Sending the Goat-Acts Around
Helicopter Pilots Get It Up Quicker
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 885
Likes: 0
From:
I seem to remember recently an aircraft suffered a bird strike on touch down/roll which ended up in a contamintated runway state.
The number 1 to land was advised to expect a go around, this was noted without question and as required he went around.
The number 2, now number 1, was also told that a go around was likely - this was immediately questioned by the pilot. The situation was explained to him with regards to the runway contamination. By this time a go around was necessary. The pilot/?commander STILL argued the point and reasons behind the controllers descision, presumably with his fingers on the toga button...
As a lowly rotary CPL I found this exchange unbelievable and extremely unproffesional on the part of the flight crew.
The controller correctly stood his ground to a rude and in my opinion an unprofessional commander. Had he landed and incurred an incident I wonder who would have taken the bulk of the stick?
TImes, dates and operating company deliberately left out to protect the guilty.
The number 1 to land was advised to expect a go around, this was noted without question and as required he went around.
The number 2, now number 1, was also told that a go around was likely - this was immediately questioned by the pilot. The situation was explained to him with regards to the runway contamination. By this time a go around was necessary. The pilot/?commander STILL argued the point and reasons behind the controllers descision, presumably with his fingers on the toga button...
As a lowly rotary CPL I found this exchange unbelievable and extremely unproffesional on the part of the flight crew.
The controller correctly stood his ground to a rude and in my opinion an unprofessional commander. Had he landed and incurred an incident I wonder who would have taken the bulk of the stick?
TImes, dates and operating company deliberately left out to protect the guilty.
Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
From: Anywhere
Bookworm
1) We are talking about sending people around when they are perceived to be in a dangerous position - nothing to do with TCAS.
2) The book says I can do it, and contrary to your comments about whether we have the knowledge or proficiency to make that shout it is a judgement call I will make if I feel it necessary. It is one I've yet to make for a commercial concern, but one I've often had to make for smaller aircraft.
3) I suggest you re-read my comments about licence and runway preservation
Of course booky - if you'd like to get an ATCO's licence and come and try our job yourself as you obviously know better than those of us who do the job day in and day out
1) We are talking about sending people around when they are perceived to be in a dangerous position - nothing to do with TCAS.
2) The book says I can do it, and contrary to your comments about whether we have the knowledge or proficiency to make that shout it is a judgement call I will make if I feel it necessary. It is one I've yet to make for a commercial concern, but one I've often had to make for smaller aircraft.
3) I suggest you re-read my comments about licence and runway preservation
Of course booky - if you'd like to get an ATCO's licence and come and try our job yourself as you obviously know better than those of us who do the job day in and day out
Last edited by Chilli Monster; 8th September 2002 at 21:29.
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
From: Sandpit
Chilli & pilotwolf - 100% in agreement.
Bookworm, I know that this thread was specifically started with the premise of a go - around because of an a/c badly positioned on approach however, if you are told to go around when established on final, who is to say what the reason is?
We all know that you are ultimately responsible for your aircraft and passengers but please do not forget that we are held responsible for the safety of your aircraft, plus all the others, plus anything moving on the manoevering area. You would appear to be making the age old pilot's assumption that you THINK you know eveything that is going on in the surrounding airspace, based on what you have heard on the frequency. Believe me, if I am busy with a runway incursion (or blockage)/ major equipment failure / unidentified traffic buzzing the runway, the last thing I am going to do is get into a discussion with you on the freq. at the time to justify my decision. It will not have been taken lightly. An instruction is just that - please comply with it. By all means, enquire after the fact (preferably by telephone, not on the freq) but let me resolve the immediate problem before presuming to second - guess me.
To repeat what several others have already stated, we not only have the right to INSTRUCT a go-around, we are REQUIRED to do so if an aircraft is considered to be dangerously positioned on final.
You quite rightly state that responsibility is divided between flightcrews and controllers for good reason - maybe it is you that should trust us a bit more.
Bookworm, I know that this thread was specifically started with the premise of a go - around because of an a/c badly positioned on approach however, if you are told to go around when established on final, who is to say what the reason is?
We all know that you are ultimately responsible for your aircraft and passengers but please do not forget that we are held responsible for the safety of your aircraft, plus all the others, plus anything moving on the manoevering area. You would appear to be making the age old pilot's assumption that you THINK you know eveything that is going on in the surrounding airspace, based on what you have heard on the frequency. Believe me, if I am busy with a runway incursion (or blockage)/ major equipment failure / unidentified traffic buzzing the runway, the last thing I am going to do is get into a discussion with you on the freq. at the time to justify my decision. It will not have been taken lightly. An instruction is just that - please comply with it. By all means, enquire after the fact (preferably by telephone, not on the freq) but let me resolve the immediate problem before presuming to second - guess me.
To repeat what several others have already stated, we not only have the right to INSTRUCT a go-around, we are REQUIRED to do so if an aircraft is considered to be dangerously positioned on final.
You quite rightly state that responsibility is divided between flightcrews and controllers for good reason - maybe it is you that should trust us a bit more.
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,648
Likes: 2
From: UK
Guy
I agree strongly with most of what you say, but
is unfair. My attitude is the opposite. If the decision to instruct a go around has anything to do with the contents of the surrounding airspace, it's clearly one that the controller should make. But the premise here from OVERTALK seems to be a single aircraft where it's only the fate of that aircraft that is primarily at stake.
You ask who is to say what the reason for the go around is. I think that's the crux of it. If you instruct a go around and all ends well, the most you should have to deal with is a call from the crew or the airline asking why the decision was taken. The problem comes if an incident develops as a result of the go around and it transpires that you didn't have all the info you needed to manage the risk appropriately. You've excluded all the information available to the crew from the risk assessment, precisely because there's no discussion to be had. If you warn the crew, rather than instructing a go around, you at least give them the opportunity to use all that information to make the decision for themselves.
Few pilots are willing to second guess crews of types they are unfamiliar with -- I'm surprised that you seem prepared to. I'm happy to trust you in all situations where you are in the best position to make a decision, but I fail to see how you can do that from the tower in this case. I put my unstinting faith in those to whom the authorities have issued a ATCO licence to perform their primary duties well, and I'd like to see reciprocity.
I agree strongly with most of what you say, but
You would appear to be making the age old pilot's assumption that you THINK you know eveything that is going on in the surrounding airspace, based on what you have heard on the frequency.
You ask who is to say what the reason for the go around is. I think that's the crux of it. If you instruct a go around and all ends well, the most you should have to deal with is a call from the crew or the airline asking why the decision was taken. The problem comes if an incident develops as a result of the go around and it transpires that you didn't have all the info you needed to manage the risk appropriately. You've excluded all the information available to the crew from the risk assessment, precisely because there's no discussion to be had. If you warn the crew, rather than instructing a go around, you at least give them the opportunity to use all that information to make the decision for themselves.
Few pilots are willing to second guess crews of types they are unfamiliar with -- I'm surprised that you seem prepared to. I'm happy to trust you in all situations where you are in the best position to make a decision, but I fail to see how you can do that from the tower in this case. I put my unstinting faith in those to whom the authorities have issued a ATCO licence to perform their primary duties well, and I'd like to see reciprocity.
Thread Starter
Joined: Dec 1998
Posts: 242
Likes: 0
From: England
Starting to Split Hairs Here?
We are possibly starting to split hairs here I feel. If you review the SWA accident at Burbank you'll note that they actually touched down at 182 kts well into a short runway without overruns (and flap still running/inhibited). That is by any definition suicidal and must be attributed to a multi-faceted failure of some sort. Now I don't think it matters whether the crew were affected by alcohol (but weren't in this case), fatigue, argument, a setting sun or an indifferent approach controller, the ATCO is in a good position to be the saviour of last resource as far as the passengers are concerned. I would expect him to say the words almost without thinking - in particular if he'd been the responsible Burbank controller on that day. It must have stuck out like the proverbial that it was an accident underway. Timely intervention is the name of the game. At other times it may not be so cut and dried and could remain a judgment call. In all instances you can review and sort it out later and still not have anything like the regrets you might have for NOT acting (when you were sorely tempted to).
I've flown lots of low-level aero displays and would never expect to hear anything from a controller other than a safety officer's reminder about the display line (in other words as long as I don't throw my jet into the crowd I am rightly licenced to splash anyelsewhere I like. However if I have a crew or a load of pax down back they are certainly entitled to some top cover lest I go suddenly silly, schizoid, or mentally bereft. There would always be a cojo alongside to rightly take over and follow a lawful ATC instruction (if it appeared that I wasn't going to).
That's the way it is gents and it's also the way it should be. Thanks to all above for mostly confirming my viewpoint. I know that there are some one-man bands that consider themelves infallable and inviolable - but if you tell them to go around because they're looking lethal - I'm willing to bet that just like me, they will. The difference is that I'll probably ring and thank you for saving my silly ass.
I've flown lots of low-level aero displays and would never expect to hear anything from a controller other than a safety officer's reminder about the display line (in other words as long as I don't throw my jet into the crowd I am rightly licenced to splash anyelsewhere I like. However if I have a crew or a load of pax down back they are certainly entitled to some top cover lest I go suddenly silly, schizoid, or mentally bereft. There would always be a cojo alongside to rightly take over and follow a lawful ATC instruction (if it appeared that I wasn't going to).
That's the way it is gents and it's also the way it should be. Thanks to all above for mostly confirming my viewpoint. I know that there are some one-man bands that consider themelves infallable and inviolable - but if you tell them to go around because they're looking lethal - I'm willing to bet that just like me, they will. The difference is that I'll probably ring and thank you for saving my silly ass.
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,155
Likes: 0
From: Fort Worth ARTCC ZFW
In the US, we will step in if we see you lining up on the wrong runway or airport <G>. We will also say something if the gear doesn't appear to be at the right angle of dangle.
While we may say something if it appears that you are very high and hot and you aren't NASA shuttle trained. But we don't send you around unless there is something from the first paragraph. That is strictly up to the pilot in command...
regards
While we may say something if it appears that you are very high and hot and you aren't NASA shuttle trained. But we don't send you around unless there is something from the first paragraph. That is strictly up to the pilot in command...
regards
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,648
Likes: 2
From: UK
You "say something" but you don't "send [them] around" if they're hot and high?
Gee Scott, I dunno. From what the other contributors to this thread seem to be suggesting, you must be pulling smoldering wrecks out of the catch fencing almost daily...
Gee Scott, I dunno. From what the other contributors to this thread seem to be suggesting, you must be pulling smoldering wrecks out of the catch fencing almost daily...
Joined: Sep 1998
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
From: Sydney, Australia
In Oz we don't have the "badly positioned" provision in our MATS - conduct of the approach is up to the pilot.
If the gear's not there, or you can see there's a real possibility of CFIT or some other disaster, I think would be a legal duty of care and M/A instructions would be appropriate. Otherwise, let the pilot fly the aeroplane.
There's nothing wrong with a query or prompt - "you appear high on profile, do you wish to continue approach?" or, if it's low (but not at risk of CFIT) "you appear low on profile, radar indicates xxx feet, check altitude" or similar. I'd only do it if the apparent error is pretty gross. It lets the pilot know that ATC sees something out of the ordinary and that's worthy CRM input, if nothing else.
A few years ago an arriving 747 was twice profile height for the whole time he was on tower radar and was in VMC the whole time - an 8 eighths blue day. 6000ft at 10 miles, 3000 at 5 miles, etc. He was given the profile advisories by terminal and TWR 3 times between 20 miles and 5 miles, each time with the option of a missed approach. Each time he said, "No, we'll land". So tower gave him the wind, reminded him of runway length, gave him M/A instructions in terms of "If you wish to go around at any time..." and also a landing clearance.
The aeroplane decided for him - it arrived over the threshold in excess of 200 kt g/s (by radar) into a 25kt headwind and obviously wouldn't stop flying. It cruised a few metres above the ground for about 2500m of the 4000 odd available and then went around. Fingers were poised on the crash button. I think it was done the right way, but I'd be interested to hear other views if there are any.
AA
If the gear's not there, or you can see there's a real possibility of CFIT or some other disaster, I think would be a legal duty of care and M/A instructions would be appropriate. Otherwise, let the pilot fly the aeroplane.
There's nothing wrong with a query or prompt - "you appear high on profile, do you wish to continue approach?" or, if it's low (but not at risk of CFIT) "you appear low on profile, radar indicates xxx feet, check altitude" or similar. I'd only do it if the apparent error is pretty gross. It lets the pilot know that ATC sees something out of the ordinary and that's worthy CRM input, if nothing else.
A few years ago an arriving 747 was twice profile height for the whole time he was on tower radar and was in VMC the whole time - an 8 eighths blue day. 6000ft at 10 miles, 3000 at 5 miles, etc. He was given the profile advisories by terminal and TWR 3 times between 20 miles and 5 miles, each time with the option of a missed approach. Each time he said, "No, we'll land". So tower gave him the wind, reminded him of runway length, gave him M/A instructions in terms of "If you wish to go around at any time..." and also a landing clearance.
The aeroplane decided for him - it arrived over the threshold in excess of 200 kt g/s (by radar) into a 25kt headwind and obviously wouldn't stop flying. It cruised a few metres above the ground for about 2500m of the 4000 odd available and then went around. Fingers were poised on the crash button. I think it was done the right way, but I'd be interested to hear other views if there are any.
AA
Last edited by Ausatco; 11th September 2002 at 00:42.
Watchdog Delta Hotel
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
From: here but there in 6 years
please remember ladies and gents of flight crew
the cockpit is what you are in charge of
the tower atco is however in charge of the runway
if told to go around you should do so straight away ask questions later
if this causes you fuel problems the you should have declared a fuel emergency at some point before initiating the approach
not a flame my friends just a point we're all trying to be as safe and honest as poss
the cockpit is what you are in charge of
the tower atco is however in charge of the runway
if told to go around you should do so straight away ask questions later
if this causes you fuel problems the you should have declared a fuel emergency at some point before initiating the approach
not a flame my friends just a point we're all trying to be as safe and honest as poss
