Confliction on Go Around
 

May I ask your opinions on this situation folks?

With Cjet at 6nms ATC clears Ajet to line up after the landing Bjet.

Cjet starts a reduction to min approach at this point.

Bjet is slow to clear the runway and at 3nms Cjet is advised to expect late landing clearance.

When Bjet clears the runway Ajet is given take off clearance, but doesn't roll.

Cjet advises ATC, that in the event of a go around, the aircraft will turn right to avoid conflict with the departing Ajet as the normal go around is straight ahead 3000ft and the SID is straight ahead to Nnms turn left climbing FL XX.

At 1.5nms the controller, having issued a "Ajet roll now" instruction realises it isn't going to work and instructs Cjet to "Go around turn right onto north and climb 3000ft"

Cjet complies and just before the go around is initiated Ajet begins the take off roll.

Is it reasonable, in your opinion, for the Commander of the aircraft, Cjet, who can see a potential conflict developing, Ajet rotating beneath his aircraft and climbing very steeply, to advise ATC of the intention to fly a non standard go around in advance? Do you consider this as sensible as you, in ATC, may have traffic elsewhere in the pattern and need to have an idea, in advance of what the aircraft will do?

Or would you prefer that Cjet flew the standard go around and left you to sort out the mess?

If I were PIC I'd turn immediately.

I would hope that in this situation the controller would, at the same time as the go around instruction was issued, be instructing the Ajet to stop; to cancel the takeoff clearance.
That would be reasonable.
It would also be reasonable for the controller to have a plan B of what needs to happen if the Ajet does not/can not abort, and to communicate it to the crew of the Cjet at the time the go around is issued, if not earlier. (He/she has only had about 2.5 minutes to think about it.:rolleyes: )
(Actually that would be plan C, by then, wouldn't it?)
And if these instructions aren't forthcoming in a timely manner, it would be utterly reasonable for the crew of the Cjet to take whatever action was felt necessary to avoid a collision, be that a turn, or even just a bit of an offset/sidestep.

I get the feeling you aren't asking just out of academic interest.

I take the view that if you can see the potential conflict it is reasonable to take action to avoid it arising. Nothing detracts from the Commander's over riding responsibility for the safety of the flight.

By proposing a course of action to the controller it gives him time to consider it, and assess whether it would be prudent given the other traffic around.

I see it as an extension of CRM, albeit with an external agency.

First things first - if you see it doesn't work, cancel the take-off clearance, problem solved. Its not good to issue a go around, as he will go anyway (not receiving the landing clearance), so in this scenario your best solution is to stop the one on the runway, and I hope its what any TWR controller would do.

The crew of Cjet would have briefed for the published go-around. Even if Ajet does roll, there is always the potential for Cjet to go-around (training flight, young fo makes a cobbles of it maybe) so maybe advise well ahead of time "Cjet, in the event of a go-around, turn right heading 360, climb altitude 3000" after the read back "Cjet continue approach one ahead to depart, expect late clearance". So if it all turns to a buggers muddle and you do have to shout for a go-around everyone should know what they are doing and you are still in control.

I would hope the crew of Cjet note that there is a conflict between sid and star and if you don't offer an alternative go-around proc, they should ask. Seen this one a few times.

You should always be ready, or do NOT line-up.

You should comply with ATC instructions and not make up your own go-around procedures as you have absolutely no idea of other traffic or possible conflictions in and around the ATZ . It is after all air traffic control and that is what we are paid for.

well in that case,in our local instructions it's said: if acft which was given t-o clearance not rolling,when another approaching 2 nm final,than 1st thing to do, controller has to CANCEL t-o clearance and than issue go-around...

Under the aspect of a possible com failure, I think it might be very reasonable.

Tarq57 and Criss

ATSIN 68 Issued following such an incident in the UK.

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/ATS068.pdf

regards,
2.5

Thanks, 2.5.
Pretty common sense stuff, really. Normally included (I would hope) in training. Anyone who doesn't realize that a high speed abort is a critical event shouldn't be controlling.
In the situation described by the OP, the Ajet has just commenced takeoff, should be plenty of time to stop it.
Of course, "just" might mean different things to different people...
To me it means within the last second or three, in this type if scenario.

The very fact that the ATCO didn't resolve the situation at an earlier stage, coupled with that the missed approach procedure does nothing to consider one or more departures then I think that it's reasonable for the PIC to make a descision of non-standard manouvers during the MA to deconflict the traffic situation. At the end of the day - the PIC is truely responsible for the safety of his flight.

I don't see it as - "ATC should have done X" - "The PIC should have done / not done Y".

I may be wrong, but my perception is that by working together and making proposals in advance - "If A happens then do B otherwise do C" - is eminently sensible.

The controller in question after issuing take off clearance did issue another instruction to Ajet, " Roll now" which wasn't actioned.

His attention then transferred to Cjet to give go around instructions when ajet then began the take off roll.

All of this happened at a regional airport with single runway use: I have had the same thing happen at a major international airport with multiple runways in use and the controller in the latter case was very quick to issue heading and altitude instructions different to the standard go around.

Where a standard go around will not cause an obvious conflict with departing traffic both the PIC and controller can be quite secure in the maneouvre.

Sadly I have it on good authority that the reason that the ATSIN was issued because of a couple of rather unfortunate incidents when controllers tried to stop an aircraft at high speed - and for wholly unnecessary reasons.

"Good authorities" are very good at making judgements after the fact from the comfort zone!:* I'm familiar with one of the incidents which lead to the above ATSIN being issued. A trainee had sent an aircraft around (quite correctly) from about 1.5 miles and decided to stop the aircraft which had been cleared for take-off. The aircraft was NOT at a particularly high speed and was stopped with over half of the runway distance remaining. Part of the problem was the visual perspective from the tower which meant it was difficult to judge the aircraft's speed, and part of the problem was the perception of the trainee that stopping the departure provided an extra safety barrier, which was not the case in this example because the go around was already turning away from the departure before reaching the threshold. The ATSIN was correctly issued to raise awareness of the issue, and very deliberately does not try to proscribe stopping a departure. There are circumstances when a go-around is unable to make a turn immediately (weather springs to mind, but others can also occur) and then stopping an aircraft already rolling may be the best option. We should all be aware that stopping a departure is fraught with problems, and the ATSIN was issued for that reason, and that alone.

Don't believe everything you're told!

It is much safer to instruct the aircraft going around to turn than to issue an instruction to stop, particularly where judgement of speed is an issue: the NTSB report at the 2nd link refers to 100kts as the boundary between low and high speed.

A high speed abandonment is a "sporty" event: uncomfortable and alarming for passengers and stressful on the brakes. Accident statistics indicate that a high speed rejection is potentially more dangerous than taking a problem in to the air e.g. an engine fire. Link Don't Stop Now! | AVIATION WEEK to an article and the summary from an NTSB report in 1990, SIR90/02 here.

Completely reasonable, and if I had a different plan, because of that traffic in the pattern that you mentioned, then this is when I would probably let you in on it!