Very late go-around at Geneva
Thread Starter
Very late go-around at Geneva
I was a passenger on easyJet flight 904 yesterday (24/1) from Luton to Geneva. We set up for an approach to Runway 05 and everything appeared completely normal in reasonable weather conditions. We crossed the runway threshold seemingly perfectly set up for landing.
Then, at a point which I would estimate as being about 100-200m past the threshold and a height of no greater than 30 feet (possibly less)there was a very sudden application of power and we went around.
There was no announcement after this incident and both myself and my colleague spent the next few minutes trying to reassure some very nervous passengers around us that there was nothing to worry about.
After about 10 minutes the captain came on and said that we couldn't land because the cabin was not secure for landing.
I have been in two go-arounds before from decision height (which I assume is 100 feet). On both previous occasions the whole procedure was conducted smoothly from a greater altitude and an announcement was made almost immediately.
My questions are therefore
1. If the cabin was indeed not secured why was the decision to go around carried out at literally the last moment before touchdown? Is this part of the easyJet SOP?
2. Why was the announcement not made sooner?
3. Can anyone shed any further light on the incident.
Despite being a regular flyer and knowing a lot about what is going on I still found this incident a little disconcerting and I would very much appreciate any comments or insights that anyone may be able to share. Thanks in advance.
Then, at a point which I would estimate as being about 100-200m past the threshold and a height of no greater than 30 feet (possibly less)there was a very sudden application of power and we went around.
There was no announcement after this incident and both myself and my colleague spent the next few minutes trying to reassure some very nervous passengers around us that there was nothing to worry about.
After about 10 minutes the captain came on and said that we couldn't land because the cabin was not secure for landing.
I have been in two go-arounds before from decision height (which I assume is 100 feet). On both previous occasions the whole procedure was conducted smoothly from a greater altitude and an announcement was made almost immediately.
My questions are therefore
1. If the cabin was indeed not secured why was the decision to go around carried out at literally the last moment before touchdown? Is this part of the easyJet SOP?
2. Why was the announcement not made sooner?
3. Can anyone shed any further light on the incident.
Despite being a regular flyer and knowing a lot about what is going on I still found this incident a little disconcerting and I would very much appreciate any comments or insights that anyone may be able to share. Thanks in advance.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cant say i know what happened or why it happened, but can say that it couldn't have been something easy to deal with if the pilot didn't inform the probably concerned pax. I prefere an informative note over the PA to be made immediately and discuss this with my F/O before T.O. As you do, and although i am not aware of the reason for this G.A, would say that the crew a)forgot about the passengers, b)was unaware of the problem so could not really make anything over a PA which would have been really helpful to the pax and c) were too busy complaining at the head attendant for not securing.
Colleagues, do you not all agree that the securing of the cabin should be carried out pretty early as possible? Maybe a lack of communication before landing?
Colleagues, do you not all agree that the securing of the cabin should be carried out pretty early as possible? Maybe a lack of communication before landing?
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK/Spain
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With regard to the delayed PA, the period after a go-around can be a time of high work load- clean up, talking to ATC, radar headings, re setting the approach etc. And on this occasion seeing if the cabin was secure. Sometimes it is just not possible to do an immediate PA, the priority being to fly the aircraft, remember this is also an area of high terrain.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely "cabin secure for landing" is one of the final points of the landing checklist and if it can´t be completed should you not go around before DH? 30 feet seems a strange time to decide to have another go because the checklist isn´t complete?
Paxing All Over The World
Firstly, I appreciate the nervousness of some passengers at what was - unbeknown to them - a routine procedure conducted for their saftey. I have just been reassuring a friend of mine who was doing LHR-YYZ with AC yesterday and had a turn back due to (stated) auto pilot failure). They returned LHR for replair/swop. She said that she felt very nervous because she did not understand. Of course, it is not easy to explain certain failures to folks.
To this incident, given that the senior cabin crew does not know the reason for the G/A, under what circumstances can the senior CC give a reassuring P/A?
To this incident, given that the senior cabin crew does not know the reason for the G/A, under what circumstances can the senior CC give a reassuring P/A?
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: England
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
>>I agree with Zepplin. Although I am not a real airline pilot, I do a lot of sim flying, but to it's highest realism<<
What is this world coming too?? <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0"> <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0"> <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">
What is this world coming too?? <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0"> <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0"> <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Blighty
Posts: 568
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Obviously none of us were there so rather difficult to make a judgement but we all have a good go at it! As was pointed out above, GVA has lots of high ground around so I think there were more pressing priorites to the pilots however if it realy was for a cabin "non" secure that the manoeuvre was initiated it was as it seemed left rather late as it is the first item of the landing checklist on the EZY 737. I am sure this will be persued by the company and delt with in an apropriate manor.. .Safe flying regards Bokkie449.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: St Albans (Herts UK)
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a quick question regarding the role of the auto-pilot in the go-around.. Do modern FMC databases contain go-around procedures for most of the major airports?? If they do then the presence of high ground around Geneva should not be a problem as the "computer" is there to guide you away from it. Am I assuming that the auto-pilot is relied upon too much here, especially in tight situations such as this one seems to be?
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Egcc
Posts: 1,695
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
???PAX
yes they do.. .The FMC is NOT the autopilot.. .The presence of high ground is never a problem if the FMC is correctly guiding and the autopilot is correctly following. We're there to ensure this.. .The autopilot frees the pilots up from the manual manipulation of the controls and 'evens' out the workload between the two pilots. In the event of flying a manual go-around (which this one may well have been) the workload on the PNF is very high as the PF has to concentrate most of his attention on the flight path. It is a balance. Good airmanship is using the available resources to give yourself more capacity for thinking ahead and making decisions, but you must keep practicing the skills so they don't get rusty for when you have to rely on them.
PP
yes they do.. .The FMC is NOT the autopilot.. .The presence of high ground is never a problem if the FMC is correctly guiding and the autopilot is correctly following. We're there to ensure this.. .The autopilot frees the pilots up from the manual manipulation of the controls and 'evens' out the workload between the two pilots. In the event of flying a manual go-around (which this one may well have been) the workload on the PNF is very high as the PF has to concentrate most of his attention on the flight path. It is a balance. Good airmanship is using the available resources to give yourself more capacity for thinking ahead and making decisions, but you must keep practicing the skills so they don't get rusty for when you have to rely on them.
PP
Whatever happens,.. happens!
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: 19' N, 82' W
Posts: 360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is this industry coming to?
computer-game players offering authorative opinions on issues that professional pilots are reluctant to comment on in absence of all the facts.
Passengers offering advice on proper course of action in a situation requiring quick decision making.
What's next?. .Flight crew consulting with passengers and acting on the consensus of that consultation on anything that deviates from normal course of events.
"Ladies and Gentlemen, this is your Captain speaking, I am seeking your input on a possible deviation from course, due to what appears to be a CB about 100 miles ahead of us. Please forward your opinion regarding the type of avoidance maneuver you would favour in this situiation, if any. In the absence of a conclusive decision prior to reaching said CB, my colleague and I propose to enter into a holding pattern, untill you have had time to deliberate and consider all options at our disposal. Further and with your permission, we propose to be allowed to declare a fuel emergency without further consulting you, should it become necessary"
Thank you for your assistance in this matter and as always, we appreciate your invaluable input.
computer-game players offering authorative opinions on issues that professional pilots are reluctant to comment on in absence of all the facts.
Passengers offering advice on proper course of action in a situation requiring quick decision making.
What's next?. .Flight crew consulting with passengers and acting on the consensus of that consultation on anything that deviates from normal course of events.
"Ladies and Gentlemen, this is your Captain speaking, I am seeking your input on a possible deviation from course, due to what appears to be a CB about 100 miles ahead of us. Please forward your opinion regarding the type of avoidance maneuver you would favour in this situiation, if any. In the absence of a conclusive decision prior to reaching said CB, my colleague and I propose to enter into a holding pattern, untill you have had time to deliberate and consider all options at our disposal. Further and with your permission, we propose to be allowed to declare a fuel emergency without further consulting you, should it become necessary"
Thank you for your assistance in this matter and as always, we appreciate your invaluable input.
Moderator
Join Date: Feb 1998
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Fluffy, mind the blood pressure! <img src="wink.gif" border="0"> . .The way to put an end to percieved "stupidity" on these pages would perhaps be to inform people rather than take the p!ss out of them?
Funny though............
Funny though............
"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
Just a thought. Perhaps there was some other reason, like the guy was too fast (we've all done it if we're honest), and he certainly wasn't going to tell THAT to the passengers.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Near Stalyvegas
Age: 78
Posts: 2,022
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Two things <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0"> . .I once saw a LH B737 overshoot/Go around at about 15 feet. [Snow squall] No idea of the pax chat!. .On a "Fam Flight", I had a Go Around at 250ft due to "insecure cabin". Vis apc was carried out,BUT no chat to the pax.... <img src="eek.gif" border="0"> . .we aim to please, it keeps the cleaners happy
Whatever happens,.. happens!
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: 19' N, 82' W
Posts: 360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't worry about my BP Flaps, I'm way beyond that and cool as a Cucumber.
I'm wondering what the comments might have been if it had been an aborted landing, rather then a Go-around. I recently did one of those, due to 2 dogs humping on the runway.. .That was fun to explain to the pax!
I'm wondering what the comments might have been if it had been an aborted landing, rather then a Go-around. I recently did one of those, due to 2 dogs humping on the runway.. .That was fun to explain to the pax!
Thread Starter
I can appreciate that workload is very high in these situations - I was merely stating that there was a long time before a PAwhen compared to what happened during the previous two go-arounds that I have been in.
Herod - There didn't appear to be any visible reason for the go-around. The first approach seemed identical to the second in terms of speed/height etc
BTW we were actually landing on 23 rather than 05 as initially stated.
Herod - There didn't appear to be any visible reason for the go-around. The first approach seemed identical to the second in terms of speed/height etc
BTW we were actually landing on 23 rather than 05 as initially stated.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Europe
Posts: 341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With 20/20 hindsight: Why wouldn't the flight-crew have continued the landing without a "Cabin secure" signal from the cabin staff at that point? The pitch change, acceleration etc. of a go-around can certainly cause as much havoc to an "unsecured" cabin as a normal landing (if not more).
Obviously, I don't know all the facts and I am in no way advocating the practice of landing without the "Cabin secure" signal, but I think the essence of this forum is to promote a healthy discussion.
So, what is your view?
[ 29 January 2002: Message edited by: 320DRIVER ]</p>
Obviously, I don't know all the facts and I am in no way advocating the practice of landing without the "Cabin secure" signal, but I think the essence of this forum is to promote a healthy discussion.
So, what is your view?
[ 29 January 2002: Message edited by: 320DRIVER ]</p>
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The flight crew...there for a reason...FLY the aeroplane. PR is the LAST consideration, to be done "as time permits".. .Cabin crew, also there for a reason, basic safety and pax service (little of THAT in todays market) and they should NOT be making any announcments about go-arounds...heck, they could not even secure the cabin, it would appear.. .As I mentioned on another thread, thick at times.. .Back for retraining perhaps?