EZ go-around at Luton

[GXER]

Good afternoon all.

I was passenger this morning on EZY182 that arrived at LTN from BFS at around 10.00. Weather was overcast down to ~1500' with squally rain. The captain was PF and performed a go-around from (I'm guessing) 50-100'. She announced shortly after that it was due to ATC instruction. The second approach and landing was uneventful.

Nothing dramatic, really, but I am slightly curious about the reason for the go-around, as it is the first time I have experienced one. Was it possibly that the preceding landing aircraft had not cleared the runway?

[Cynical Sid]

Originally Posted by TangoAlphad

That late in the game probably the one ahead late to vacate. It isn’t that uncommon at some of the London airports annoyingly.

Had the same thing at LHR on a BA flight from Amman last Wednesday.

[DaveReidUK]

Originally Posted by Cynical Sid

Had the same thing at LHR on a BA flight from Amman last Wednesday.

Go-arounds at LHR are (on average) an everyday occurrence - around 600 a year.

It's generally accepted that no GAs would mean that ATC aren't doing their job properly.

[Hotel Tango]

I think that many regular flyers are aware that GAs occur. Nevertheless, they do remain a very rare occurrence to any single individual (I've experienced 4 in 60 years of regular flying as pax), and I believe it is human to want to know the reason why just out of curiosity. Therefore, it is useful for Captain Speaking to give a brief explanation for the GA, even if it's after landing.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

I guess it must be annoying for some - but much nicer than having a runway full of burning aluminium.

[Doors to Automatic]

It could have been a windshear alert - I remember in the old days at the airline I worked for, the PA guide given to pilots suggested that all go-arounds were reported to passengers as an ATC request regardless of actual cause. I don't know if easyJet do the same.

[PENKO]

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?

[wiggy]

I’d agree a blatent lie might not be the best idea but TBH there’s a lot to be said for generic highly simplistic explanations...especially if many of your passengers are non English speakers because if they are (and they often are with us) I can guarantee you then there’s no point using aviation speak like windshear, windshear warnings, minimum separation,

“It was too gusty to land safely”, or “the aircraft landing ahead temporarily blocked the runway” will cover most go-arounds.

[Lascaille]

Originally Posted by PENKO

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?

Absolutely, why lie? "As you can see we discontinued our landing approach, we're currently positioning for the next approach which will take about fifteen minutes. We apologise for the brief delay."

[India Four Two]

I agree with Hotel Tango. Go-arounds are very rare for the average SLF. I’ve only experienced two in 45 years of commercial flying, ironically on consecutive flights. The first was quite sudden as we encountered wake turbulence in the flare at Heathrow. Quite a violent event TBH. I imagine it would be scary for infrequent fliers.

The next one was more sedate. The captain announced that we had to go around at Calgary, due to a problem with a baggage door on an aircraft taking off. Some poor corporate pilot had dropped his boss’s luggage on the runway!

[Random SLF]

Originally Posted by India Four Two

I’ve only experienced two in 45 years of commercial flying, ironically on consecutive flights.

Never get on the same flight as me - I've experienced three go-arounds on the same flight, with Monarch from Manchester to Larnaca. Sea fret at Larnaca covering all but the tallest buildings all around the bay. 10 mins along the coast at Paphos, crystal clear. Wait for an hour and fly back to Larnaca, also crystal clear at last. The shortest flight I've ever had on a 737.

[Del Prado]

Originally Posted by DaveReidUK

Go-arounds at LHR are (on average) an everyday occurrence - around 600 a year.

It's generally accepted that no GAs would mean that ATC aren't doing their job properly.

At any large airport that land 40 per hour, if you can squeeze the inbounds a quarter of a mile closer together then after one hour you’ve saved 10 miles. That’s 3 extra landers, even if one goes around you’re still two up for that hour.

[Dan Winterland]

I make a PA, but rarely give a reason, just usually something like "we couldn't make a landing off that approach". Giving a reason such as 'turbulence' will have the passengers worrying every time we hit a little bump on the next one. Having said that, if it's bumpy as f##k, then they will have a clue.

[TBSC]

Originally Posted by GXER

I was passenger this morning on EZY182 that arrived at LTN from BFS at around 10.00. Weather was overcast down to ~1500' with squally rain. The captain was PF and performed a go-around from (I'm guessing) 50-100'. She announced shortly after that it was due to ATC instruction. The second approach and landing was uneventful.

Nothing dramatic, really, but I am slightly curious about the reason for the go-around, as it is the first time I have experienced one. Was it possibly that the preceding landing aircraft had not cleared the runway?

Per flightradar a BlueAir 737-800 arriving from LCA landed a minute before the go-around of G-EZEZ from BFS with (seemingly) no other traffic around. You might have been too close or maybe they could not vacate quickly enough.

[parkfell]

Originally Posted by TBSC

Per flightradar a BlueAir 737-800 arriving from LCA landed a minute before the go-around of G-EZEZ from BFS with (seemingly) no other traffic around. You might have been too close or maybe they could not vacate quickly enough.

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.

[Vendee]

I only experienced one GA and that was on a RYR flight back to STN. The lead cabin crew had spotted a passenger unbuckled and standing up at around 200-300 feet. He informed the cockpit and around we went. All explained fully afterwards and professionally handled by all (excluding the passenger).

[Rated De]

It is but for the interference of Corporate and obsession (think self enrichment) on OTP that drives a lot of the drivel: Passengers have been conditioned to think flying is a simple uncomplicated thing.

Such fallacy neatly masks the reality of taking a very thin sheet of aluminium/composite into the air at 35,000 doing 900kmh.

That this dance, with so many moving parts, needing precision timing happens at all,is testament to the people involved in the safe operation of aircraft world wide.

[sudden twang]

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

[Mad As A Mad Thing]

It's all speculation, but there seems to be a group think building that has settled on the theory that the one ahead was slow to vacate, and then pointing the finger at how blame can be apportioned.

More speculation, but if the one ahead reported a bird strike, or even the possibility of a bird strike, then unless there is a compelling safety reason to allow the following aircraft to land then I would be required to send it around.

No fuss. No drama. Nobody to blame. Everyone just doing their jobs.

[hayessteph]

GAs

SLF here so please delete or move as appropriate. Though I only use air travel for holidays etc, I've had 2 GAs in just over a year. The first was at Funchal with easyJet. We did a GA and the CC immediately announced that the Captain had decided to go around for operational reasons and would explain why shortly. A few minutes later the Captain explained that we had been going in to land too fast and he had decided to GA. The subsequent landing was successful. The second occasion was last month coming in to land at Genoa with FR. Like Funchal, this involves approaching over the sea and doing an approximately 180 degree turn while descending. As we descended we went into rain and cloud and did a GA. The Captain explained that this was due to lack of visibility. We circled over the sea for about 20 minutes and came in again, and this time we had very good visibility and landed successfully. As SLF I would much prefer a GA to a do or die attempt to land.