Reason for Going-Around
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Around
Posts: 341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why don't you just call them out anyway if its so much of an issue you not knowing. It is by far the safest option compared to not calling them out and leaves the crew in peace to fly the aircraft.
Heathrow Director
Like many people I have an ICOM handheld airband tranceiver, I also have it licenced via the CAA (on behalf of Ofcom -for an annual fee) and an allocated callsign of "XXX Mobile" for use ground to air. I don't believe that I am breaking the law when using it to listen to the airband.
I don't think that you can assume that everybody listening is breaking the law.
Adam.. I didn't bother to listen but it sounds as if you were breaking the law by listening in to the airband...
I don't think that you can assume that everybody listening is breaking the law.
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: On an island
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
re: PIA go around.
IMHO I beg to differ. Far too many questions asked by ATC. They were going around from fairly low height. Constant chatter from ATC, these guys on the flight deck are busy, just arriving from a long journey and going around on a heavy not very far from the ground. Are you gonna give them a chance to talk to each other in the flight deck?
why did he go "Standard missed approach, QNH etc etc" They were flying the approach on the QNH!! The sky is gin clear, they are not gonna crash into a mountain range just outside Manchester, are they?
Standard missed approach... it's called standard for that reason.. That's what the crew briefed for!! I don't think we need to tell them, at the start of the approach "In the event of go around, standard missed approach!"
a "roger" would have been sufficient. Let the crew get back to you when they're ready. If they believe they are in immediate danger, no doubt they will let you know!
But then again. WTFDIK. I work at ABZ offshore. Not band 4 Royalty like those involved
IMHO I beg to differ. Far too many questions asked by ATC. They were going around from fairly low height. Constant chatter from ATC, these guys on the flight deck are busy, just arriving from a long journey and going around on a heavy not very far from the ground. Are you gonna give them a chance to talk to each other in the flight deck?
why did he go "Standard missed approach, QNH etc etc" They were flying the approach on the QNH!! The sky is gin clear, they are not gonna crash into a mountain range just outside Manchester, are they?
Standard missed approach... it's called standard for that reason.. That's what the crew briefed for!! I don't think we need to tell them, at the start of the approach "In the event of go around, standard missed approach!"
a "roger" would have been sufficient. Let the crew get back to you when they're ready. If they believe they are in immediate danger, no doubt they will let you know!
But then again. WTFDIK. I work at ABZ offshore. Not band 4 Royalty like those involved
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who is saying anything about refusing to admit an unstable approach after we have got things squared away in the cockpit?
Your actually trying to get pilots to go against there training by replying to you. Its quite a common command exercise with the TRE trying to overload you with ATC questions while you are sorting a problem out.
The setup is usually an engine fire at about 1000ft to go. And then they just keep loading you up.
We are not talking about not saying anything until after we land just let us do our jobs flying the aircraft until we have finished with the high work load period.
Not much point saying we went around because we screwed up the approach 30 seconds later to end up pilling into granny in her sheltered housing mid heart attack because we also screwed up the go-around. Lets face it if we screw up something that we do anything between 10 to 100 times a month whats the likely hood of screwing up something that we do maybe 5-10 times a year if at all outside the sim.
By far the most likely reason for a fatal accident after a go-around or on approach for that matter is the crew loosing spatial awarness and having a CFIT. From memory the Comoros crash after go around is a perfect example.
Maybe you can provide an example where ATC knowing the reason for the go-around and calling out the RFFS has prevented further fatalities but realistically there are very few on airfield crashes with prior warning. Soux City is the only one that springs to mind. There are more than a few examples though of crew getting distracted and shutting down the wrong engine or missing important items of checklists which have turned a relatively safe situation into a full blown emergency unfortunately quite often resulting in a fatal accident.
Your actually trying to get pilots to go against there training by replying to you. Its quite a common command exercise with the TRE trying to overload you with ATC questions while you are sorting a problem out.
The setup is usually an engine fire at about 1000ft to go. And then they just keep loading you up.
We are not talking about not saying anything until after we land just let us do our jobs flying the aircraft until we have finished with the high work load period.
Not much point saying we went around because we screwed up the approach 30 seconds later to end up pilling into granny in her sheltered housing mid heart attack because we also screwed up the go-around. Lets face it if we screw up something that we do anything between 10 to 100 times a month whats the likely hood of screwing up something that we do maybe 5-10 times a year if at all outside the sim.
By far the most likely reason for a fatal accident after a go-around or on approach for that matter is the crew loosing spatial awarness and having a CFIT. From memory the Comoros crash after go around is a perfect example.
Maybe you can provide an example where ATC knowing the reason for the go-around and calling out the RFFS has prevented further fatalities but realistically there are very few on airfield crashes with prior warning. Soux City is the only one that springs to mind. There are more than a few examples though of crew getting distracted and shutting down the wrong engine or missing important items of checklists which have turned a relatively safe situation into a full blown emergency unfortunately quite often resulting in a fatal accident.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<<I don't believe that I am breaking the law when using it to listen to the airband.
I don't think that you can assume that everybody listening is breaking the law.>>
By the letter of the law you are operating illegally. Even pilots and controllers are not legally entitled to listen to the airband except in the course of their work. I know it sounds daft and thousands contravene the laws. However, I have always believed in letting people know what they are up to when they come on a public forum and talk about what they have heard.
I don't think that you can assume that everybody listening is breaking the law.>>
By the letter of the law you are operating illegally. Even pilots and controllers are not legally entitled to listen to the airband except in the course of their work. I know it sounds daft and thousands contravene the laws. However, I have always believed in letting people know what they are up to when they come on a public forum and talk about what they have heard.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Sweden
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the PIA go around
I think it was great handled by the atc, if you as a pilot don't what to be bothered you can just say something short like.
"we got some problem with the landing gear and need a moment to assess the situation and we'll call you back." If you get a followup question on a statement like that you can complain about bad controllers.
It's important to know the reason even if it's as simple as "not stableized" or to know if you can expect an emergency, if you need prio, or if you can expect problems with other A/C behind you.
It's also a fact that pilots tend to make mistakes in go-arounds. For example at my airport we got frequent issues with levelbursts during go-arounds.
I think it was great handled by the atc, if you as a pilot don't what to be bothered you can just say something short like.
"we got some problem with the landing gear and need a moment to assess the situation and we'll call you back." If you get a followup question on a statement like that you can complain about bad controllers.
It's important to know the reason even if it's as simple as "not stableized" or to know if you can expect an emergency, if you need prio, or if you can expect problems with other A/C behind you.
It's also a fact that pilots tend to make mistakes in go-arounds. For example at my airport we got frequent issues with levelbursts during go-arounds.
Looks to me like a classic example of 'one half' not knowing what 'the other half' is doing.
Too many ATCOs have little appreciation of what goes on, on the flight deck [unlike the good old days], to a significant extent because of security regulations.
Too many pilots have little idea about what happens in a control tower/centre, possibly due to lack of interest [?]. Try getting pilots to attend a TRUCE session [UK] or help with a training session where a pilot input would be helpful. Well nigh impossible.
Mutual understanding of each other's roles is invaluable and would doubtless have assisted in the examples mentioned above. Probably the lack of a financial incentive is the root cause?
H49
Too many ATCOs have little appreciation of what goes on, on the flight deck [unlike the good old days], to a significant extent because of security regulations.
Too many pilots have little idea about what happens in a control tower/centre, possibly due to lack of interest [?]. Try getting pilots to attend a TRUCE session [UK] or help with a training session where a pilot input would be helpful. Well nigh impossible.
Mutual understanding of each other's roles is invaluable and would doubtless have assisted in the examples mentioned above. Probably the lack of a financial incentive is the root cause?
H49
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chro in the UK we shorten that to "standby" which is standard training for pilots in the UK. In fact if you stray outside this you may very well have a lengthy chat on the subject as a debrief point after a sim session depending on if its one of the TRE's current bug bears.
Taking the PIA if the time line hasn't been compressed I would suspect that the information given to the controller was suspect anyway.
I am not 747 rated but even in my crappy TP we would have just been about to start the go-around checks if it had been a none memory item issue, when the radar controller was asking for the reason. So as such we still wouldn't have checked to see if the aircraft was on a safe flight profile/configuration. And we certainly wouldn't know if everything was fine for another appaorach unless it was an unstabilised approach which personally I would have said on the initial go-around call to tower. (Maybe a change to CAP 413?)
You could hear in his voice that he was distracted, proberly monitoring and cleaning up the aircraft. All he was interested in was if he was pointing in a safe direction and what the aircraft was doing. So by the extra RT you have 250 tonnes of aircraft going up like a fart in a bath on TOGA power crew monitoring to make sure the AP is going to capture and you not going to go plowing up into the downwind traffic and making sure they arn't going to bust any configuration speeds. And they are now distracted.
If it was a gear indication issue I really wouldn't have though they would have had time to complete the GA checks then get into the guts of a QRH checklist. And to be honest I can't see how you can state that you have cleared your indication problem when your gears up.
So by pestering the pilot you do have something on tape I will grant you, but has it done anything to improved the safety of the situation?
All that is require is to hold back asking until the controller can see the aircraft has leveled off and speed has stabilised. Then if the crew hasn't got back to you with the reason give them a nudge. If it is something serious eg an engine fire/failure they will tell you quite quickly if not on the intial call. (well I bloody would).
As a note the Cork crash report is going to throw up a whole heap of issues and I would hope that controllers can find the time to read it when its eventually out. There will be a whole heap of human factors linked to GA's and crew.
Taking the PIA if the time line hasn't been compressed I would suspect that the information given to the controller was suspect anyway.
I am not 747 rated but even in my crappy TP we would have just been about to start the go-around checks if it had been a none memory item issue, when the radar controller was asking for the reason. So as such we still wouldn't have checked to see if the aircraft was on a safe flight profile/configuration. And we certainly wouldn't know if everything was fine for another appaorach unless it was an unstabilised approach which personally I would have said on the initial go-around call to tower. (Maybe a change to CAP 413?)
You could hear in his voice that he was distracted, proberly monitoring and cleaning up the aircraft. All he was interested in was if he was pointing in a safe direction and what the aircraft was doing. So by the extra RT you have 250 tonnes of aircraft going up like a fart in a bath on TOGA power crew monitoring to make sure the AP is going to capture and you not going to go plowing up into the downwind traffic and making sure they arn't going to bust any configuration speeds. And they are now distracted.
If it was a gear indication issue I really wouldn't have though they would have had time to complete the GA checks then get into the guts of a QRH checklist. And to be honest I can't see how you can state that you have cleared your indication problem when your gears up.
So by pestering the pilot you do have something on tape I will grant you, but has it done anything to improved the safety of the situation?
All that is require is to hold back asking until the controller can see the aircraft has leveled off and speed has stabilised. Then if the crew hasn't got back to you with the reason give them a nudge. If it is something serious eg an engine fire/failure they will tell you quite quickly if not on the intial call. (well I bloody would).
As a note the Cork crash report is going to throw up a whole heap of issues and I would hope that controllers can find the time to read it when its eventually out. There will be a whole heap of human factors linked to GA's and crew.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Sweden
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe the diffrence in opinions here is that pilots are only intreasted in the safety of thier flight and ATC of all flight. We don't ask just becouse we're curious we can really use any information given to improve saftey of the overall situation.
And i'll asure you that if the atc even have time to ask about the reason you are on a safe course and level.
however short answer you give just say anything that indicates 1. how serious it is and 2. what we can expect you to do. If you think my example was bad just say. "gear indication, stand by"
I.e. If someone tells me they got a gear issue I normally persume other flights will not be affected, that you in the best of all worlds whould like to climb a few thousand feet and get a safe course for 3-4 minutes, and that there will be sufficent time to prepare in case the PIC declares an emergency.
And i'll asure you that if the atc even have time to ask about the reason you are on a safe course and level.
however short answer you give just say anything that indicates 1. how serious it is and 2. what we can expect you to do. If you think my example was bad just say. "gear indication, stand by"
I.e. If someone tells me they got a gear issue I normally persume other flights will not be affected, that you in the best of all worlds whould like to climb a few thousand feet and get a safe course for 3-4 minutes, and that there will be sufficent time to prepare in case the PIC declares an emergency.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 783
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chro, I understand what you are saying but
If it's a standard missed approach, surely that answers the question?
If there's a problem which requires a hold then most procedures terminate in one and we can get back to you ASAP once settled in the hold in the worst case.
If the procedure ends in "or as directed" then, as you say, you will do whatever is best for the safety of all traffic. Surely distractions in a critical workload scenario aren't best for the safety of all traffic - at least not for the first few minutes.
If you know this already, the why would you want to distract us further? Or is that the cause for the issues you mention? Who knows?
2. what we can expect you to do.
If there's a problem which requires a hold then most procedures terminate in one and we can get back to you ASAP once settled in the hold in the worst case.
If the procedure ends in "or as directed" then, as you say, you will do whatever is best for the safety of all traffic. Surely distractions in a critical workload scenario aren't best for the safety of all traffic - at least not for the first few minutes.
It's also a fact that pilots tend to make mistakes in go-arounds. For example at my airport we got frequent issues with levelbursts during go-arounds.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its not really opinion it comes down to how the pilots are trained which is to fly the aircraft first. Then navigate, then communicate.
And does it improve the situation? As a pilot I would say it lowers my personal safety distracting me away from the aircraft. And nice as I am I really don't want to be the one dead.
There seems to be a fundemental divide between what ATC are trained to expect and want and what pilots are trained to do. I am quite sure alot of things have developed over the years as good ideas we can do x or y with this information which will make things safer. But nobody has gone back to the other end of the mic and actually found out what the implications are for these new ideas. Also as well local "good ideas" involving actions by pilots are great in theory but only when you can get a change for the complete collection of pilots operating internationally in the world.
At no point have I said that the question is unreasonable just that its priority to the pilot is low in the scheme of things. And safety from our point of view which to us will always be paramount because our arses are strapped in the machine will come first. By pestering for an answer you are lowering the safety of that aircraft. And saying the RFFS were called doesn't really help us because as histroy has proven most accidents happen off airfield and are invarably fatal when the pilots are distracted and cock it up.
And does it improve the situation? As a pilot I would say it lowers my personal safety distracting me away from the aircraft. And nice as I am I really don't want to be the one dead.
There seems to be a fundemental divide between what ATC are trained to expect and want and what pilots are trained to do. I am quite sure alot of things have developed over the years as good ideas we can do x or y with this information which will make things safer. But nobody has gone back to the other end of the mic and actually found out what the implications are for these new ideas. Also as well local "good ideas" involving actions by pilots are great in theory but only when you can get a change for the complete collection of pilots operating internationally in the world.
At no point have I said that the question is unreasonable just that its priority to the pilot is low in the scheme of things. And safety from our point of view which to us will always be paramount because our arses are strapped in the machine will come first. By pestering for an answer you are lowering the safety of that aircraft. And saying the RFFS were called doesn't really help us because as histroy has proven most accidents happen off airfield and are invarably fatal when the pilots are distracted and cock it up.
Heathrow Director
I don't know where you get that idea from. There are thousands of private pilots who are allowed (licensed) to use air band radio - and most of them are not allowed to fly for hire & reward so they are definitely not at work when they operate their radios! Glider pilots do even need a licence to operate a radio on sporting frequencies (but the radio does). Many AGCS stations are operated by unpaid volunteers so are not at work. Currently one does not even need a licence to be an AGCS operator (or even a certificate of competence - although that is about to change).
<<I don't believe that I am breaking the law when using it to listen to the airband.
I don't think that you can assume that everybody listening is breaking the law.>>
By the letter of the law you are operating illegally. Even pilots and controllers are not legally entitled to listen to the airband except in the course of their work. I know it sounds daft and thousands contravene the laws. However, I have always believed in letting people know what they are up to when they come on a public forum and talk about what they have heard.
I don't think that you can assume that everybody listening is breaking the law.>>
By the letter of the law you are operating illegally. Even pilots and controllers are not legally entitled to listen to the airband except in the course of their work. I know it sounds daft and thousands contravene the laws. However, I have always believed in letting people know what they are up to when they come on a public forum and talk about what they have heard.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 63
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Go arounds are not that common.
Wind shear would be one frequent reason.
The aircraft has to be flown safely firstly (aviate)
If Atc ask for more info and yr too busy aviating a simple request to standbye would suffice and the recovery/ missedapproach heading or proceedure woukd be useful(navigate) once the aircraft is stable.
Finally when the aviate and the navigate are fully sorted, ATC can have your brief explaination, but not before.... in my book.
Wind shear would be one frequent reason.
The aircraft has to be flown safely firstly (aviate)
If Atc ask for more info and yr too busy aviating a simple request to standbye would suffice and the recovery/ missedapproach heading or proceedure woukd be useful(navigate) once the aircraft is stable.
Finally when the aviate and the navigate are fully sorted, ATC can have your brief explaination, but not before.... in my book.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jim he is completely correct.
You can work all day long using an aviation radio as a controller or pilot but if you were so inclined it would be illegal to go home and listen to exactly the same thing on an airband radio. You are allowed to listen to it as part of your duties but thats it.
It dates back years and nobody as ever had it changed but what HD has stated is completely correct even though in this day and age its a bit bonkers and also nobody ever applies the law.
You can work all day long using an aviation radio as a controller or pilot but if you were so inclined it would be illegal to go home and listen to exactly the same thing on an airband radio. You are allowed to listen to it as part of your duties but thats it.
It dates back years and nobody as ever had it changed but what HD has stated is completely correct even though in this day and age its a bit bonkers and also nobody ever applies the law.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Ukraine
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Once my colleague hasn't asked crew about the reason of going around. Then investigators blamed him (controller) in it, as he said "Cleared ILS 36R" instead of "Cleared ILS approach runway 36R".
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 67
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Go Round
As both a former military and civilian air traffic controller AND pilot, I can see both sides and have been on both sides. As a tower supervisor I never bothered a pilot in the throes of a go 'round but its fairly important to know whats going on as soon as things settle down in the cockpit so that ATC can make room for the aircraft either as NUMBER ONE or to slot it back into the busy sequence somehow. And for goodness sake, if its serious yell PAN or MAYDAY and don't be afraid to do so! I have watched aircraft smash into the ground killing all aboard as we had no idea there was an emergency until too late. If we had have known, we just may have had enough assets close enough to rescue someone!
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just double checked our QRH and everything that requires memory items has a 7700 change as part of the follow up actions (which would be before we would be ready to speak to you) and also at the end of the check lists which require an immediate return, inform ATC.
I don't know what other operators are like (but it has been the same for all the ones I have worked for, its the OEM emergency checklist) but I am presuming JAR aircraft at least will already have the when to talk to ATC plugged into the flow of of the emergency checklist if required.
I don't know what other operators are like (but it has been the same for all the ones I have worked for, its the OEM emergency checklist) but I am presuming JAR aircraft at least will already have the when to talk to ATC plugged into the flow of of the emergency checklist if required.
Last edited by mad_jock; 22nd Aug 2011 at 09:17.
Guest
Posts: n/a
A couple of points...
First (and I am clearly turning into a grumpy old man), there is no definitive, always right answer to all of this. It comes down to situational awareness and professional knowledge - from both pilots and controllers. I'm a controller, I've never flown professionally.
But I think I have a pretty good understanding of what goes on on the flight deck of a modern aircraft, and I think I have a pretty good understanding of the differences that can be found on a 25-year old aircraft, and I think I have a pretty good understanding of how a GA aircraft is operated. How? Well, for GA I've been there and done it myself, as for other types of aircraft I've done fam flights, sim rides, flown with friends, talked with crews, been involved with TRUCE and...so on.
I can work out when workload is likely to be high on the aircraft and I'll leave the crew alone unless there's something I really need to know or to tell them. But I also have the ATC and airport knowledge and maybe this affects what's important to know at any particular time. It's unfortunate that the crew often do not have a very good understanding of what goes on on the ground or what needs to be done to prepare for, say, an emergency landing.
Sadly professional judgement seems no longer to be valued and (in the UK, at least) many problems reported by the crew of a large passenger-carrying aircraft will result in a 'Full Emergency'. This usually brings in the local authority fire and ambulance services, sometimes closes access routes to the airport, sometimes closes A & E Departments to new admissions and clears out walking wounded...and the list goes on. As you can imagine there is sometimes pressure not to do all this too often! The controller often has a list of what gets the full treatment and what gets a local response. This may explain why a controller badgers a crew for more information.
mad_jock asks why not just call the RFFS out? Even this doesn't always go down well. I once had an aircraft taxiing out, just in front of the tower as it happened, when a jet of flame came out of one of the engines. Probably a hot start while taxiing I thought but I called the aircraft, described the flame/engine and asked 'ops normal?'. No answer, so I hit the big red button and within about 45 secs all the RFFS vehicles were on their way out to the aircraft as it stood at the holding point. Pilot not at all happy because it upset his pax to look out the window and see fire engines. I could see his point but I stood by my judgement call. FWIW, a bit of investigation after the event did indeed show that it was a hot start and the crew missed the call because the were monitoring the engine closely.
You win some, you lose some!
First (and I am clearly turning into a grumpy old man), there is no definitive, always right answer to all of this. It comes down to situational awareness and professional knowledge - from both pilots and controllers. I'm a controller, I've never flown professionally.
But I think I have a pretty good understanding of what goes on on the flight deck of a modern aircraft, and I think I have a pretty good understanding of the differences that can be found on a 25-year old aircraft, and I think I have a pretty good understanding of how a GA aircraft is operated. How? Well, for GA I've been there and done it myself, as for other types of aircraft I've done fam flights, sim rides, flown with friends, talked with crews, been involved with TRUCE and...so on.
I can work out when workload is likely to be high on the aircraft and I'll leave the crew alone unless there's something I really need to know or to tell them. But I also have the ATC and airport knowledge and maybe this affects what's important to know at any particular time. It's unfortunate that the crew often do not have a very good understanding of what goes on on the ground or what needs to be done to prepare for, say, an emergency landing.
Sadly professional judgement seems no longer to be valued and (in the UK, at least) many problems reported by the crew of a large passenger-carrying aircraft will result in a 'Full Emergency'. This usually brings in the local authority fire and ambulance services, sometimes closes access routes to the airport, sometimes closes A & E Departments to new admissions and clears out walking wounded...and the list goes on. As you can imagine there is sometimes pressure not to do all this too often! The controller often has a list of what gets the full treatment and what gets a local response. This may explain why a controller badgers a crew for more information.
mad_jock asks why not just call the RFFS out? Even this doesn't always go down well. I once had an aircraft taxiing out, just in front of the tower as it happened, when a jet of flame came out of one of the engines. Probably a hot start while taxiing I thought but I called the aircraft, described the flame/engine and asked 'ops normal?'. No answer, so I hit the big red button and within about 45 secs all the RFFS vehicles were on their way out to the aircraft as it stood at the holding point. Pilot not at all happy because it upset his pax to look out the window and see fire engines. I could see his point but I stood by my judgement call. FWIW, a bit of investigation after the event did indeed show that it was a hot start and the crew missed the call because the were monitoring the engine closely.
You win some, you lose some!