EZ go-around at Luton
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hailsham East Sussex
Age: 82
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EZ go around
I remember positioning on an early BA Trident flight into LHR when the Captain announced, after a very noisy go-around: "Sorry about that. It clamped in on us so we're going to have another stab at it". Second attempt was more successful.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Doncaster
Age: 50
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've only experienced two go-arounds as SLF - handled very differently.
1. A long time ago - when Go were still alive. Landing at Bristol in strong winds we were at or about touch down when the plane pitched up. Pilot came on to say the ILS had failed, and as they were relying on it, they had gone around. Said they were turning it on at the other end of the runway and we would try from there. I suspect something may be have been over-simplified, but we did indeed land from the opposite direction and it was very windy....
2. Aer Lingus - less of a go-around, more of a missed approach I suppose. Wheels came down, wheels went up. We were in the air for another 15 minutes before landing. No-one up front bothered to tell us mere mortals what was happening. a 20 second PA to offer some reason/reassurance would have been nice.
1. A long time ago - when Go were still alive. Landing at Bristol in strong winds we were at or about touch down when the plane pitched up. Pilot came on to say the ILS had failed, and as they were relying on it, they had gone around. Said they were turning it on at the other end of the runway and we would try from there. I suspect something may be have been over-simplified, but we did indeed land from the opposite direction and it was very windy....
2. Aer Lingus - less of a go-around, more of a missed approach I suppose. Wheels came down, wheels went up. We were in the air for another 15 minutes before landing. No-one up front bothered to tell us mere mortals what was happening. a 20 second PA to offer some reason/reassurance would have been nice.
de minimus non curat lex
Disappointing parkfell?
Cut the guys some slack. Have you ever operated a large jet day in day out commercially in the real world?
Whilst AIRMANSHIP ( common sense) are without doubt needed, how do you progress your students?
Most of the “thought police” use models and theories put forward by those with pretty large brains. Indeed you quote one, the Swiss cheese. Is the theoretician behind that model part of the thought police?
Nobody can maintain 100% Airmanship 24/7
Cut the guys some slack. Have you ever operated a large jet day in day out commercially in the real world?
Whilst AIRMANSHIP ( common sense) are without doubt needed, how do you progress your students?
Most of the “thought police” use models and theories put forward by those with pretty large brains. Indeed you quote one, the Swiss cheese. Is the theoretician behind that model part of the thought police?
Nobody can maintain 100% Airmanship 24/7
I have operated short haul up to 6 hours duration, but not long haul. And before you ask I was an ATCO in my youth.
It does give you an insight both sides of the fence. I do teach my students about TEM. I also mention the concept of airmanship as well. I use the analogy of osmosis: hope this will not cause you offence.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GAs
I forgot to mention in my previous post (#23) that during the FR GA last month, 2 PAX siting near my wife were urgently looking for sick bags. CC had previously said the 737 was only 3 weeks old. It had no back of seat pocket of any kind, not even at eye level, the safety card is glued to the seat back. The seat design with no back of seat pocket is apparently to speed turnaround; PAX have nowhere to leave their litter, and have to take their litter away with them. So no sick bags, bring your own!
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: world
Posts: 3,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The seat design with no back of seat pocket is apparently to speed turnaround
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Dubai - sand land.
Age: 55
Posts: 2,832
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Parkfell
You just wonder if had the EZY checked in with the TWR stating their range to touchdown, the previous lander might have made a greater (safe) effort to vacate sooner, avoiding the need for the G/A. (They might have for all I know)
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Costa del Swanwick
Posts: 834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lying about the reason for a go-around in this PPRuNe day and age will bite you in the behind. It’s a big no-no. And honestly, why would you lie about anything?
I used to fly to Luton daily in my previous job, runway exits are quite short (there are no exits at the end of the runway) and ATC i doing a good job spacing traffic tightly, but it does happen that aircraft landing ahead of you miss the exit (by doing a long flare) and are forced to taxi to the end do a 180 turn and backtrack to vacate. And of course there is not enough spacing between for these small misstakes( ATC is counting on pilots to vacate in time, if they were calculating backtracks on all aircraft you would cut the traffic in half) and the trailing aircraft often needs to do a goaround. Have done plenty of GAs my self at Luton, 99% of the time the reason is as stated above!
The FR24 ground track has gaps, but appears to show the B738 having exited via Bravo. The timestamps don't rule out the possibility that it backtracked prior to exiting, though of course the new taxiway is intended to reduce the need for that.
You just wonder if had the EZY checked in with the TWR stating their range to touchdown, the previous lander might have made a greater (safe) effort to vacate sooner, avoiding the need for the G/A. (They might have for all I know)
That would of course require a measure of AIRMANSHIP (aka. Good old fashioned common sense) on both aircraft crews parts although I suspect the Thought Police would prefer that I talked about Threat & Error management these days.
The "Swiss cheese characteristics" in a minor way aligned to conspire on this occasion. Speculation ( in the absence of the actual facts ) might include:
1. Blueair slower than normal to vacate (line training?)
2. ATC putting the EZY slightly too tight behind no.1 .....judgement of aircraft performance
3. EZY not fully appreciating the smaller than usual gap, and not slowing down sooner
4. Other factors, or a combination of some or all of the above.
If only two ac were involved, then a slightly disappointing event.
That would of course require a measure of AIRMANSHIP (aka. Good old fashioned common sense) on both aircraft crews parts although I suspect the Thought Police would prefer that I talked about Threat & Error management these days.
The "Swiss cheese characteristics" in a minor way aligned to conspire on this occasion. Speculation ( in the absence of the actual facts ) might include:
1. Blueair slower than normal to vacate (line training?)
2. ATC putting the EZY slightly too tight behind no.1 .....judgement of aircraft performance
3. EZY not fully appreciating the smaller than usual gap, and not slowing down sooner
4. Other factors, or a combination of some or all of the above.
If only two ac were involved, then a slightly disappointing event.
I forgot to mention in my previous post (#23) that during the FR GA last month, 2 PAX siting near my wife were urgently looking for sick bags. CC had previously said the 737 was only 3 weeks old. It had no back of seat pocket of any kind, not even at eye level, the safety card is glued to the seat back. The seat design with no back of seat pocket is apparently to speed turnaround;
PAX have nowhere to leave their litter, and have to take their litter away with them.
