Article by COLUM KENNY of the Irish Independent.

[HotDog]

Mr. Kenny,

This puts in a different light the statement by an earlier contributor, about which I expressed surprise (in my posting). He had written, "No-one asks ATC for permission to go around". My suprise at his suggestion that pilots could goaround wthout permission was justified, and his statement disingenuous because they already have permission.

Moggiee's erudite and factual explanation of the technicalities of a missed approach and go-around, obviously did not prevent you from rationalising (very poorly in my opinion) your reasons for your words. Had you carried out adequate research before going to print, this thread would have been put to rest some time ago. Why don't the press obtain some professional advice on matters outside their expertise before publishing misinformation?

[slip and turn]

Mr Kenny, you were right to consider your piece newsworthy and now having seen the true nature of some of the minds that make the decisions, you might see the basis of further newsworthy items.

Unfortunately many of the contributors to this forum consider themselves to be infallible, unassailable professional experts and controllers within their own world. They often consider the opinions of outsiders to be valueless unless you feed them carefully.

Unluckily for you, they can see that despite your 40 years of flying, you have never been a pilot so some of your latest comments are very conspicuous as obvious 'back-seat driver never learned to drive myself never saw the point' type comments which sadly dilute the original point of your story i.e. that there may be more poorly controlled aborted-landing incidents at some airports than most people would expect.

There are however some in this thread like Luke Stulewater who present a balanced understanding of the world of aviation (there is no world of aviation worth speaking of without the one that includes fare-paying passengers).

As a perhaps rash generalisation, it might be said that go arounds do often up the ante both on the flightdeck and in the back.

There are reports that the dreadful Sao Paolo incident last night may have followed a "go around", and yet further reports that a second go around may have been attempted during the landing roll that led directly to the crash. If so, it might be fair to ask why did it go around the first time, and why did it not go around the second time?

[RogerIrrelevant69]

Gentlemen, gentlemen. Re-read the article. It doesn't really say that much. None of the usual bravely narrowly avoiding schools, hospitals, bus full of kiddies, motorway full of traffic. He does say something about a light aircraft + flock of birds that didn't show up but not really in a shock horror oo la la way. So the journo in question knows buggah all about aviation...is there something new here? I think not but I do think I have seen a lot lot worse.

Only conclusion I can find is IAA don't keep statistics about go-arounds. Big deal. Bit of a non-article really.

Now then now then, what about that old chestnut they drag up every summer about Tenerife sliding into the sea and causing a tidal wave which will drown the whole of the western world. About time we had that one again. Sky News used to carry it every year usually about mid-July. Should be due shortly

[moggiee]

Gents,

I trust that Mr Kenny won't mind me making this post as I believe that it seems to show a desire to move forward, for the benefit of all.

Mr Kenny has been in touch with me to express an interest in taking up my offer for him to use the information I posted above (re:go-arounds) in a forthcoming article about "what happens on a go-around" or words to that effect. This would involve, as I offered, me allowing my real name to be used and he has indicated which passages he proposes to use.

I am minded to do this as I think it will help set the record straight - but would appreciate comment from my peers here as to the accuracy and relevance of my post. The sections to be used are:

"The crew and ATC know that this is a safe route because ATC do not put any other aeroplanes into that piece of airspace. At no point should it require the crew to use more than the normal bank angle for an airliner, although due to the relatively low speeds flown it will feel like a tighter turn."

"A go-around feels dramatic because the aeroplane makes the transition from a descent at around 800 feet per minute (along a glidepath which typically has a 3 degree descent angle) to a climb at several thousand feet per minute and a climb angle in excess of 10 degrees."

"In fact, the rules of the air state that when ATC clear a crew to fly an approach, they are also giving that crew permission to fly the go-round, therefore the crew do already have permission! It's a bit like a car rally - Colin McCrae doesn't have to go slowly round the corners because he knows that no one is coming the other way."

Your input please.

[Forkandles]

Don't start on at me, but moggiee, unfortunately, I think that probably goes some way to proving a point for the journalists. Too much technical stuff and they'll turn to the next story of someone from Big Brother saying that they haven't heard of Shakespeare. Sad, but true.

I say 'they' because I can't be arsed reading newspapers. They're just less humorous versions of Viz. Which, incidentally, isn't as funny as it used to be.

[HotDog]

I think you are spot on Moggiee. I can't exactly recall the number of missed approach/go arounds I was involved in as operating crew in my 33 years of aviation career but being based in Asia, flying in Typhoon conditions, they were more than I can count on ten fingers. An MOR was submitted on every occasion and not one of them were ever questioned. The decision to go around was in the majority our own alone. It might be worth to mention, that just about every PC or refresher program in the simulator includes at least one engine out missed approach and go -around and the missed approach briefing on every flight before top of descent in real life.

[moggiee]

It isn't going to happen - apparently there can be no guarantee that my words won't be edited (even "just for space constaints"), so they don't get to use my real name. End of story - any editing is unacceptable to me. However, Mr Kenny is free to use my words (which were freely given) - but he doesn't get my name to go with them.

I'm afraid to say that I have never read any newspaper that I regarded as reaching an acceptable level of accuracy on aviation reporting - and that includes "grown up" ones such as the Daily Telegraph and The Times. As such, I am not prepared to put my name to anything over which I do not have 100% control. It's a shame - I wanted to help but there you go.

I know that the following is from the Evening Standard but it gives an idea of the sort of thing we're up against: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/a...0ft/article.do

and this: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1951

The Gary Lineker one I know to be pure fabrication - I know the Captain in question and at no time did he say "I don't know what he's been up to this morning, but he's missed the flight.". BA told him to ignore the Mail because everything they write about BA is rubbish.

[slip and turn]

I liked the comment "...and there was a strange smell of sweet tobacco. The plane suddenly shot down and my life flashed before my eyes." Sounds like someone, perhaps in the seat behind, had decided to introduce a new calming ingredient.

BTW I thought the report itself was perfectly valid and correctly conveyed the seriousness of the incident. Suppressing such a report would not have been helpful.

[blaggerman]

As a mere (frequent) passenger with an interest in the machines in which I spend too much time, I felt the article was not very clear, fair and balanced. I'll happily explain the reasons why to Mr Kenny if he cares, but it wouldn't be very constructive for me to pick through it word for word. I simply dismissed it as silly nonsense at the time - something we have to do with most newspaper articles these days.

But never mind - few people probably read it as it wasn't about sports, sex or Paris Hilton. Now if she was onboard, that would be different. "Paris tells her near-death story".

Fly safely guys. Especially if I'm in the back.

[theamrad]

apparently there can be no guarantee that my words won't be edited

What a surprise! No offence meant, Moggie, but if you were considering doing this for SOME other news organisation other than the aforementioned, it might have been a good idea. Your detailed explanation was good and should have had great 'public information' value for a professional journalist with that interest/agenda - but of course that would not do here. But then there's already been quite a few posters here attesting to the type of 'news'paper published by THIS particular one.
As far as the comments of others concerning arrogance: a non-pilot/aviation professional coming onto the 'professional pilots rumour network' and, by the third post, is quoting forum rules to everyone else here.... Maybe Sky's looking for another 'aviation expert'??????

Personally, I think this thread should have been a non-runner after post number 3: 'TwoOneFour' puts it quite succinctly. But then again, non-aviators/non-aviation savy people wouldn't have had the advantage of Moggie's free and accurate advice. (As opposed to the 'newspaper').

Ireland’s best-read Sunday newspaper across all social classes

mmmmm....... , or is it , or maybe

[MarkColeman]

Mr Kenny:

To help clarify the reason why its necessary for pilots to have immediate and final authority to carry out a missed approach or 'go around' without first requesting permission from ATC, please consider the following:

A plane which is descending at 800 feet per minute, 300 feet above its touchdown point experiences sudden atmospheric change such as wind sheer, or a violent crosswind to the extent that the approach is too dangerous to carry out, and must be aborted. Lets assume this particular ATC is busy, the pilot may have to wait a few seconds or longer for the frequency to become free to request a go around. Then he has to request the go around and wait for a response. Then ATC informs him he is cleared to go around (or perhaps informs him he cant go around?!?). As you can see this takes time and could reasonably take 20 seconds or so for such a clearance.

Now if the plane is descending at 800 feet per minute, 300 feet above the runway when it becomes apparant that a safe landing isnt possible, it hardly makes any sense for the pilot to have to wait for a clearance to go around, when his plane is just moments away from slamming into the ground, does it? For this reason the necessary safety conditions are in place for any pilot on final approach to carry out a 'go around' at his own discretion.

Hope that helps clear things up!

[RoyHudd]

Disingenuous?

How dare you, Mr. Kenny.

You wrote about a flight EI169 "requesting permission to go-around", and then deny you ever referred to "permission to go-around". Now that is disingenuous in my book, even dishonest.

I am a professional pilot, and am against scaring the public by publishing articles that contain factual inaccuracies or un-necessary exaggerations.

I know you are only one small part of the "dumbing-down" army of journalists ready to make your living in this way, and I blame the editors and publishers as much as yourselves for your irresponsibly written and published articles. But by sticking your head above the parapet, you must be prepared to accept criticism, particularly from people who know their subject far better than you.

"Out".

[Colum Kenny]

Roy Hudd adds some more abuse to the site, which I shall ignore. But he has a reasonable (if not entirely accurate) point when he says,

You wrote about a flight EI169 "requesting permission to go-around", and then deny you ever referred to "permission to go-around".

I did not metion permission. What i actually wrote, was, "According to the IAA, an Aer Lingus pilot on flight EI 169 himself requested a 'go-around', because of the effect of wind on his approach..."

The IAA made it clear to me, and I understood it when writing the article, that some goarounds are directed by ATC and some are at the option of the pilot. I said nothing about ATC permission in my actual short article but accept that the phrase which I used could be read as implying that. I did not intend to be disingenuous, and think that it is something of a red herring as this issue is entirely incidental to the point of the little piece that I wrote. Also, stating that the pilot requested a goaround could not possibly scare any reasonable reader.

As regards Theamrad reproaching me for

coming onto the 'professional pilots rumour network' and, by the third post ... quoting forum rules to everyone else here

I can only point out that I did not originially come on this site but was put on it when my article was published here in breach of my copyright and contrary to the forum rules. The continuing abuse is also contrary to rules. I normally ignore anonymous or pseudonymous communications of any kind but decidecd to request permission of the administrator to respond and was eventually given it. I did so because the site does appear to be used by some serious professionals who rise above abuse but feel the need not to disclose their identity, and also becuase it is an interesting exercise to see the dynamics of such a site of this from the inside as a participant.

You appear to query my statement that the Sunday Independent is Ireland's most widely read paper across all social classes, but you can see independent research at www.nni.ie. As regards media standards generally, I have concerns of my own but they are not as sweeping or simplisitc as some of those that have been voiced here.

I have explained to Moggiee that it is not the practice of broadsheet newspapers to give interviewees a promise that everything said by that interviewee will be included in the final article, or to allow a veto over the article by providing it in advance of publication. Such options would be unworkable. I appreciate his offer and he is of course entirely free not to proceed if he wishes. Editing is a normal everyday part of publishing, and I did show him the quotations that I would attribute to him.

[Colum Kenny]

No problem

Snipes writes, in posting no. 1 as recently amended,

*Edit: To keep Mr Kenny happy, I have removed the actual reproduction of the article and will just leave the link to it instead. I find it hard to understand why posting it here upset him so much ...

In fact, I have no objection to the article appearing as such. But it is a courtesy, as well as a legal and PPRUNE forum requirement, to ask permission of property owners to reproduce their articles. I pointed out that this was not done.

I think that it is reasonable to expect contributors, especially if they wish to hide behind a shield of anonymity, to abide by the rules of the forum on this and on matters such as courtesy. In that respect I also differentiate between criticism (which is reasonable) and common abuse (some of which has displayed a level of emotionalalism that strikes me as odd if those penning it as really the airline professionals that they purport to be).

One achieves more by dialogue than by condemnation, in my experience, and I am always open to hear criticism of what I write. Airline professionals should also be open to seeing how passengers view the world, and to hearing what journalists perceive to be relevant issues: in this case the absence of centralised and coherent public data that permits one to assess the frequency and reasons for ATC directed goarounds at various airports.

[heidelberg]

Really Mr Kenny - RoyHudd's message #79 is abusive!
It is not abusive in my opinion.
Your response is fairly typical of paper journalists who are used to having the last word. However on PPRUNE you Mr Kenny, for once, will not necessarily have the last word.
Is it any wonder the general public have such a low opinion of media journalists in general (there are exceptions I'm sure but you're not one of them Mr Kenny). Your response to the very helpful 'Moggiee' is fairly typical of the arrogance one associates with newspaper journalists.
Please 'cop on' to yourself Mr Kenny.
Guys let's ignore him from here on in.
OUT.

[ChristiaanJ]

Originally Posted by Colum Kenny

.... the absence of centralised and coherent public data that permits one to assess the frequency and reasons for ATC directed goarounds at various airports.

Maybe you investigative "talents" would be better employed to look into "the absence of centralised and coherent public data that permits one to assess the frequency and reasons for locating speed cameras at locations where they maximise revenue from fines, rather than at accident-prone locations".
You might even win some support from people on this forum.

[mini]

"emotionalalism"

You inventing words as well as non existing drama now Mr Kenny?

[HotDog]

I suppose he is entitled to invent new words. After all, Dr. Colum Kenny is a research Fellow of the School of Communications of DCU.

[heidelberg]

Latest from Colum Kenny

Click on link for latest from Colum Kenny in to-day's Sunday Independent (Popularly known in Ireland as the SINDO!).
http://www.independent.ie/national-n...s-1042356.html

[curser]

Thanks for the link heidelberg, I've just read the article and was gratified to read the Dr. Kenny has taken on board a lot of what was written here. I'm sorry that your first go around scarred you. I hope your own research has allayed some of that fear and that the next time it happens you will confidently be able to explain to the frightened passenger next to you what is occurring just prior to the captains' reassuring p.a.