Go-Around Query
Couldonlyaffordafiver
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The Twilight Zone near 30W
Posts: 1,934
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Go-Around Query
Firstly, I want to make very clear this is simply a query regarding procedures and not a criticism of anyone's actions.
I was recently on finals to a large airport in the UK (the one with the "emergency runway"
) after prolonged holding due to them changing from the "emergency runway" with an SRA/visual to the the main runway with the ILS, we found ourselves on finals, having followed our company's fuel policy with not a lot of fuel (committed) but sufficient.
The aircraft behind us (UK operator) stated that "in the event of a missed approach, we will be declaring a Mayday", although at that point he had not declared either a Mayday or a Pan. I would probably have done the same thing in the same position. Generally speaking, UK operators approved fuel policy means that if you think you may land with less than reserves, you must declare a Pan. If you think you will land with less than reserves, you must declare a Mayday. It is perfectly possible to go straight to the Mayday stage without having gone through the Pan stage.
Anyway, despite the aircraft behind not actually being on either a Mayday or a Pan, we were sent around. I can't argue with the logic of it in that if we had a problem and blocked the runway, the controller would have been left with Mayday traffic and nowhere to put him. However, we had already briefed that if we went around, we could call a Pan, although the controller was unaware of this. This we did. We were vectored for another fairly expeditious approach and landed with more than reserves so no harm done. It was probably just a matter of picking the lesser of two evils.
The query is this, and to reiterate no criticism of anyone's actions is intended, is it up to the controller at the time as to whether he sends traffic around to prevent a Mayday and perhaps cause another issue (in our case, a Pan) or is it somewhere in policy?
Just curious and a safe outcome was had by all.
I was recently on finals to a large airport in the UK (the one with the "emergency runway"
) after prolonged holding due to them changing from the "emergency runway" with an SRA/visual to the the main runway with the ILS, we found ourselves on finals, having followed our company's fuel policy with not a lot of fuel (committed) but sufficient.The aircraft behind us (UK operator) stated that "in the event of a missed approach, we will be declaring a Mayday", although at that point he had not declared either a Mayday or a Pan. I would probably have done the same thing in the same position. Generally speaking, UK operators approved fuel policy means that if you think you may land with less than reserves, you must declare a Pan. If you think you will land with less than reserves, you must declare a Mayday. It is perfectly possible to go straight to the Mayday stage without having gone through the Pan stage.
Anyway, despite the aircraft behind not actually being on either a Mayday or a Pan, we were sent around. I can't argue with the logic of it in that if we had a problem and blocked the runway, the controller would have been left with Mayday traffic and nowhere to put him. However, we had already briefed that if we went around, we could call a Pan, although the controller was unaware of this. This we did. We were vectored for another fairly expeditious approach and landed with more than reserves so no harm done. It was probably just a matter of picking the lesser of two evils.
The query is this, and to reiterate no criticism of anyone's actions is intended, is it up to the controller at the time as to whether he sends traffic around to prevent a Mayday and perhaps cause another issue (in our case, a Pan) or is it somewhere in policy?
Just curious and a safe outcome was had by all.
Couldonlyaffordafiver
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The Twilight Zone near 30W
Posts: 1,934
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fair enough. Not an unreasonable decision by any means and I would probably have done the same. Just wondering whether such a situation was written down anywhere.
Thanks for the reply.
Thanks for the reply.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: UK
Age: 45
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Two of bits from the Mats P1 Section 7, Chapter 1 which may help
"Pilots have been advised that, in the event of an emergency situation, an ATSU can
only provide the necessary priority and handling if the controller is made aware of the emergency by the crew’s formal declaration on the RTF. Pilots have also been
advised that the extent to which an ATSU will be able to offer assistance will depend
on the amount of information provided and on its being transmitted at the earliest
opportunity. Furthermore, it is preferable that if pilots believe that they are facing an
emergency situation, to declare it as early as possible and cancel it later if they decide that the situation allows."
and
"When a pilot has given certain items of information normally associated with an
emergency message but has not prefixed the transmission with 'MAYDAY' or 'PAN', the controller is to ask the pilot if he wishes to declare an emergency. If the pilot declines to do so, the controller may, if he thinks it appropriate, carry out the necessary actions as if the pilot had declared an emergency. The term 'fuel emergency' has no status in the UK and controllers are not required to give priority to aircraft with a reported shortage of fuel unless an emergency is declared."
"Pilots have been advised that, in the event of an emergency situation, an ATSU can
only provide the necessary priority and handling if the controller is made aware of the emergency by the crew’s formal declaration on the RTF. Pilots have also been
advised that the extent to which an ATSU will be able to offer assistance will depend
on the amount of information provided and on its being transmitted at the earliest
opportunity. Furthermore, it is preferable that if pilots believe that they are facing an
emergency situation, to declare it as early as possible and cancel it later if they decide that the situation allows."
and
"When a pilot has given certain items of information normally associated with an
emergency message but has not prefixed the transmission with 'MAYDAY' or 'PAN', the controller is to ask the pilot if he wishes to declare an emergency. If the pilot declines to do so, the controller may, if he thinks it appropriate, carry out the necessary actions as if the pilot had declared an emergency. The term 'fuel emergency' has no status in the UK and controllers are not required to give priority to aircraft with a reported shortage of fuel unless an emergency is declared."
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 1,266
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have always considered doing the same as the aircraft in question. I find that things get much easier if you tell ATC before established on the ILS, as they tell me they then find it easier to modify spacing accordingly
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This "if we have to go arround we will declare an emergency" is the new version of the actions that brought about the following;
The term 'fuel emergency' has no status in the UK and controllers are not required to give priority to aircraft with a reported shortage of fuel unless an emergency is declared.
i.e. pilots are trying to ensure priority handling without clearly declaring their requirement for such handling in the appropriate manner. This leaves the possible handling of the situation open to misunderstanding and dare I say - abuse.
If pilots want to ensure that they do not have to go arround or want to ensure that they are number one and that the runway will not be blocked then that is the time to declare the pan pan.....not after the thing they did not want ot happen has happened.
Otherwise it is a bit of a horse, door, bolt situation.
This situation is a good example of what could easily be the case of two aircraft on final - both in the same fuel situation. Number 2 declares that if they are sent arround they will declare and emergency. Number 1 is sent arround and immediately declares an emergency.
At that moment there is only one aircraft where the pilot has declared an emergency and according to the rules, that aircraft has priority. What if the number two lands and blocks the runway. Now the non-emergency traffic has blocked the emergency traffic.
Simply put, I get out of bed in the morning and say "if my engine fails I will declare and emergency". Does that mean I can always push to the front of the line? on approach........because I can tell ATC every day that if my engine fails I will declare an emergency - which is just as true as the quoted statement regarding having to make a missed approach.
If you want priority now then declare an emergency now. Don't wait for others to get in ahead of you!!!!
I am just waiting for the day of multiple threats to ATC-
"If you send me arround I will declare an emergency"
"Me too"
"Me too"
.........
The term 'fuel emergency' has no status in the UK and controllers are not required to give priority to aircraft with a reported shortage of fuel unless an emergency is declared.
i.e. pilots are trying to ensure priority handling without clearly declaring their requirement for such handling in the appropriate manner. This leaves the possible handling of the situation open to misunderstanding and dare I say - abuse.
If pilots want to ensure that they do not have to go arround or want to ensure that they are number one and that the runway will not be blocked then that is the time to declare the pan pan.....not after the thing they did not want ot happen has happened.
Otherwise it is a bit of a horse, door, bolt situation.
This situation is a good example of what could easily be the case of two aircraft on final - both in the same fuel situation. Number 2 declares that if they are sent arround they will declare and emergency. Number 1 is sent arround and immediately declares an emergency.
At that moment there is only one aircraft where the pilot has declared an emergency and according to the rules, that aircraft has priority. What if the number two lands and blocks the runway. Now the non-emergency traffic has blocked the emergency traffic.
Simply put, I get out of bed in the morning and say "if my engine fails I will declare and emergency". Does that mean I can always push to the front of the line? on approach........because I can tell ATC every day that if my engine fails I will declare an emergency - which is just as true as the quoted statement regarding having to make a missed approach.
If you want priority now then declare an emergency now. Don't wait for others to get in ahead of you!!!!
I am just waiting for the day of multiple threats to ATC-
"If you send me arround I will declare an emergency"
"Me too"
"Me too"
.........
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: behind the fruit
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What if number 2 is 20 miles behind, with number 1 on 4 mile final, cleared to land, when number 2 calls mayday.
Do you send number 1 around ?
Where do you draw the line ? 15 miles out ? 20 ?
How can a "conditional mayday", which by the rules is no emergency at all, become more of a priority of a REAL mayday, say 20 or so miles out ?
I would deal with it exactly as the pilot presented. IF they go araound, it will become an emergency. In the meantime, the plan is for them not to go around.
If the go around results in the aircraft unable to fly another approach to land, then the crew should have had already called mayday..
Do you send number 1 around ?
Where do you draw the line ? 15 miles out ? 20 ?
How can a "conditional mayday", which by the rules is no emergency at all, become more of a priority of a REAL mayday, say 20 or so miles out ?
I would deal with it exactly as the pilot presented. IF they go araound, it will become an emergency. In the meantime, the plan is for them not to go around.
If the go around results in the aircraft unable to fly another approach to land, then the crew should have had already called mayday..
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't work at an airfield (anymore). but sometimes get calls in TC of "we can only hold for 20 mins then we will have to divert...
I personally like the 'heads up' as it means that we can already start putting a plan in action - warn the GS so that he can be ready to spring into action etc.
However, As LEGAL TENDER says above, I would not treat an aircraft that said 'if we go around we will call a PAN/MAYDAY' any different than a normal aircraft, partly because as DFC so correctly states, this could be classed as just another play on the old 'fuel emergency' call - if the controller allows his or herself to be suckered in.
Sterile runways are par for the course when a declared emergency is inbound - there are different local rules used for the distance ahead an aircraft needs to be to be allowed to land ahead of the emergency (in part answer to legal tenders rhetoric question).
Where does it stop... windy day, 5 in the pattern, number one breaks off due to windshear. Does he/she state then that if they go around 5 more times they will need to declare an emergecy? Does that mean they get bumped ahead of other aircraft?
Unless an emergency is called, then I would treat you as a normal aircraft.
The MATS quote from Vortex Issues [QUOTE]...If the pilot declines to do so, the controller may, if he thinks it appropriate, carry out the necessary actions as if the pilot had declared an emergency.../QUOTE]to me means more that the AFS etc will be readied and not that other aircraft will be broken off... however it is down to individual interpretation.
The long and the short of it is, until you declare an emergency, you are in my book, Ops normal. Giving us a heads up to aid planning is, however, always good and will mean that you will get a better (swifter/smoother) response if you do need to declare.
I personally like the 'heads up' as it means that we can already start putting a plan in action - warn the GS so that he can be ready to spring into action etc.
However, As LEGAL TENDER says above, I would not treat an aircraft that said 'if we go around we will call a PAN/MAYDAY' any different than a normal aircraft, partly because as DFC so correctly states, this could be classed as just another play on the old 'fuel emergency' call - if the controller allows his or herself to be suckered in.
Sterile runways are par for the course when a declared emergency is inbound - there are different local rules used for the distance ahead an aircraft needs to be to be allowed to land ahead of the emergency (in part answer to legal tenders rhetoric question).
Where does it stop... windy day, 5 in the pattern, number one breaks off due to windshear. Does he/she state then that if they go around 5 more times they will need to declare an emergecy? Does that mean they get bumped ahead of other aircraft?
Unless an emergency is called, then I would treat you as a normal aircraft.
The MATS quote from Vortex Issues [QUOTE]...If the pilot declines to do so, the controller may, if he thinks it appropriate, carry out the necessary actions as if the pilot had declared an emergency.../QUOTE]to me means more that the AFS etc will be readied and not that other aircraft will be broken off... however it is down to individual interpretation.
The long and the short of it is, until you declare an emergency, you are in my book, Ops normal. Giving us a heads up to aid planning is, however, always good and will mean that you will get a better (swifter/smoother) response if you do need to declare.
Couldonlyaffordafiver
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The Twilight Zone near 30W
Posts: 1,934
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To clarify the situation a little. I don't know for a fact but I assume that the aircraft behind us had a lower fuel state than we did when we all left the hold. He had been dropping some hints.
The spacing on final was around 3 miles with us around 2 miles from touchdown when we went around. We still had enough for a reasonably extended circuit to land with more than reserves and I declared a Pan probably earlier than was strictly necessary to ensure that the same didn't happen again on the next approach. In fact, on our second approach we were probably in the same position as the other operator on his first approach. If we were sent around, we would call Mayday. The fact we were already on a Pan probably helped us out.
The spacing on final was around 3 miles with us around 2 miles from touchdown when we went around. We still had enough for a reasonably extended circuit to land with more than reserves and I declared a Pan probably earlier than was strictly necessary to ensure that the same didn't happen again on the next approach. In fact, on our second approach we were probably in the same position as the other operator on his first approach. If we were sent around, we would call Mayday. The fact we were already on a Pan probably helped us out.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On another thread I had said I thought the controller correct - I now do not. I think the second a/c was at fault and the controller should indeed have asked 'are you declaring an emergency?'. If the answer was no, HF should have been continued; if yes, then let the cascade of 'PANs' begin.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 1,122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that the controller over controlled this one.The pilot of the second aircraft is only saying that if he is sent round,it is now an emergency.So simply land the first,then land the second.No problem.If the second goes around,then that's when you squawk 7700,and everyone knows this is an emergency.
There are many aircraft at all airports,that will be very tight on fuel if sent around.If they all said the same thing,then everyone will be going around,and then squawking 7700.
There are many aircraft at all airports,that will be very tight on fuel if sent around.If they all said the same thing,then everyone will be going around,and then squawking 7700.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Deepest darkest Inbredland....
Posts: 607
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TAD is correct in this. I would ask if an emergency is being declared. If yes send it around, if no then continue. Then both aircraft should be able to complete their flights in a controlled and expeditious manner. As for sending the first around because the second hints that he is low on fuel is quite possibly stupid, ask the first to expedite off the runway, reduce the second to min safe, and all should be well, if not then declare an emergency and then they will get full priority. Simple.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No need to send the first aircraft around, but controllers have discretion to manage the traffic as the situation presents and the controller has made their decision and managed the traffic successfully.
Safety is number 1. In hindsight the controller may have managed the situation differently but if there's doubt then it's best to be conservative and review your actions later. Maybe the approach controller would be helping the tower controller to 'review' his actions.
Safety is number 1. In hindsight the controller may have managed the situation differently but if there's doubt then it's best to be conservative and review your actions later. Maybe the approach controller would be helping the tower controller to 'review' his actions.
