Gatwick go-around
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: London
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gatwick go-around
I assume this a non event - with an oh so original journalistic twist!!
--------------
Two airliners carrying more than 500 passengers came within five seconds of disaster at Gatwick Airport.
One of the jets had to abort its landing as the other tried to take off directly into its flight path.
The Northwest Airlines DC-10, carrying 330, banked and swerved to avoid the Emirates Arlines Airbus setting off for Dubai with 220 on board.
Onlookers said the DC-10 was just 100ft from touching down when air traffic controllers raised the alarm.
The incoming airliner recovered and circled over the airport for ten minutes, then made a successful landing when the runway was clear.
No one was hurt but several passengers in the DC-10, arriving from Detroit, were left in shock.
One witness said: "It was so close. I was bracing myself for an explosion."
Another said: "Everyone drew in their breath as they watched what was happening."
Gatwick officials today insisted passenger safety was not put at risk.
A spokesman said: "What happened is what we call a 'go around' where the aircraft coming in to land are given a signal by air traffic control not to land because another plane is on the runway.
"In this case the aircraft aborted the landing and circled round before landing safely ten minutes later.
"There was no danger to the passengers and the safety distance between the planes was never compromised. It was simply a precaution."
Air traffic controllers described the manoeuvre as a textbook "go around".
Civil Aviation Authority spokesman Richard Wright said: "With only one runway at Gatwick it is busy with planes using it to land and take off.
"Near misses don't usually take place at airports, it is normally in the air.
"It is dramatic and it is disconcerting for passengers because they can't see what is going on but the pilots can, and they are in full control of the situation."
A voluntary redundancy programme will see Air Traffic Control shed 226 jobs across the UK this year.
--------------
Two airliners carrying more than 500 passengers came within five seconds of disaster at Gatwick Airport.
One of the jets had to abort its landing as the other tried to take off directly into its flight path.
The Northwest Airlines DC-10, carrying 330, banked and swerved to avoid the Emirates Arlines Airbus setting off for Dubai with 220 on board.
Onlookers said the DC-10 was just 100ft from touching down when air traffic controllers raised the alarm.
The incoming airliner recovered and circled over the airport for ten minutes, then made a successful landing when the runway was clear.
No one was hurt but several passengers in the DC-10, arriving from Detroit, were left in shock.
One witness said: "It was so close. I was bracing myself for an explosion."
Another said: "Everyone drew in their breath as they watched what was happening."
Gatwick officials today insisted passenger safety was not put at risk.
A spokesman said: "What happened is what we call a 'go around' where the aircraft coming in to land are given a signal by air traffic control not to land because another plane is on the runway.
"In this case the aircraft aborted the landing and circled round before landing safely ten minutes later.
"There was no danger to the passengers and the safety distance between the planes was never compromised. It was simply a precaution."
Air traffic controllers described the manoeuvre as a textbook "go around".
Civil Aviation Authority spokesman Richard Wright said: "With only one runway at Gatwick it is busy with planes using it to land and take off.
"Near misses don't usually take place at airports, it is normally in the air.
"It is dramatic and it is disconcerting for passengers because they can't see what is going on but the pilots can, and they are in full control of the situation."
A voluntary redundancy programme will see Air Traffic Control shed 226 jobs across the UK this year.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Shock Horror – Aircraft Impacts Ground In Essex
There are confirmed reports from North Weald airfield of an aircraft hitting the ground.
The PA28 flown by Dickie Fender-Bender had its earth encounter on runway 20 when the pilot cut the power at low altitude.
When interviewed afterwards, Mr Fender-Bender (43) said “this is a perfectly normal operation that pilots call landing – it involves flying near the ground and reducing power so that the aircraft returns to terra firm.”
An eye witness said “it was horrible, the aircraft just kept getting lower and lower and then the engine seemed to cut.”
There are confirmed reports from North Weald airfield of an aircraft hitting the ground.
The PA28 flown by Dickie Fender-Bender had its earth encounter on runway 20 when the pilot cut the power at low altitude.
When interviewed afterwards, Mr Fender-Bender (43) said “this is a perfectly normal operation that pilots call landing – it involves flying near the ground and reducing power so that the aircraft returns to terra firm.”
An eye witness said “it was horrible, the aircraft just kept getting lower and lower and then the engine seemed to cut.”
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Chicago
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does anyone ever write to the newspapers that print this stuff and give them the lowdown on these incidents from your point of view? Would be especially nice if the paper printed your comments.
Years ago, an aunt of mine was on a flight into ORD that went around for the exact same reason (usually is). She vowed to never fly into Ohare again. It was just too busy/dangerous she thought. To her, it was practically a near death experience and deserved to be on the evening news. Apparently shes not alone.
Completely nuts to most people with aviation experience who can rationalize controlled flight inside 200,000lb machines.
Years ago, an aunt of mine was on a flight into ORD that went around for the exact same reason (usually is). She vowed to never fly into Ohare again. It was just too busy/dangerous she thought. To her, it was practically a near death experience and deserved to be on the evening news. Apparently shes not alone.
Completely nuts to most people with aviation experience who can rationalize controlled flight inside 200,000lb machines.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: SOUTH EAST UK
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I presume as the DC10 crew were below cat 1 ? and could'nt see the A330? it must of been foggy in which case LVO would of been in force go-arounds at Gatwick or any other airport are not uncommon.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: South East UK
Posts: 428
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I refer the honourable Heathrow Director to the reply I gave several posts ago. 
Reports in the Sun are not 'aviation journalism' and if you* can't be bothered to learn the difference then you're* probably ideally qualified to be writing for the rag instead of just reading it.
Indignant rant terminates here.
*not Heathrow Director personally but those irritating people who insist that 'aviation journalism' and 'story in the paper about (duh) a plane' are somehow the same thing.
Reports in the Sun are not 'aviation journalism' and if you* can't be bothered to learn the difference then you're* probably ideally qualified to be writing for the rag instead of just reading it.
Indignant rant terminates here.
*not Heathrow Director personally but those irritating people who insist that 'aviation journalism' and 'story in the paper about (duh) a plane' are somehow the same thing.
Last edited by Kalium Chloride; 5th Apr 2002 at 23:22.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: The Deep South (Sussex)
Posts: 783
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gatwick controllers are a great bunch who do their utmost to avoid delays by utilising the single runway to the full.
Sometimes an aircraft cleared on to the runway for take-off suffers some delay over a minor problem. The aircraft on the approach is then given the instruction to "go-around" as the runway is obviously not available.
It is no more dangerous than that, and to suggest otherwise can only display a basic lack of knowledge or a journalistic attempt to fill space in a newspaper.
Please can journalists try engaging their brains before writing this sort of drivel.
Sometimes an aircraft cleared on to the runway for take-off suffers some delay over a minor problem. The aircraft on the approach is then given the instruction to "go-around" as the runway is obviously not available.
It is no more dangerous than that, and to suggest otherwise can only display a basic lack of knowledge or a journalistic attempt to fill space in a newspaper.
Please can journalists try engaging their brains before writing this sort of drivel.
Just a minute you guys! The 100ft is in the journo report not the official statement from the NATS publicity guy!! Don't believe the s***e or you're falling for the rubbish that puts the fear of God into a lot of the non-aviation people that read this sort of sensationalist trash! I bet if any of the Gatwick guys could actually tell you at what range the DC10 went around it was alot further out but they can't print comments!
Spiney
Spiney
Guest
Posts: n/a
Alfiedog
Are you really a pilot or a MS simulator pilot?If you hold a cpl/atpl you would know when LVP,S come into force and what rules apply as to acft departing and landing,rather than it was foggy and the DC10 crew could not see the departing traffic
Are you really a pilot or a MS simulator pilot?If you hold a cpl/atpl you would know when LVP,S come into force and what rules apply as to acft departing and landing,rather than it was foggy and the DC10 crew could not see the departing traffic
Join Date: May 2001
Location: London
Posts: 528
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Works of journalism and eye-witness estimates of separation should be treated with the same absolute disdain. Quotes from un-named "witnesses" who were "waiting for an explosion" are invariably made up.
It's not that journalists almost always get aviation wrong, it's just that they almost always get everything wrong. Sometimes it's deliberate fraud, other times its sheer lazy, incompetent, pig-ignorance.
This is not a rant, simply a statement.
Anyone know what separation was in this case?
It's not that journalists almost always get aviation wrong, it's just that they almost always get everything wrong. Sometimes it's deliberate fraud, other times its sheer lazy, incompetent, pig-ignorance.
This is not a rant, simply a statement.
Anyone know what separation was in this case?
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: LONDON
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kalium Chloride:
I find your remark re The Heathrow Director somewhat hurtful.
The trouble is that most readers of The Sun don't know that the reports are masquerading as "aviation Journalism" and so swallow them, hook, line and sinker. If ONLY The Heathrow Director, (who is a very well respected and qualified member of the Heathrow team) were writing the aviation stories for The Sun it wouldn't be sensationalist rubbish that is often written by ignorant journalists. I rather agree with his sentiments.
He is indeed IDEALLY qualified but would a truthful and professional assesment of a non event sell papers? And that I believe is the point.
Point 4
I find your remark re The Heathrow Director somewhat hurtful.
The trouble is that most readers of The Sun don't know that the reports are masquerading as "aviation Journalism" and so swallow them, hook, line and sinker. If ONLY The Heathrow Director, (who is a very well respected and qualified member of the Heathrow team) were writing the aviation stories for The Sun it wouldn't be sensationalist rubbish that is often written by ignorant journalists. I rather agree with his sentiments.
He is indeed IDEALLY qualified but would a truthful and professional assesment of a non event sell papers? And that I believe is the point.
Point 4
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Far flung shores
Posts: 202
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Was this the go-around I saw from the environs Crawley industrial estate (just south of the LGW runway) on the morning of Thursday 4th April at about 10:40'ish ?
If so, and as a professional pilot viewing it from the the ground, I have to say that (inspite of what's been written above) it looked VERY 'impressive' indeed - as in the "Holy Sh!t, just what the **** is going on up there ?!" type of impressive !
If so, and as a professional pilot viewing it from the the ground, I have to say that (inspite of what's been written above) it looked VERY 'impressive' indeed - as in the "Holy Sh!t, just what the **** is going on up there ?!" type of impressive !
Last edited by Puritan; 5th Apr 2002 at 20:09.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Far flung shores
Posts: 202
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
t'aint natural - I know what I saw, and what I saw was not what I would describe as a 'normal' looking go-around - and I should know, I've done enough. 
That said, I also have a 'healthy' suspicion of the press - so I'll not be contacting them thank you.
That said, I also have a 'healthy' suspicion of the press - so I'll not be contacting them thank you.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last summer a flight I was on returning to ATL had to go around. Evidently the plane that had landed ahead of us was taking too long to vacate the runway. (The airport was busy having been closed due to weather earlier.) I would guess we were around 10-20 seconds from the runway threshold.
::YAWN::
Nobody else on the flight seemed concerned. The aircraft movements were all very smooth. Seemed almost routine. The captain, though, when he came on to explain the go-around, indeed sounded quite perturbed! (Blamed ATC)
::YAWN::
Nobody else on the flight seemed concerned. The aircraft movements were all very smooth. Seemed almost routine. The captain, though, when he came on to explain the go-around, indeed sounded quite perturbed! (Blamed ATC
)
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: London, England
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a controller in a very similar vein to Heathrow Director, I've had many go-arounds. The whole point of them is to stop the inbound plane from landing on the outbound plane, or an inbound plane from landing on the previous inbound plane. Now for some basic maths, brace yourselves..... An inbound aircraft on the approach to a runway will be doing approximately 3 miles a minute. This means that with 3 miles spacing between inbound aircraft, the front one would be touching down as the next inbound was at 3 miles (approximately 60 seconds away). If the front one were to stop and remain on the runway then the next inbound would be up his chuff in 60 seconds flat. Now take into account the fact that sometimes runways are wet, sometimes pilots miss turn-offs, sometimes there is windshear, sometimes inbound aircraft don't fly the correct speed, and then you have a situation requiring a go-around. These things will always be "seconds apart" because as stated above, 3 miles between aircraft is literally 60 seconds, which even the dullest of people will realise does not give a huge amount of leeway!!
All this sensationalist c**p ends up doing is giving the ordinary person the impression that a go-around is suddenly a life-threatening situation, whereas in reality it is the life-saving situation (i.e. not bumping planes together). This is where some of it comes down to the crews on the flight deck.... The passengers should be told that this is a normal, non-threatening, completely safe procedure, instead of them leaving the aircraft thinking that they've just nearly ended up at the pearly gates!!
All this sensationalist c**p ends up doing is giving the ordinary person the impression that a go-around is suddenly a life-threatening situation, whereas in reality it is the life-saving situation (i.e. not bumping planes together). This is where some of it comes down to the crews on the flight deck.... The passengers should be told that this is a normal, non-threatening, completely safe procedure, instead of them leaving the aircraft thinking that they've just nearly ended up at the pearly gates!!
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oooooooh! Touchy touchy!
Perhaps you should be less holier-than-thou yourself KC! The reason 'professional' journos get such a hard time on this forum is that at least 99% of the time the stuff your colleagues write is complete and utter garbage, without so much as a nod in the direction of truth. Thats not just the red-top tabloids, I also include the nonsense we often hear from certain rent-a-quote 'experts' representing 'industry journals' we regularly see on TV. Its not that they try to get it right and fail, its that they just don't care. Perhaps you are the diamond in the dungheap who is informed, conscientious and wishes to report facts in non-sensational ways, but you really are in a tiny minority in the UK. If the professional aviation community operated to the same lax degree that your profession operates then you really would have the 'one major accident per week' scenario they are so keen to predict.
Perhaps you should be less holier-than-thou yourself KC! The reason 'professional' journos get such a hard time on this forum is that at least 99% of the time the stuff your colleagues write is complete and utter garbage, without so much as a nod in the direction of truth. Thats not just the red-top tabloids, I also include the nonsense we often hear from certain rent-a-quote 'experts' representing 'industry journals' we regularly see on TV. Its not that they try to get it right and fail, its that they just don't care. Perhaps you are the diamond in the dungheap who is informed, conscientious and wishes to report facts in non-sensational ways, but you really are in a tiny minority in the UK. If the professional aviation community operated to the same lax degree that your profession operates then you really would have the 'one major accident per week' scenario they are so keen to predict.