Question around Go-arounds

[OhNoCB]

Originally Posted by easyflyer83

All GA’s are reported via an ASR.

That depends on the carrier. They were only reportable if executed below 1000' in my previous company and they are only voluntarily reportable in my current one (unless for a couple of MOR related reasons)

[419]

Originally Posted by Harry Wayfarers

Why would that GA be a reportable occurrence? ... There was a reason why the aircraft couldn't land, the crew took appropriate action and at no time were the passengers in any danger!

I know that there was no danger to the aircraft but surely if the aircraft had passed the point at which the gear was normally lowered and was then unable to land because of this, an error must have been made by the crew, hence my reason for thinking that a report should have been raised to highlight the error.

[rudestuff]

Originally Posted by 419

surely if the aircraft had passed the point at which the gear was normally lowered and was then unable to land because of this, an error must have been made by the crew

ATC commanded go around, not visual at DA? Are these crew errors?

[DaveReidUK]

Originally Posted by rudestuff

ATC commanded go around, not visual at DA? Are these crew errors?

Clearly not. Nor are they anything to do with not being able to land because the gear hasn't been lowered, either.

[S.o.S.]

Thank you A320ECAM and welcome to the 'cabin'. On some flight deck videos I have seen a 'Cabin Ready' signal appear on the man display, rather than a phone call. Unfortunately, I cannot recall what the type was.

[Antonio Montana]

Originally Posted by 419

Surely whether or not it is a reportable occurrence depends on the reason for the GA.

A few years ago I was on a flight that was landing in St Lucia, a route that I had flown on about 50 times previously so I knew when to expect the landing gear to descend. (and as I'm normally in the front row of WT, it's extremely clear to hear when the gear is lowered or raised).
On this occasion, the aircraft was approaching the field and had gone well past the point that the gear was normally dropped and this hadn't happened. Then when the aircraft wasn't too far from the end of the runway, a go around was performed.
On the second approach, the landing gear was lowered where I would normally have expected it and the captain or co-pilot gave an announcement stating that the reason for the go around was due to a misconfiguration of the aircraft but he didn't go into any more detail.

I would have expected that this go around would have definitely been a reportable occurrence.

I know that with all of the automated warnings on modern aircraft that it's hard to believe this happened, but what I stated is exactly what occurred.

With the greatest of respect 419,
How do you know it was not reported?
You were not in the flight deck, your perception of the normal time the landing gear is extended could be wrong?
It was a non event, you landed safely.
Who is to say that there was not a problem dropping the landing gear?
Just a thought.

[419]

Originally Posted by Antonio Montana

With the greatest of respect 419,
How do you know it was not reported?
You were not in the flight deck, your perception of the normal time the landing gear is extended could be wrong?
It was a non event, you landed safely.
Who is to say that there was not a problem dropping the landing gear?
Just a thought.

I have no idea if it was reported or not. I was simply giving my opinion to the comment stating that they are not reported:

A go around is carried out because the option to continue would have resulted in something undesirable. They are always the safest choice. They are not dangerous. They are not reportable.

Correct, I wasn't in the flight deck but after going into St Lucia on 50+ occasions at the time (now well over 100 times), I can generally estimate at what part of the approach the gear will be lowered and on the flight in question, I know for a fact that when the GA was initiated, the aircraft gear was still up despite the aircraft being far closer to the end of the runway than is normally the case.
If as you say, there may have been a problem with the dropping the landing gear then surely this just confirms my earlier comment of:

Surely whether or not it is a reportable occurrence depends on the reason for the GA.

[Harry Wayfarers]

Originally Posted by 419

I know that there was no danger to the aircraft but surely if the aircraft had passed the point at which the gear was normally lowered and was then unable to land because of this, an error must have been made by the crew, hence my reason for thinking that a report should have been raised to highlight the error.

You presume that the aircraft went around because the crew forgot to lower the gear.

It is called a 'go around' for a very apt reason, that it involves going around, normally maintaining runway heading before a circuit to land, so the fact that the crew continued in the direction of the landing runway would be normal procedure, they can hardly break off the approach and do a 180 when it is likely that other aircraft are on the approach also.

[DaveReidUK]

Originally Posted by Harry Wayfarers

You presume that the aircraft went around because the crew forgot to lower the gear.

It is called a 'go around' for a very apt reason, that it involves going around, normally maintaining runway heading before a circuit to land, so the fact that the crew continued in the direction of the landing runway would be normal procedure, they can hardly break off the approach and do a 180 when it is likely that other aircraft are on the approach also.

Interesting.

The previous poster is suggesting that the aircraft continued the approach well after the point where the gear would typically be lowered (but wasn't), and then a GA was initiated just short of the threshold.

In other words, having omitted to drop the wheels the crew subsequently decided (or were instructed) not to land in the absence of 3 greens.

Or maybe it was just a coincidence ?

[Harry Wayfarers]

Originally Posted by DaveReidUK

Interesting.

The previous poster is suggesting that the aircraft continued the approach well after the point where the gear would typically be lowered (but wasn't), and then a GA was initiated just short of the threshold.

In other words, having omitted to drop the wheels the crew subsequently decided (or were instructed) not to land in the absence of 3 greens.

Or maybe it was just a coincidence ?

Or perhaps there was another reason why, before the point where the gear is normally lowered, the crew had already realised that they needed to go around, in my experience it is SOP to only lower the gear when the intention is to land.

[ExSp33db1rd]

........... to only lower the gear when the intention is to land.

Precisely. I have experienced exactly that situation. Approaching an airport., all normal at that stage, the Approach Checks were commanded which at that stage included the first stage of flap extension, but although that happened the associated leading edge flaps did not extend. The co-pilot was handling so I told him to continue with the approach, which included intercepting the final approach path whilst the F/Eng. and self went through checks to ascertain the L/edge problem. Although we were getting closer to the airfield I did not extend the gear and was prepared to go around if necessary. To have extended the gear would have been contrary to the normal check list sequence, for a start the Landing Check, which included the gear, had not been asked for as we had not completed all the checks prior to the Landing Check, and to have lowered the gear would have meant carrying out a check list item -t he gear - out of sequence, with the possibility of missing something important that might have been necessary prior to gear extension, e.g. do not interrupt the check list sequence, or if you have for some reason, then start again at the beginning. QED.

[DaveReidUK]

Originally Posted by ExSp33db1rd

Precisely. I have experienced exactly that situation. Approaching an airport., all normal at that stage, the Approach Checks were commanded which at that stage included the first stage of flap extension, but although that happened the associated leading edge flaps did not extend. The co-pilot was handling so I told him to continue with the approach, which included intercepting the final approach path whilst the F/Eng. and self went through checks to ascertain the L/edge problem. Although we were getting closer to the airfield I did not extend the gear and was prepared to go around if necessary. To have extended the gear would have been contrary to the normal check list sequence, for a start the Landing Check, which included the gear, had not been asked for as we had not completed all the checks prior to the Landing Check, and to have lowered the gear would have meant carrying out a check list item -t he gear - out of sequence, with the possibility of missing something important that might have been necessary prior to gear extension, e.g. do not interrupt the check list sequence, or if you have for some reason, then start again at the beginning. QED.

Interesting scenario.

I did not extend the gear and was prepared to go around if necessary

Forgive me asking (just curious) - did you go around, or was there ultimately no necessity ?

[ExSp33db1rd]

Yes, USA Honolulu, Hawaii, airport, and ATC subsequently "reported" that we had ignored two advisory calls, No Gear, Go Around until the 3rd call. No one subsequently recalled hearing ATC order a Go Around, so was that just ATC indulging in "knocking" a British Airline, as had happened to me once before at JFK, or were we too pre-occupied with trying to correct the flap problem to enable us to continue to land ? (shades of the accident into the Everglades when the crew were too pre-occupied in sorting out a failed nose gear green confirmatory gear extended - or not - light ? )

In any event, long before any need to alarm the Tower with a gearless approach, I instructed the co-pilot, an experienced Captain returning to flying after a medical issue, to execute the go around, and with application of go around power the leading edge flaps extended - a clue there somewhere?

We advised the Tower that our problem was solved and got vectors back for a successful second, visual, approach. The issue of the supposed ATC warnings only came to light at The Subsequent Court of Enquiry by the company, during which our actions were not exactly congratulated, but at least approved.