Reason for Going-Around
 

Hi Guardians of the skies...there are various reasons for
acft to go-around. Is there any rule stated anywhere
that a pilot must give the reason to atc asap.
Thanks in advance:ok:

Not in my understanding of things. Although be advised that I am neither a qualified Pilot or a qualified ATSU employee!

I believe most pilots when going round just say "call-sign, going round", and that whilst usually the reason is obvious, I don't think it's proscribed that they give an explanation. I may be wrong of course...

*cue someone with real knowledge stepping in*

"The runway was too low" :rolleyes:

<<Is there any rule stated anywhere
that a pilot must give the reason to atc asap.>>

Not in the UK. I don't know about other places. If an aircraft goes around for no apparent reason ATC will ask the pilot the reason simply to know whether it's due to a technical problem which may require different handling.

It`s always nice to know the reason for the ensueing paperwork though unstable approach is always a good bet.

There is also no need to even tell ATC you are going around, although it is desirable and should be done where possible. The rules remain, as ever:
Aviate
Navigate
Communicate

That's it in a nutshell! 'Pilot initiated go round - reason unknown' works too.

and BOAC is correct..HOWEVER

It is nice to know that the driver has merely cocked it up and you DON'T need to call out the RFFS:)

Don't worry we will usually yell immediately if its something serious.

And asking after we have sorted our poo out somewhere downwind or leveled off on a vector will get you your answer.

I have only had two pilot GA's in the last 5 years and two times had to tell the controller to standby for the details. And for the record one was unable to confirm a landing clearance after getting it at 8 miles and both us not being 100% sure we had one after a ruff approach. And the other one was the electrics for the gear indications going tits up just as we selected gear down.

So I know where the OP is coming from. Its more of a when you ask than if you ask. TWR asking while your still in the guts of flying one isn't the best time.

Maybe someone should tell Manchester ATC that. They seem to be more interested in knowing the reason for the go-around, asking the pilots in an accusatorially voice no less than four times adding to a high workload situation... Maybe they should do their job and give them a heading instead of badgering.

Adam.. I didn't bother to listen but it sounds as if you were breaking the law by listening in to the airband...

Adam, I think you'll find it less surprising when I tell you that some of the more recently valid controllers at Nats and a vast proportion of the up and coming validations have never set foot on to the flight deck of an aircraft. Some of them haven't even been on a plane as a passenger.

Lack of familiarisation with what happens on the flight deck is a problem which is going to become markedly worse for Nats ATCOs in the near future. :ugh:

Actually, it all sounded very professional, and no hint of badgering. You are adding the frequency change and the new controller request - I don't see it that way.

And you can see why the request - unstable approach means routing the go around. Failed landing gear means getting time to action a checklist to clear, or rolling the emergency ground assets for the upcoming drama.

Me - I just drive helicopters so a go around is most often sparked by conditions changing at the target site making it advisable to circle round and check again before committing to land. For example, last time it was at a show ground temporary helistrip. The heli ahead of me decided to begin back-tracking (180 degree turn) on the helistrip instead of clearing left (90 degrees) to the parking area. As we were at 90 seconds spacing it got interesting right from the start. My radio call was "XXX going around". No need to explain the reason as ATC already speaking to the other driver.

Adam......nonsense.

Handled well by ATC. No badgering.

Am I breaking the law by watching and listening to this YouTube clip?

Please give it a rest now HD. Yes it's against the law - but everybody does it and have been doing so since I was a wee lad spotting at BHX back in the sixties. Never but never did a police officer (or anyone else) ever challenge any person listening to a VHF receiver.

The tower controller was good the radar could have left him alone though.

It was similar to what I had with my gear issue. Until we had managed to semi fix it we didn't have a clue what was wrong either. It could have been hydralics, turned out to be a gen failure with a bus tie that refused to reset.

The radar controller kept on asking even after being told to standby so I ignored him.

I was told afterwards "but we need to know", apparently the fact it detracts from flying the machine, breaks up your flow in checklists, diverts your attention away from maintaining a safe flight profile and breaks your concentration away from a sick machine isn't a valid excuse. Yes give us headings etc to keep us away from hitting the ground and other aircraft but reason and other such stuff as POB can wait.

Unfortuantely I have never managed to get to a TRUCE but the pilots I know that have been on one say that this sort of thing gets quite interesting on the debrief.

ATC are trained that we will answer their questions about reasons and POB etc. Pilots are trained to fly the machine and ignore none safety RT traffic.

You would have thought by now that NATS would have got together with BA and got some sim footage about whats going on in a GA and other standard and none standard procedures.

To add though this was PIA and I think 2007 was when they were having quite nasty tech issues with things falling off aircraft and gear bursting into flames after landing. Also culture comes into it as well with some cultures not wanting to tell anyone when they have a serious problem if not forced to.

There is a chance of a Missed Approach from every approach.
There is not a chance of a Landing from every approach.
Therefore there should be no element of surprise...and no need for a 'standard missed approach' instruction...

I dont think the Radar controller was unreasonable. Her tone was calm and the questioning to the point. As mentioned before the pilot could always have said 'Standby'.

Dear god, save us from the armchair ATCOs who pass judgement against us, lead us away from the path of enlightenment where surely we will find out the reason for the missed approach and deliver us from the temptation to call out the RFFS in case a problem really exists.

I think you've mixed up the word 'cultures' with the word 'professions'. It still amazes me that people in the aviation industry think that it's acceptable for the smartie tube drivers to hold back 'when they have a serious problem'. Who do they think calls out Fireman Sam, the tooth fairy!? :ugh:

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.

And I didn't intend to imply that its is acceptable to not declare if there is a problem. But it is an issue in quite a few cultures. Its not helped either that if you do declare in quite alot of places outside europe you will be issued a bill for the energency call out and the aircraft won't move until its payed. Sometimes the bill is not even to the company either its to the PIC.