PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Questions (https://www.pprune.org/questions-67/)
-   -   Very late go-around at Geneva (https://www.pprune.org/questions/43988-very-late-go-around-geneva.html)

Doors to Automatic 25th Jan 2002 15:16

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.

Long Range Cruise 25th Jan 2002 16:05

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?

Long Range Cruise 25th Jan 2002 16:11

On that note, ignore what i said about the head flight attendant. Was in two minds at once. I dont make this habit dont worry!

Zeppelin 25th Jan 2002 16:34

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.

DVR6K 25th Jan 2002 18:05

Surely "cabin secure for landing" is one of the final points of the landing checklist and if it canīt be completed should you not go around before DH? 30 feet seems a strange time to decide to have another go because the checklist isnīt complete?

PAXboy 26th Jan 2002 03:21

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?

Iain 26th Jan 2002 15:38

>>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">

springbok449 28th Jan 2002 14:19

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.

???pax 28th Jan 2002 14:44

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?

Pilot Pete 28th Jan 2002 16:02

???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

???pax 28th Jan 2002 16:04

Thanks for that Pete, and thanks for correcting me.

flufdriver 29th Jan 2002 00:39

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.

flapsforty 29th Jan 2002 01:25

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............ :)

BRL 29th Jan 2002 01:42

Good call Fluff..........

Herod 29th Jan 2002 02:02

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.

chiglet 29th Jan 2002 02:51

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

flufdriver 29th Jan 2002 04:22

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!

Doors to Automatic 29th Jan 2002 20:49

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.

320DRIVER 29th Jan 2002 21:15

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>

411A 29th Jan 2002 22:39

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?


All times are GMT. The time now is 19:47.


Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.