gonzo...

<<I want all a/c off my runway ASAP>>
You might - but our company prefers us to find one of the hard bits to use - they tend to get a bit shirty when they need to pick the grass out of the u/c...

NoD

PS <<'min reverse thrust comensurate with safety before 0600 local' >>
As you say - lots of airfields have this - the "safety" word of course is the ultimate cop out. There is one major in Europe I believe, that during the quiet hours, say this must be backed up with a "report" - this is more effective - pilot filling in paperwork?! I think not...

GT3
1st Aug 2003, 07:58
So, with only 3.5 months to go to the end of operations, you just HAD to see her displayed beautifully from your vantage point. It's OK, you can admit it in the privacy of PPRuNe, we won't mind - just as long as you had the cameras running.

Do you know me???;)

Gonzo
1st Aug 2003, 12:14
NoD,

they tend to get a bit shirty when they need to pick the grass out of the u/c...


Rather unreasonable!:p

Fright Level
2nd Aug 2003, 13:05
Do you know me???

TSN sig gives it away mate.

NigelOnDraft
2nd Aug 2003, 15:46
Visual...

<<Please tell me you don't actually believe people's profiles>>
Of course not... and that part of my comment was slightly tic! It just added a bit to my comment that the individual is almost certainly unqualified to tell people how to fly their aircraft in general, let alone in specific incidents...

NoD

RRAAMJET
3rd Aug 2003, 03:49
Nige....couldn't agree more mate....back-seat ground-bound drivers - rrrrr. (And we're fully aware of when to use rev. idle - ie; whenever we can, 'cos frequently the wheelbrakes on the 777 are so effective, and the wing is so good, that the Trent has little time to spool up to any significant rev. epr before the 100-80-60 kt calls, where wheel-braking becomes more efficient. Brake wear is currently cheaper than fuel and rev. wear-and-tear. We're also very aware of the need to clear the rwy expeditiously....Frang - you think the rwys in the US aren't busy enough? Odd posting you put out earlier...):suspect:

tarbaby
4th Aug 2003, 03:59
Conc has certainly had grass in the u/c. In the late 70s I was at Fairford seeing a friend who was CO there. He was most peeved. The Conc pilot under training had misjudged a turn onto the runway and put the nosewheel into the grass. The CO showed me a curving trench about 30' long and about 2' deep. He was p****d off because of all the crap that had been deposited on the runway and wondered at the professionalism of the training captain who allowed the take-off to continue.

atakacs
4th Aug 2003, 05:02
Just reminds me being in Marakech where AF was doing it's Concorde training.

Spent an entire day watching various touch & go, go-arounds and even 3-engine take offs.

Was merly a teen but one of the best day in my liffe !

:O

GT3
4th Aug 2003, 21:37
TSN sig gives it away mate.

:eek:

frangatang
4th Aug 2003, 23:13
Nigel on Draft

Judging by your name you work for Ba in which case you might have noticed that BA dont normally use in excess of reverse idle,
as has been requested by the authorities,so how is it some others make a racket when they feel like it and that applies before 6 am local as well.

NigelOnDraft
5th Aug 2003, 23:47
<<Judging by your name you work for Ba in which case you might have noticed that BA dont normally use in excess of reverse idle>>
I do, and no we don't... However, there is the well known saying "Dont' s**t on your own doorstep!".

We know LHR well, even when tired. We know well where xyz autobrake will stop us, and we have company SOPs re more than idle reverse (i.e. try not to).

Elsewhere, when tired / less familiar (and we can be talking local knowledge like slippery areas rumoured at BHX, CGN etc.), I might be more likely to tend towards full reverse. So same with "visitors" to LHR... I suspect these visitors are also tense about reams of notes about minimum runway occupancy etc., and full reverse might help you get a better choice of runway exits...

<<as has been requested by the authorities>>
In fact, the wording is now used at nearly all airports, so the impact is lost somewhat...

Finally, it gets very un-PC to "push" non-use of Reverse Thrust. Qantas @ BKK saw to that! So airlines and maybe even airports are wary about over enforcement...

NoD