Article by COLUM KENNY of the Irish Independent.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: UK
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Article by COLUM KENNY of the Irish Independent.
I suppose this is why I wouldn't let a journalist be in charge of a car, never mind the pointy end of a jet...
*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, seeing as I left his name, newspaper and link to the original document all untouched and visible to all. There was no attempt to take credit away from Mr Kenny.....in fact it was the exact opposite that brought it here in the first place.
http://www.independent.ie/national-n...ek-995309.html
*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, seeing as I left his name, newspaper and link to the original document all untouched and visible to all. There was no attempt to take credit away from Mr Kenny.....in fact it was the exact opposite that brought it here in the first place.
http://www.independent.ie/national-n...ek-995309.html
Last edited by snipes; 21st Jul 2007 at 14:01. Reason: Removal of original article.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's a fact; go arounds scare the bejezus put of pax (and many cabin crew) and a reassuring PA from the captain as soon a s possible after the go around can do wonders in calming them down - (but only if the captain doesn't sound as rattled as they are)!
However, I've been a passenger on more than one occasion where we've had to go around and have heard absolutely nothing from the flight deck for the 20 minutes or more it took to make the second approach. (It's my habit to hand over to the FO as soon as we've completed the clean up and got everything squared away and make a PA, and if the weather is really marginal, to tell them of the possibility of a go around in my approach PA, including what it will involve, (pitch up, loud engine noise etc "basically, just like a take off"), stressing the fact that it's quite normal and something we practice in the simulator every six months.)
We would all agree that the article here is nothing more than sad yellow journalism at it worst, but too many of the punters we carry are all too willing to drink that kind drivel in. many with what appears to be unbridled enthusiasm. I don't know if it's not a subconscious desire by some people to want to think they've been involved in something dangerous so they can breathlessly pass on their 'close call with death' to friends and families.
It's on a par with the current equally sad journalistic practice of labelling any soldier who has so much as put his boot into a war zone as a 'hero'.
However, I've been a passenger on more than one occasion where we've had to go around and have heard absolutely nothing from the flight deck for the 20 minutes or more it took to make the second approach. (It's my habit to hand over to the FO as soon as we've completed the clean up and got everything squared away and make a PA, and if the weather is really marginal, to tell them of the possibility of a go around in my approach PA, including what it will involve, (pitch up, loud engine noise etc "basically, just like a take off"), stressing the fact that it's quite normal and something we practice in the simulator every six months.)
We would all agree that the article here is nothing more than sad yellow journalism at it worst, but too many of the punters we carry are all too willing to drink that kind drivel in. many with what appears to be unbridled enthusiasm. I don't know if it's not a subconscious desire by some people to want to think they've been involved in something dangerous so they can breathlessly pass on their 'close call with death' to friends and families.
It's on a par with the current equally sad journalistic practice of labelling any soldier who has so much as put his boot into a war zone as a 'hero'.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Then a mighty roar came from the engines and the aircraft's nose went up. Its wheels slammed shut as we flew faster and faster, banking right and disappearing back into cloud.
Passengers fell silent.
Then the pilot announced what had actually happened. A jet had been slow to clear the runway on which he was due to land
The episode was "absolutely routine", according to the Irish Aviation Authority.
She said that both pilots and air traffic controllers are trained for them.
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
You may not like the lack of comprehension of a normal procedure, but the piece did not strike me as being sensationalist and the writer seems to have spoken to the IAA and the airlines to investigate go arounds. In fact I would say that he has been careful to balance his (incorrect) perception of 'danger' with reassuring comments from the industry.
Rather than bitch about the guy, maybe a more constructive approach would be to contact him and offer the flight deck view.
Compared to the recent compost in the Daily Mail about the easyJet descent, I think this guy might actually be trying to get to grips with something that pilots understand very well, but that seems scary to those who don't.
Passengers fell silent.
Then the pilot announced what had actually happened. A jet had been slow to clear the runway on which he was due to land
The episode was "absolutely routine", according to the Irish Aviation Authority.
She said that both pilots and air traffic controllers are trained for them.
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
You may not like the lack of comprehension of a normal procedure, but the piece did not strike me as being sensationalist and the writer seems to have spoken to the IAA and the airlines to investigate go arounds. In fact I would say that he has been careful to balance his (incorrect) perception of 'danger' with reassuring comments from the industry.
Rather than bitch about the guy, maybe a more constructive approach would be to contact him and offer the flight deck view.
Compared to the recent compost in the Daily Mail about the easyJet descent, I think this guy might actually be trying to get to grips with something that pilots understand very well, but that seems scary to those who don't.
Ut Sementem Feeceris
Quote: "Bit like me trying to show that all airline pilots are dangerously hopeless by using the example of a dumb mistake by an inexperienced PPL."
True but the difference here is that an "inexperienced PPL" is not going to be flying a jet full of passengers. This piece was allegedly written by a "Professional" journalist not a "PPL"- although it reads like it was written by an excitable 14 year old.
......"but the piece did not strike me as being sensationalist "
"Its wheels slammed shut as we flew faster and faster, banking right and disappearing back into cloud. Passengers fell silent. The first thought that crossed my mind was that it was a near miss - and I just hoped hard that there was no light aircraft or flock of birds in our exit path."
This is the problem with crap journalism - amateurs are are allowed to practice, and publish, whereas a Professional pilot has to achieve a (very high) standard before being allowed to practice.
Of course the consequences in each case are somewhat different, but a journalist can do a significant amount of "damage" with ill-researched and sensationalist articles which are then consumed by the masses as gospel.
I don't even know what the point of the article was driving at other than the IAA don't keep stats on go-arounds????????
A4
True but the difference here is that an "inexperienced PPL" is not going to be flying a jet full of passengers. This piece was allegedly written by a "Professional" journalist not a "PPL"- although it reads like it was written by an excitable 14 year old.
......"but the piece did not strike me as being sensationalist "
"Its wheels slammed shut as we flew faster and faster, banking right and disappearing back into cloud. Passengers fell silent. The first thought that crossed my mind was that it was a near miss - and I just hoped hard that there was no light aircraft or flock of birds in our exit path."
This is the problem with crap journalism - amateurs are are allowed to practice, and publish, whereas a Professional pilot has to achieve a (very high) standard before being allowed to practice.
Of course the consequences in each case are somewhat different, but a journalist can do a significant amount of "damage" with ill-researched and sensationalist articles which are then consumed by the masses as gospel.
I don't even know what the point of the article was driving at other than the IAA don't keep stats on go-arounds????????
A4
Ut Sementem Feeceris
You could argue ..... "Why do we post this Rubbish on PPRuNe" ...
I'm not sure what, exactly, you are refering to. As far as I'm concerned at least we get a right to reply via this site. I'll wait for a few more replies and then e-mail said journo with a link to the thread to allow him to see the reaction to his article from a group of more aware readers.......
If you're refering to the original article then yes I agree... it was rubbish.
A4
I'm not sure what, exactly, you are refering to. As far as I'm concerned at least we get a right to reply via this site. I'll wait for a few more replies and then e-mail said journo with a link to the thread to allow him to see the reaction to his article from a group of more aware readers.......
If you're refering to the original article then yes I agree... it was rubbish.
A4
I am a humble SLF.
While go-arounds happen, and may be routine, almost, I can't help feeling that the frequency with which they occur at some airport is worrying. Now, Dublin is nothing like as frequent as Heathrow but to a passenger even one occurrence is one too many (I've done 4).
There are some that it is arguable are unavoidable - low visibility approaches spring to mind. But to operate the system at a rate which means that one small error/slow clearance causes a go-around is something that you all need to think about.
Is it really acceptable that you simply accept go-arounds?
While go-arounds happen, and may be routine, almost, I can't help feeling that the frequency with which they occur at some airport is worrying. Now, Dublin is nothing like as frequent as Heathrow but to a passenger even one occurrence is one too many (I've done 4).
There are some that it is arguable are unavoidable - low visibility approaches spring to mind. But to operate the system at a rate which means that one small error/slow clearance causes a go-around is something that you all need to think about.
Is it really acceptable that you simply accept go-arounds?
Guest
Posts: n/a
"Its wheels slammed shut as we flew faster and faster, banking right and disappearing back into cloud. Passengers fell silent. The first thought that crossed my mind was that it was a near miss - and I just hoped hard that there was no light aircraft or flock of birds in our exit path."
The first and second sentences are factual the gear doors and struts can sound very much like a door being slammed if you are sitting in certain seats.
When I've experienced go arounds as an airline pax, the nervous silence (plus white faces) has been very noticeable, so the journo has no tried to sensationalise this obervation. He could have written about sheer panic, creaming pax annd weeping kids - but he didn't.
The second sentence is simply the immediate reaction of someone who does not understand what happened.
Finally, A4, as you are not a journalist, I suggest that you do not judge what is "crap", since you are doing to him exactly what you despise in his writing about your profession.
Jeez, give the guy a break and feed him some positive advise - you might get a half decent story out of this guy - he obviously thinks that G/A's are dangerous and we all know that they are not.
I've already emailed the editor to point out its a normal procedure and suggests he contacts IAP to get the flight deck percpective.
The first and second sentences are factual the gear doors and struts can sound very much like a door being slammed if you are sitting in certain seats.
When I've experienced go arounds as an airline pax, the nervous silence (plus white faces) has been very noticeable, so the journo has no tried to sensationalise this obervation. He could have written about sheer panic, creaming pax annd weeping kids - but he didn't.
The second sentence is simply the immediate reaction of someone who does not understand what happened.
Finally, A4, as you are not a journalist, I suggest that you do not judge what is "crap", since you are doing to him exactly what you despise in his writing about your profession.
Jeez, give the guy a break and feed him some positive advise - you might get a half decent story out of this guy - he obviously thinks that G/A's are dangerous and we all know that they are not.
I've already emailed the editor to point out its a normal procedure and suggests he contacts IAP to get the flight deck percpective.
Ut Sementem Feeceris
Hello Hartington,
I respect a missed approach probably is alarming to pax and any half decent Captain should come on the PA once the house is in order just to reassure everyone...
However, may I suggest you forward your concerns and comments to the numerous anti airport expansion groups...... when airports only have one runway the chances of missed approaches are significantly increased due to capacity issues and trying to utilise the runway to its max. 98% of the time ATC and pilots do a great job and all is well. Very occaisionally it doesn't work and we go around and fly the approach again..... all that fuel/NOX/CO2 -do the "anti's" factor that into their arguements
The NIMBY fraternity in this country are very good at delaying the inevitable - the south-east needs additional runway capacity now - not in 5 years times. The Dutch, Germans, French and Spanish have all added additional runways in the last few years - the UK has done nothing (in the south where the demand is....) for 20,30,40 years.
A4
I respect a missed approach probably is alarming to pax and any half decent Captain should come on the PA once the house is in order just to reassure everyone...
However, may I suggest you forward your concerns and comments to the numerous anti airport expansion groups...... when airports only have one runway the chances of missed approaches are significantly increased due to capacity issues and trying to utilise the runway to its max. 98% of the time ATC and pilots do a great job and all is well. Very occaisionally it doesn't work and we go around and fly the approach again..... all that fuel/NOX/CO2 -do the "anti's" factor that into their arguements
The NIMBY fraternity in this country are very good at delaying the inevitable - the south-east needs additional runway capacity now - not in 5 years times. The Dutch, Germans, French and Spanish have all added additional runways in the last few years - the UK has done nothing (in the south where the demand is....) for 20,30,40 years.
A4
While the article appears sensationalist to the aviation professional exactly which piece of it has been poorly researched? Seems to have gone to the trouble to obtain facts even if you don't like the way they are presented.
What the majority of previous posts don't seem to appreciate is that to the average SLF, when they've been in a go round they've nearly been in a crash.
What is needed is communication, communication, communication (well done, Wiley!
)
Hartington's point about the increasing frequency and the reasons why, are worthy of more consideration.
What the majority of previous posts don't seem to appreciate is that to the average SLF, when they've been in a go round they've nearly been in a crash.
What is needed is communication, communication, communication (well done, Wiley!
)Hartington's point about the increasing frequency and the reasons why, are worthy of more consideration.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hartington, it's called m-o-n-e-y. When many airlines want to utilise an airport, as with Heathrow, everyone concerned tries to get the maximum THEY can get out of what's available for the minimum outlay, and who would have it any other way? That's the system (capitalism) we all work in.
The controllers at Heathrow (and the majority of pilots who fly into that port) have it down to a very fine art, to the point where it wasn't all that unusual under the now superceded system to get landing clearance almost in the flare.
The new procedures allow the controller to clear a following aircraft to land with another aircraft still occuppying the runway as long as, in his judgement, the leading aircraft will be clear of the runway by the time the following one lands. (This saves a badly timed radio call from another aircraft preventing the controller from getting a vital landing clearance call in should spacing be that tight.)
In the vast majority of cases, the system works, and works very well. Every now and then, (in a very small percentage of cases), something happens to cause the controller to have a following aircraft go around.
We - the people who fly into Heathrow and other busy airports -aren't attempting to make out we're terribly cool by saying that such incidents are no big deal. In the vast majority of cases, they simply aren't. They make a bit of noise and cost the operator a lot of money - in a 777, for instance, nearly 2.5 tonnes of fuel on average at Heathrow, but given how seldom they do occur, that's a lot less fuel than would be wasted in the long run if we were forced to stretch the separation on landing aircraft to accommodate your suggestion.
Think of it as getting two takeoffs for the price of one ticket, because that's pretty much what a go around is, just another takeoff.
The controllers at Heathrow (and the majority of pilots who fly into that port) have it down to a very fine art, to the point where it wasn't all that unusual under the now superceded system to get landing clearance almost in the flare.
The new procedures allow the controller to clear a following aircraft to land with another aircraft still occuppying the runway as long as, in his judgement, the leading aircraft will be clear of the runway by the time the following one lands. (This saves a badly timed radio call from another aircraft preventing the controller from getting a vital landing clearance call in should spacing be that tight.)
In the vast majority of cases, the system works, and works very well. Every now and then, (in a very small percentage of cases), something happens to cause the controller to have a following aircraft go around.
We - the people who fly into Heathrow and other busy airports -aren't attempting to make out we're terribly cool by saying that such incidents are no big deal. In the vast majority of cases, they simply aren't. They make a bit of noise and cost the operator a lot of money - in a 777, for instance, nearly 2.5 tonnes of fuel on average at Heathrow, but given how seldom they do occur, that's a lot less fuel than would be wasted in the long run if we were forced to stretch the separation on landing aircraft to accommodate your suggestion.
Think of it as getting two takeoffs for the price of one ticket, because that's pretty much what a go around is, just another takeoff.
Ut Sementem Feeceris
F3G,
Perhaps I was a little harsh. However I maintain that the word "slammed" is unnecessary. Did they "slam" up on the original take-off? Was his first thought about a flock of birds...or did that idea come to him on the ground when he was writing his piece?
Just because a Journalist does not understand a subject doesn't mean it's ok for him to write what he thinks is correct - that's just lazy and will provoke the "victims" of the inaccuracy. The problem is, once it's published the damage is done.
A Professional Journalist has a responsibility to ensure that he has got his (basic) facts right before publishing (see the Calder thread.....). What if Professional pilots were so lax..........
I accept the word crap was a bit strong - weak?
A4
Perhaps I was a little harsh. However I maintain that the word "slammed" is unnecessary. Did they "slam" up on the original take-off? Was his first thought about a flock of birds...or did that idea come to him on the ground when he was writing his piece?
Just because a Journalist does not understand a subject doesn't mean it's ok for him to write what he thinks is correct - that's just lazy and will provoke the "victims" of the inaccuracy. The problem is, once it's published the damage is done.
A Professional Journalist has a responsibility to ensure that he has got his (basic) facts right before publishing (see the Calder thread.....). What if Professional pilots were so lax..........
I accept the word crap was a bit strong - weak?
A4
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Magic Kingdom
Posts: 655
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
....and was down safely at Dublin Airport. While such episodes might be 'routine' they appear to occur more often than either the Irish Aviation Authority or airlines realise.
I believe that this would be himself:
http://www.comms.dcu.ie/kennyc/
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 474
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rather a Go-Around every day, a few mins delay, than be part of an accident. That's why we all train for them for what ever reason they occur.
Poor standard of todays reporting by the media in general, anything to get a headline. We just see the in accuracies with the bits we have knowledge of so how correct is the rest ??
Poor standard of todays reporting by the media in general, anything to get a headline. We just see the in accuracies with the bits we have knowledge of so how correct is the rest ??
Join Date: Jun 1997
Location: 5530N
Posts: 845
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah, read the article too and it appears the said journalist has the mind of a 10 year old. Dublin airport has got busier than ever imagined, more traffic means invariably more G/A's....that's life.
You all spout how normal goarounds are. Tosh. look at any Flight data and you will see that along with npas they are the most commonly badly flown maneuveres. They are underpractised and usually messed up to some degree.
A GoAround is a "normal" manoeuvre which may be required for a number of different reasons.
I am curious to know what you mean by "underpractised" and "usually messed up". Please explain more fully.