Warning passengers about a go-around

[SNS3Guppy]

For the record, I flew on an established UK airline last year where the Captain did brief the passengers that the approach would be rough ('choppy' I think was his word).

Did the captain of this established UK airline brief you to expect a missed approach?

I didn't think so.

One generally doesn't brief contingencies during a phase of flight that are the natural to that phase of flight.

"Ladies and gentlemen, we'll be climbing to thirty six thousand feet, but be forewarned that we might level off at twenty two thousand feet, first."

"Ladies and gentlemen, we'll be landing shortly. Be forewarned that while there is no reason to expect this to be the case, we might blow a tire and careen off one side of the runway."

"Ladies and gentlemen, we'll be flying an instrument approach to runway three six. Please be advised that we'll be putting the gear down shortly."

"Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for flying XYZ airlines. We're fortunate to have Captain Allen with us today, who just returned from passing a large kidney stone, and who talks in his sleep."

"Ladies and gentlemen, we'll be taking off shortly. Please be advised that we might not get off the runway in time. Let this announcement serve as a warning that we might be rejecting the takeoff and running off the end. In the event that we do so, please disregard the flame and fire you see out your window."

"Ladies and gentlemen, the captain has turned off the fasten seatbelt sign, as we've leveled off at thirty six thousand feet. Please feel free to roam about the cabin, but be forewarned that we might be slow because of a headwind. That is all."

"Ladies and gentlemen, please be advised that we're out of coffee. We've declared an emergency, and are returning to land immediately. Please be seated."

Have you ever been briefed as a passenger on an airline flight, regarding a missed approach or go-around? In the cockpit, we brief the missed approach procedure for every landing, even when the conditions are clear and calm. We may have to go around for any number of reasons, and the need to do so is not always in our purview.

Providing an advance "warning" to passengers of a go-around is not normally done, as I believe has been amply made clear to you. You're correct that the original language of your post, utilizing the word "warn" tends to suggest a need to be prepared for some impending event. A missed approach is part of the approach procedure, and warning of a missed approach is somewhat like warning passengers on landing that the aircraft might stop.

Whereas stopping is the intended point of landing, and an expected, intrinsic part of every landing, there's nothing to "warn" about regarding an approach which ends in a missed approach. It's part of the procedure. Explaining it to passengers after the fact, if time permits, is well and good. Most approaches and landings do not result in a missed approach. If one briefed passengers on each approach of the potential for a missed, one would be preparing the passengers for an eventuality which rarely comes to fruition.

Passengers are given safety briefings regarding threats to life and limb, such as emergency egress, the wearing of life preservers, and the use of seatbelts. Failure to find the exit in a timely manner, to leave one's belongings and proceed in an orderly manner to an exit in an emergency, and failure to adhere to the procedures for use of a lifevest, may cost lives, time and put the entire aircraft in jeopardy in an emergency.

Passengers not knowing about a go-around in advance costs...nothing. Explaining in advance to passengers about all the things that might happen or that one might do is superfluous, and without point. Explaining about impending turbulence is one thing; the turbulence is coming, and one is ensuring seatbelt usage and safety. Explaining about a missed approach which may or may not happen at some future time is...pointless.

[Piltdown Man]

I believe Mr Guppy has hit the level of passenger briefing required spot on. I don't think he has ever said that you should lie to passengers nor to falsely raise their levels of expectation. Personally I also don't think it wise to give passengers information which could be misconstrued or upset people who are ignorant of aviation. For example, would you announce that you will be departing on "minimum fuel?" Would it be sensible to say your destination is currently below minimums or telling everyone you've got some very "interesting" technical deficiencies in the aircraft. Tell people the truth but don't lie and try not to use emotive words or phrases.

So going back to where we started from, it is really sensible to start an approach which you think you'll be going around from?

[411A]

...it is really sensible to start an approach which you think you'll be going around from?

Absolutely.
I recall one time (long ago) at NRT, we started the approach with the weather/RVR below, then landed quite successfully...no problemo.
Why?
CX, with a preceeding takeoff with a B747, improved the RVR just enough for our landing....we were CATII approved at the time.
For those aircraft following our arrival?
Diverted.

Such is the nature of the game.
ONLY those flights that might be a tad short of fuel will have a slight problem.

[con-pilot]

SNS3Guppy: there is no need to be facetious. I do not appreciate your sarcastic comments. In fact, I was quite surprised by your reply, given that you normally provide helpful, informative answers. OK, so I shouldn't have used the word 'warn'. I should perhaps have said 'Giving passengers a heads-up / briefing the passengers there is the possibility of a go-around' or some other less 'emotional' word. In any case, you knew full well what I meant. Either that or you can't read a question properly. I have re-named the thread title so as not to cause you further offence.

I enjoyed the hell out of it.

[Nicholas49]

You have an equally pathetic sense of humour, in that case.

[SNS3Guppy]

You have an equally pathetic sense of humour, in that case.

Nicholas, when one has nothing intelligent to say, one often begins attacking others in the conversation.

You're attacking others in the conversation.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

No he's not, he's stating his opinion. The Androgel didn't work I see.

When one has said what has needed to be said why does one continue to type.

[anotherglassofwine]

Hi Nicholas,
As a frequent pax I have had a number of go-arounds, but was never fore warned and I wouldn't want to be.

Generally, the Captain/FO has mentioned that the approach might be a little bumpy (in one case "sporty"). Flying into Krakow on one occasion the Pilot told us that there was fog at the airport, but he was going to have a little look anyway and a diversion to Katowisce was on the cards. No go around as such, but nice to know he was willing to take a look within the safety margins ..

I think SN3Guppy has answered your question in his very own style

As a pax I don't see any reason why the pilot would inform me that a go around was a possibility - maybe a bit more butt clinching, but we are there for the ride either way!

[SNS3Guppy]

When one has said what has needed to be said why does one continue to type.

The conversation is not over.

The Androgel didn't work I see.

I don't know what that is, but it's clear you've still nothing to contribute, here. Your sole failed attempt at contribution here is to enter and whine about what others have to say on the topic, though you've entirely failed to contribute anything, yourself. Interesting.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

The conversation is over when the relevant question has been answered. For example:

If you fly an approach where there is an increased chance of a go-around (i.e. in rubbish weather), is it common practice / SOP for the Commander to brief the passengers about the likelihood of a rough approach / go-around in advance?

No.

Or do you prefer to explain why there was a go-around only if you need to do one so as not to cause unnecessary 'concern'?

Yes.

Happy now?

Of course I could type up a load of sarcastic nonsense and waffle for pages following the answer but anything more is just chest beating.

[Nicholas49]

SNS3Guppy: so to follow your own advice, if one only 'attacks others' when one has nothing intelligent to say, would you care to explain why you said to me earlier:

That's a crying shame. It really is.

That doesn't strike me as a particularly 'intelligent thing to say' either.

[con-pilot]

You have an equally pathetic sense of humour, in that case.

Okay, please explain the relevance of the above post to the subject of the topic?

It appears to be just an insult to me, nothing to do with the question at hand.

If you demand a serious answer from me;

I agree with Guppy's posts. The answer is no. In over 21,000 hours and over 40 years of flying I have never warned passengers about a possible missed approach.

So sue me.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

It was about as relevant as the post he was replying to. That'll be yours.

Nicholas asked a question sensibly and recieved several posts full of sarcasm and idiocy. Relevant?

Hypocrisy rules.

[con-pilot]

Okay, so you did not care for my answer of;

I agree with Guppy's posts. The answer is no. In over 21,000 hours and over 40 years of flying I have never warned passengers about a possible missed approach.

Fair enough. Everybody has an opinion.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

Nope, I agree with that. I don't agree that this is relevant.

I enjoyed the hell out of it.

You have a problem with the relevancy of this:

You have an equally pathetic sense of humour, in that case.

But as it was in response to your equally irrelevant post you came across as hypocritical.

[Nicholas49]

Let me just clear a few things up here.

I am grateful to those who have answered my question, including Guppy for the later long post. To you too con-pilot for your reply, and to you LSM.

What I object to is the childish overreaction to a reasonable question. As I said, my question arose because I took a flight where the captain briefed passengers to expect a rough approach. So I do not think it is particularly far-fetched or unreasonable when one is interested in aviation to ask oneself: "I wonder if they would ever go as far as saying 'we may need to go-around in this weather'. I note that the answer is 'no'. For that, thank you.

Incidentally, I have noticed that American posters have taken particular issue with the word 'warn'. I wonder therefore whether there is a US/UK English issue here. I certainly did not mean it in the sense 'DANGER AHEAD'.

I think this discussion has run its course. Thank you again for all the sensible answers.