Emirates Go Around At Man
 

Anybody know why an emirates aircarft went around (from about 4 miles out) at approximatley 12:15-12:30 today? Didn't seem too busy on the approcah at the time, and it is only the second time I have seen a go-around at Manchester (and I live within about 0.5 miles of the centre line)?

Hi Aces,

No offence but...

A go-around is a normal procedure and any flight ops worth its salt makes it a non-reportable event to remove any pressure, tacit or otherwise, from a pilot going around for another go if there is any deviation from a normal approach.

Then someone sees it, puts it on the World Wide Webb, the Monday Morning Quarterback brigade gets stuck in and the pilots actions are analysed, criticised and he is vilified, often by people who don't know what the hell they're talking about. Do you want that in the back of the pilots mind next time YOU'RE a passenger and he gets a bit hot'n'high on approach?

I know your query was purely from curiosity, but, honestly, next time you see a go-around, just say to yourself "There goes a Pro doing his job" and go back to the crossword.

Cheers

Wiz

(Yes I have!!)

Yes , the Captain and First officer will know why. This is a bit like saying "I saw a car on the hard shoulder of the M6. Anybody know why ?" Aircraft go around for any number of reasons. If there is a delay in configuring the aircraft because of a flap caution or some such minor thing, then the crew would need more time to resolve the fault. If the aircraft was not profiled for any number of reasons it might be necessary to go around. If the runway needed to be inspected or wasn't anticipated to be clear in time it might result in a go around. There are a whole host of factors that have to be satisfied for an aircraft to be able to complete a landing from an approach. In 99.9% of cases they are, but on that arbitary figure it would still leave 1 in every 1000 approaches resulting in a go around say a couple every week big deal !

A go around as is frequently pointed out on these forums, may be something of a spotters dream, but it is a normal manouever albeit one that is done relatively infrequently.

Love 'em - just about the most fun you can have on a flight these days (particularly if your normal residence is 53J or some such dungeon).

Hi,

"Didn't seem too busy on the approcah at the time"

Sometimes the approach wind is favourable for the landing Rwy but the 1000 and 2000ft winds give tailwind components. Or perhaps you are asked by ATC to keep your speed up due to other traffic approaching from another direction. With Emirates if not "in the ball park", fully configured and stable on speed and powered up by 1000ft then GO (saves an Air Safety Report and tea and stickeys). If visual with the runway you can come down to 500ft, but if you just know you aren't going to be stable (for may reasons out of your control) then play safe and G/A

Currently on Emirates 332 ( last G/A FFT last week due 744 not getting airborne quickly enough, there you go not our fault).

Ciao.

Forgot to activate the approach apparantly!

:E there is a go-around at manchester nearly everyday its no big deal most of the time due to an aircraft not taxing quick enought after landing and sometimes a plane not taking off quick enought ....

best go around i ever saw was concord at dusk it was empyt .... with full reheat boy did it shift :ok:

I believe that the flight ops of most UK airlines, worth their salt or not, require an ASR to be filed for a G/A, regardless of what caused it.

Oh no they don't !

See what I mean?

Both UK airlines I have worked for (and the three OS ones) have had an active, stated policy of NOT requiring ANY form of report for a Go-Around, for exactley the reasons I stated.

I still think its a good idea to file a report. It helps the airlines to see what's the cause of the go arounds...

If statistics are kept, then trends can be seen and the root issues addressed rather than left to their own devices.

With FDM becoming mandatory as of 2005, the Flight Safety Dept. will know a go-around has occurred, so might as well give them my version of facts in an ASR.

May be it was due to a passenger wanting another look into someones garden through the cameras they have installed!! Didn't get a good enough look at the Y-Fronts on the line!!

'Emirates 123 going around due to underpants, request lower approach'

You're expecting to land on the other end of the runway ( i.e. the long way round the approach ) when ATC then offer you a straight-in to the nearer end of the runway ( wind favours neither end and traffic is quiet ).

You make a good fist of it, but have slightly mis-calculated ( it happens ) and find you can't get both height & speed off and have a stabilised approach by 1000' - so what to do ?

If you go-around then the company require you to file an ASR ( so extra time in crew room filing in paper work when you could be on your way home ) to say nothing of having defeated the whole object of accepting the straight-in.

Answer ? Chuck in an orbit ( with ATC's help, of course ). Drop off the offending height & speed, there's then no need for a go-around, and voila no need for an ASR !

Though I'll admit that this won't work everywhere - but it used to be called airmanship.

Hi A320,

Th whole point is that with any form of progressive flight department, they won't care what your version of events is unless youdon't go-around when you should have. My companies analysis of the data would be "Not stable at 1000ft, went around, end of story" (We have FDM up and running). It would not even be an FDM event.

As soon as things start being reportable/investigatable, there is a tacit pressure to avoid them. When in a situation where you are tempted to press a bad approach, you should know that doing the right thing and giving it away will not be so much as questioned.

Devis Ad,

So carrying out a less safe manoeuvre (see the report on the Saudi A 320) in order to avoid paper work used to be called airmanship? I'm glad it's in the past tense!!

Still, if what you are saying is that having to put in an ASR for a go-around tempts you to do low-level orbits, you have made my point brilliantly.

The EK crew will file an ASR for the GA, mainly to compile stats of these, and to try and see if some of the reasons for GA's can be prevented in the future.

...simple as that.:ok:

Okay, okay, so I apologise that I don't know what I'm talking about, and at the very least should have said "some airlines". C'est la guerre I suppose. However, three of the four airlines I have worked for in recent times have required an ASR to be filed in the event of any G/A. It's not really a monumental task, and at the end of the day it's a pretty poor display of management, if performing a G/A requires a visit to the upper echelons to explain oneself, every time such an event occurs.
The law as it stands requires an MOR to be filed in the event of a G/A which produces a hazardous or potentially hazardous situation. Clearly, that sort of episode rarely takes place, but some airlines prefer to gather information on all G/As, whether ATC, airframe, pilot or weather related, in the form of ASRs. Quite why the possibility of having to file an ASR would make you avoid a G/A is, I'm afraid, something I don't quite understand. Still, I guess stupidity is another trait I must learn to deal with.

Whether or not a report has been filed in this case depends on the altitude at which the GA was initiated.

Making a wild assumption that the approach had something to do with energy rather than a blocked runway. If recognised early and a decision was taken to reposition, no report would have been required. If the approach had been continued below 1000' it would.

The report would no doubt have been even bigger if it had involved: Unstable approach, decided to continue despite 15 kt tail wind and Vref + 20, touched down 3000' down, went off the end. Seems to me that the GA was the better option.

Ghost:ok:

When is a go around newsworthy?

Many moons ago flew back from Benidorm (yes I know!) had to go around, alarmingly for me as a PAX, 3 times on approach to Gatwick. Two explanations given from flight deck - too much fog and "somebody decided to turn the lights off on the runway" and, possibly, also someone forgot to tell me about the plane on the runway, let's try one more time else we divert!!!!

Come on surely it happens, and for good safety reasons, long may it continue.

For the avoidance of doubt, the point I was making previously is that it is sometimes possible to not have to go-around by using an alternative manoeuvre to position oneself more suitably to obtain a fully-stabilised approach.- which is what we all trying to achieve, right ?!

And again, for the avoidance of doubt, there are times & locations when, say, an orbit is acceptable ( i.e. when offered it by ATC, e.g. at STN :ok: helping you to get the height off when they’ve offered you a straight-in late at night, and all subject to your own assessment of MSA/SSA, terrain, traffic, noise constraints, etc ), and reciprocally there are times & locations when a full procedural go-around is preferable ( e.g. at INN – which we did the other week, the whole flight being flown sans autopilots - they were u/s - with the approach into INN in solid IMC, ++snow, icing, turbulence :eek: down to the MDA, and ending up with us diverting to MUC - so yes, one knows how to fly a go-around, and fill the paperwork in afterwards ) – but what ever you do it must always be with safety first and foremost, right ?!

Incidentally, one of the most regular screw-ups seen in the simulator are mishandled go-arounds, wherein there are seemingly all manner of opportunities to get it wrong, e.g.

• Failing to press TOGA, or pressing it above 2000’RA when ( on a B737 ) it doesn’t work ( system mode awareness ? )
• Failing to ask for, or select, an appropriate GA flap selection
• Failing to raise the gear
• Failing to monitor MCP modes and / or mis-selection of MCP modes
• Failing to remember what is the acceleration altitude and / or failing to accelerate
• Failing to observe flap speed limits
• Failing to re-tune / identify any radio aids required by the missed approach
• Failing to follow the correct MisApp procedure either laterally, vertically, or both
• Failing set the correct level-off altitude and / or overshooting / undershooting

etc….. and I won’t even mention system / engine failures !

Many airlines have already fitted, and will soon ( 2005 ) have to have fitted, Quick Access Recorders ( QAR’s ) to their aircraft. A loose analogy is that these units are the airborne equivalent of the tacho-graphs which are fitted to lorries, albeit that the airborne variety record considerably more parameters.

Personally I like QAR’s as they ultimately help stop the cowboys out there from conducting unstable(?) approaches – i.e. not stable at the ‘gate’, typically 1000’ AAL – the kind of approaches which should lead to go-arounds.

Of course, ultimately, it pays to remember that nobody has ever collided with the sky !

As I was always told: every landing is a failed go-around.

Thus this is no news...;)