Go-around question
 

Something I've been curious about for a while . . . not sure how to ask or the terminology, so forgive me.

If an aircraft has to go-around because another aircraft improperly impeded it (like staying on the runway too long), can the airline of the go-around aircraft sue the other airline for monetary damages? (Fuel, salaries, screwing up the day's schedule, etc.)

No! Please don't suggest it!

Thanks for your question, Mr O'Leary. We'll get back to you

The EU Compensation Regulation 261 specifically provides that airlines paying compensation/care can attempt to recover said costs from third parties. In the 10 years (almost) it's been in effect not one case has reached the courts seeking such redress.

Do we really want third parties to act irresponsibly to avoid lawsuits?

Just what the world needs - another reason to sue - not.

Considering you would need an enquiry to unpick whether it was an ATC or an aircraft caused problem in each case it is never going to be worth the effort.

While the accountants may worry about the average one or two percent added to operating cost due to GAs of various causes, each individual case typically costs hundreds rather than thousands (aircraft dependent obviously) and around 10 minutes in time.

Is that worth a lawyer? Especially when you know your victim will make a point of coming after you when it's your turn to screw up. Everyone makes mistakes and sometimes it is better to just live with it.

We had a go-around last night. Apparently there was a medical emergency on the aircraft behind us. We went around, more like 20 minutes but GVA has mountains on both sides, but who was to blame? ATC for requesting it? The aircraft behind? The sick passenger?

The event cost me (at least) CHF25 as I missed my connecting bus and had to take a taxi but that's life, isn't it?

One can only make "best efforts" to vacate the runway, so it would be pretty hard to attach any blame to an alleged slow vacate.

A frequent cause of a G/A is an unstabilised approach. You can be sure the crew in the subsequent PA will find another reason for the GA :oh:

I've only ever had one GA where I saw the other aircraft. I'm told, possibly incorrectly, that if PAX can see the other plane in the sky, its not the GA you want. (it cast a beaut shadow over us as we flew on different paths rather sharply. most becoming and pretty. I would include claims I saw about 35 rows of 'the scream' by munch here, but that would be like a fishermans lie. I just saw metal very close)

On the whole, if I was the Airline and one of these got reported to me, I probably *would* be wanting to put their number into some Database and do a cost settlement on brown-trouser cleaning later on, but then you see.. it probably happens 50/50 the other way too. So in the end, I suspect that these things don't go into a least-cost settlement bin, because frequent offendors should be de-listed, and anything else is zero sum so why invent a mechanism?

K.I.S.S.
 

Ten characters required, the answer is NO.

geeoh, etc. If you fly from a dual runway airfield and become involved in a go-around you may well see another aircraft departing off the other runway very close. However, there are good chaps and chapesses in the Tower who are paid to sort such problems so don't lose any sleep.

geeohgeegeeoh,
If you were flying a parallel approach into Sydney you'd see the other aircraft OK, esp an A380 :)
Don't know if it's permissible to put the BigBus //l to another; they weren't invented when I did my last PRM training session.