Go-Arounds
 

OK, crappy journalism aside. It's true the pax are usually white-knuckled when their aircraft has to go around - they have been told at ToD they are going to land at where-ever and that is what they expect! They've heard it from the pilot, and the purser during the descent briefings. They go into arrival mode (some crew do as well). As pointy-enders, we have the benefit of all our displays, and the best view on the a/c, as well as direct comms with ATC, so our perception of events is vastly different. It is SOP in the airline I work for to brief the missed approach procedure for every approach, and generally, it is flown on the automatics (that's why we pay so much for them), so LNAV and VNAV take care of the niceties (and don't piss off ATC). The worst G/A I have ever seen was flown by an experienced pilot who thought he was better than the automatics. And ATC were REALLY pissed off!
It is important for ONE of the pilots (P/F or PNF, it doesn't matter) to let the SLF know what is going on, but sometimes that is not feasible if an engine-out, or some other situation exists, where our time is taken up with emergency procedures. However, having said that, once we have the situation under control, we make every effort to keep all informed.
Journalists have a job to do. Some do it well - others use sensationalism to get out their copy. We do know the story - they don't. So no point getting upset unless you and your crew have screwed up - and if you have, have the balls to admit it. Just do it before the media catch on!:E

****
 

QUOTING A4: "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. "


Ye sound like a ****.
Plus - yer man Kenny has been a journalist for about 40 years.
And I think from reading the article he was just illustrating what most pax would feel, not knowing the situation.

A hack for 40 years huh? Still producing ****e after all this time? :ugh:

I like your name btw - Kil Kenny. Great. :}

Nice first post.

*Journo alert*

CaptKremin - i think you've hit the nail right on the head there! I confess to particularly liking :E


First time I've seen GA's depicted like something undesirable (especially on a gusty day at Dublin) - or worse a criminal act!:p So much for 'media' support for a pro GA culture.
Well, we have to at least acknowledge that this may be the first time a journo appears to be advocating the counter argument in the "real men don't go-around" debate! As for informing/educating the public about GA's - I'd agree - but that doesn't mean turning the already nervous flyer into a quivering wreck for the sake of sensationalist :mad:.

Poor man got a bit spooked by the take off. What baffles me though is how he could read the ASI from the cabin. These journos really can see everywhere it would appear.
More seriously, in keeping with the agenda of the Indo group, it's no surprise that the recipient of the boot was Aer Lingus. While ryanair suffers from actual serious saefty concerns and incidents, the paper ignores these and focuses on EI non-events. That's the power of advertising revenue and like minded right-wing psychos.

Per Rick Studder
"The article illustrates the need for some kind of public education with regards to go-arounds. Maybe it should be included in an FAQ in the inflight magazine... "

This makes a lot of sense to me.

Another comment about "Trust us we're the pros" gave me pause. I don't think that it's a matter of trust. Rather that all professionals are finding that the people that pay the bills want to know more about what is going on. My M.D. gets a lot of questions from me about exactly what he's going to do to my old carcass when I'm unconscious on the table. I do and have trusted him with my life but that doesn't mean that I don't want to know what is going on.

Also a good reminder to me that the Communicate part of Aviate, Navigate
and Communicate also applies to the folks out back.

Ah, for the days of the Vickers Viscount and a straight faced briefing that started with a welcome and a comment about how well everyone looked. One wouldn't want to be a badly turned out corpse should the worst happen would one.:) Never did it with the PA mic live. Potential unemployment was such a behavioural modifier.....

If I flew with the same degree of accuracy that Kenny researched and wrote his article, I'd be out of a job.

No-one asks ATC for permission to go around, the aircraft does not continue to accelerate in the early stages of climb (<1500ft), and in the landing gear does not slam into the wheelbays, no matter how firmly PNF may pull the lever up! Etc, etc. The G/A was almost certainly performed with the automatics in, acc. EI SOP's.

There is really no excuse for publishing mis-leading verbiage, and the editors must be held as responsible as the journalists. (When I retire, I may well see if I can become the first journalist who understands professional aviation.)

So to be a good article it needs to be sensational then?

And so we come full circle 214. You have proven our point, the jornos don't need facts - they need sales and they publish what they need to achieve this.

Your defence of them is bizarre.

Wow, guys, steady on there.
 

Although I am not one of those “professional pilots and people who work in aviation” for whom the Professional Pilots Rumour Network (PPRuNe) is said to be “a community”, I have joined it so that I may reply to the remarkable response to my 200-word article that I wrote for the Sunday Independent, Ireland’s best-read Sunday newspaper across all social classes.

That article was published on the PPRuNE website in breach of the site’s own rules about copyright (which should have the author’s permission), and a number of the anonymous postings also breach the site’s own courtesy guidelines. Some postings are also libellous of myself and of the spokeswoman for the IAA who is called a liar, but I shall ignore the cowardly libels, (especially from a compatriot who denounces passengers who raise concerns as “nervous nellies” while her/himself lacking the courage to sign what s/he writes).

A number of postings are quite kind to me, and others from experienced pilots could make the basis for an article far more sensational that the little piece that I penned. Indeed, if I wished to be sensational, I could write about inconsistent security checks, cabin doors I have seen left open during flights, a passenger taken onto the flight deck for an extended period and things that airline crews have said to me. Or about some of the concerns of certain people who wrote to me directly.

I shall ignore the abuse and attempt to clarify some points. I generally ignore anonymous reaction to what I write and wonder what it says about the industry that professional pilots and people who work in aviation feel it appropriate or necessary to express themselves anonymously or pseudonymously. That some should resort to infantile language similar to that deployed by graffiti artists on toilet walls is simply bizarre.

I have been flying for nearly forty years. The short item was not intended to be sensationalist but to highlight the fact that no coherent record of such go-arounds are kept. I believe that the article accurately described my experience. It in no way criticised the pilot, who was highly professional and I was relieved in the circumstances to be flying Aer Lingus (even if it took over an hour after boarding to get a cup of coffee).

There may well be another article entitled, "Ever wondered what happens when an airliner goes around?" (as someone suggests) but it would be nice to know first why the industry and its regulators appear to keep no coherent record of why or how often pilots actually do go-around.

By the way, I find the term “go-around” Orwellian. If this term referred to the sort of stacking one used to experience over places like JFK, due to congestion, then I could accept it. Using it to describe evasive action or an aborted approach/landing is to use it as a euphemism it seems to me.
Some respondents on the site, and others directly to my email address at DCU, seemed to feel that I was putting pressure on pilots not to “go-around”, and that this reflected growing commercial pressures on pilots. I completely support pilots who decide to make go-arounds” in the interest of safety. As one of you put it, “Rather a Go-Around every day, a few mins delay, than be part of an accident.” The conspiracy theorist who felt that I was trying to be pro-Ryanair and anti-Aer Lingus was simply wrong.

A remarkable feature of quite a number of responses is that they imply a lack of research or factual accuracy and assert low journalistic standards but they do not say how exactly the article errs. My own deduction is that what the extraordinary response shows is a great unease in the sector about go-arounds, for reasons that have nothing to do with my article.

One UK contributor writes, “I maintain that the word "slammed" is unnecessary. Did they "slam" up on the original take-off?”. All I can say is that is what it sounded like to me, and certainly stronger than the normal sound of wheels going up. I was seated over the wings, about three rows back from the emergency exits. Indeed, one contributor from “The Med” acknowledges that, “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.”

The same UK contributor asks, “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?”. The first thought that came to me was a near miss or a flight on the ground (as happened me thirty years ago with a go-around at JFK which was decidedly scarier). But as we rose quickly this month I did wonder about the knock-on dangers of a sudden evasive move, including a flock of birds in the cloudy flight-path.

A “Roy Hudd” from Crawley writes, “No-one asks ATC for permission to go around, the aircraft does not continue to accelerate in the early stages of climb (<1500ft), and in the landing gear does not slam into the wheelbays, no matter how firmly PNF may pull the lever up!”. I did not say that ATC is asked for permission to go-around, but that some go-arounds are directed by ATC. However, as a layperson, I find the suggestion here that a pilot could go-around without permission to be quite startling. I wrote in the article, “we flew faster and faster, banking right and disappearing back into cloud”, which we did. The flying faster and faster may have preceded the actual climb stage. And it certainly sounded like a slam to me.

“Rick Studder” from “Europe” writes, “The article illustrates the need for some kind of public education with regards to go-arounds. Maybe it should be included in an FAQ in the inflight magazine.” That would make a pleasant and interesting change from much of the commercialised rubbish in such publications. But it would require the airline industry to reverse if standard policy of treating people like mushrooms. The stress of contemporary travel, not least at Dublin airport, is likely to increase the number of nervous nellies who wonder just how under sober control the whole rapidly growing airline business is.

Some people criticise me for not being a professional aviation journalist/specialist. Well, that is what I am not, but a cat may look at a queen. In any event, I have formed the view that some specialist journalists (for example, in property or motoring or agriculture) can get far too cosy with their sector for the public’s good. Wetting yourself about the latest Boeing jet is not every reader’s idea of the most relevant story.

Oddly, it seems to me, one thing no respondent appears to have done is to have actually addressed the point of the article, namely the absence of clear and agreed published data on the number of go-arounds and the reasons for them. With modern computers, this should be easy and would surely tell us just how routine they and the reasons for them are at various airports.

-ends-

Journos
 

baw676
As an Irishman, you'll probably appreciate Oscar Wilde's comment :
"There is much to be said in favour of modern journalism. By giving us the opinions of the uneducated, it keeps us in touch with the ignorance of the community". As he's been dead for 107 years, it seems nothing much has changed !" ;-)

An succinct description of the competence of the IAA. What do you expect from an organisation that functions as mick o'learys de facto spokespersons?

Well, Mr Kenny, I'm afraid that this just goes to highlight that you don't actually know very much about what goes on up front, despite "flying for 40 years".
To enlighten you - go-around is the term used to describe the procedure whereby the crew break off the approach, climb back up to altitude and "go-around" for another go. This procedure may be performed for a number of reasons such as:

1 ) because ATC instruct the crew so to do (for example if the runway is not clear) or

2 ) if the crew are unable to establish visual contact with the ground after an approach through cloud (the decision to do so is made at a safe altitude known as "Decision Altitude" or DA) or

3 ) the approach becomes unstable due to gusty winds etc. or

4 ) the crew observe an aeroplane/vehicle enter the runway or one takes too long to vacate the runway, thus making it unsafe to continue or

5 ) any other reason that the crew feel is appropriate

When a go-around is executed (don't read anything into that term - it just means "carried out", after all), the crew fly what is known as a "Missed Approach Procedure" - MAP - a route which takes them through clear airspace up to a safe altitude and thus keeps them clear of other traffic. The crew and ATC know that this is a safe route because ATC do not put any other aeroplanes into that piece of airspace. At no point should it require the crew to use more than 25 degrees of bank, which is the normal bank angle for an airliner, although due to the relatively low speeds flown it will feel like a tighter turn. Again, at now point should the airspeed go below a minimum safe speed.

The whole point of a go-around and MAP is that the aeroplane should get away from the ground in an expeditious manner and that is why climb rates are quite high and airspeeds quite low. Climb rates will normally be higher than at take-off because the aeroplane is now lighter having burnt off some fuel en-route. Airspeeds will be about the same as those flown during take -off, with small variations due to the changed weight.

A go-around feels dramatic because the aeroplane makes the transition from a descent at around 800 feet per minute (along a glidepath which typically has a 3 degree descent angle) to a climb at several thousand feet per minute and a climb angle in excess of 10 degrees. Because the aeroplane is descending at 800 feet per minute there is not time for a crew to ask permission for a go-around - to do so would increase the risk of contact with the ground. However, as explained above, the MAP routing is known to be clear so that permission is not needed. In fact, the rules of the air state that when ATC clear a crew to fly an approach, they are also giving that crew permission to fly the go-round and MAP, therefore the crew do already have permission! It's a bit like a car rally - Colin MaCrae doesn't have to go slowly round the corners because he knows that no one is coming the other way.

Once the go-around has been started and the aeroplane is climbing, landing gear and flaps are retracted in the same way as normal, using the same aeroplane systems and at the same times. It's probably just the case that as the go-around is unexpected (unlike the essential,expected take-off) the passengers senses are heightened and they are more aware of the noises and vibrations involved. It is good practice for the Captain to make passenger address explaining what has gone on - and in fact, if on approach he thinks that a go-around is a possibility, he may warn passengers in advance (I have done that myself).

With regard to the term "go-around" there is nothing "Orwelian" about it - it's a simple statement of the fact that the crew have broken off the approach to "go-around" again. The stack to which you refer is more correctly known as a "holding pattern" whereby the crew orbit at a defined position at a specified altitude whilst they await their turn for an approach. It's a "hold" because you hold your position. This allows ATC to sequence aeroplanes at the correct time/distance spacing to ensure that best possible use is made of airspace and runway "slots". Of course, no-one is perfect and occasionally the spacing goes awry and a crew have to go-around because the aeroplane ahead does not get clear of the runway intime. No problem, the MAP puts them into clear airspace.

Any airline pilot would have been able to explain the above to you, which would have allowed you to write a rather more informed piece. I appreciate that you are not an aviator, just as I am not a journalist, and thus you would not be expected to know all this off the top of your head. As a journalist you will have plenty of resources available to you which would allow you to conduct the necessary research. I would be quite happy for you to quote me on the above, if you need the waiver of anonymity just send me a private message for my details. However, I would insist on written confirmation that my words will be quoted verbatim, with no editing and that I must approve copy before it is printed and that NO editing will be permitted after I have given that approval.

I hope that I have managed to shed some light on the nature of a go-around and Missed Approach Procedure. Should you require any further information, you only have to ask. In the spirit of airmanship and professionalism, I am open to input from my colleagues in this "community" if they feel that any of what I have said above is incorrect, misleading or in need of elaboration - after all, that is the way we do it in aviation, Mr Kenny, we aim to share experience and knowledge for the benefit of all and are open to informed and constructive criticism.

No, Sir, you are being criticised for not doing the proper research. Your comments which I quote above clearly indicate that to be the case - if you had researched the issue, you would understand why crews sometimes have to go around without "asking permission from ATC"

Moggiee, very well said.

Mr Kenny, moggiee puts it well. We're criticising the obvious lack of carrying out an essential part of a journalists job: research. Were any of us airline pilots to neglect to carry out an essential part of our jobs, say neglecting to study the weather at destination, leading to a diversion for example, we know we would be hung, drawn and quartered in the very paper you write for, which would, as usual, and not just about aviation, act as judge, jury and executioner.
You may be getting excoriated on this website for the article in question, however the audience is relatively small. On the other hand, a pilot who makes an error (in the eyes of the paper at least) will be denounced to an audience of millions. You may believe that you have not been critical of the pilots, however the average reader will, however unconsciously, detect an implicit condemnation. And not only have you the opportunity to reply to the criticism on this website, we, as a group, have no opportunity to reply to media inaccuracies. Would that we could, but your editor sees fit to not print any of my letters to him regarding inaccurate journalism.
Your whinging about anonymous (and if you wonder why I choose to remain so, why not ask that great hero your paper so avidly adores, mick o'leary?) replies, to which the audience is small and you can reply to, is not likely to be received too well while you and your ilk continue to print the standard rubbish you do print, without any opportunity to reply.

I suspect you mean me. You personally might not be of this opinion, but it is the editorial policy of your newspaper. If you doubt that, I suggest you consult your colleagues Shane Ross and Laura Noonan.

Finally, I do commend you for appearing on this site. A belated attempt at research and to understand the issues is better than nothing. I trust you will now pen an article that accurately deals with go-arounds, utilising all your new found knowledge.

Just a short reply,

I am a controller. I've worked in high traffic density areas. Without meaning to sound like a parrot, the piece of journalism written by Mr Kenny only adds to Passenger worries. Would it not have been wiser to be a little more unbiased about this whole 'go-around' procedure. Maybe it would have been a better and more respected piece of journalism to point out to the 'lay' readers that go arounds are carried out for one reason only...to ensure safety. If I was reading that article as a lay person, I'd be fairly worried about flying from Dublin. Is it safe? Just because 4 happened in one week means that everybody was doing their job properly, and putting safety first. It is also highly unlikely that the IAA haven't got any report on one of the go-arounds. IT IS MANDATORY for ATC personnel to report a go-around for whatever reason under the Mandatory Occurence Reporting MOR. If I were you Mr Kenny, I would make it clear that passengers are safe flying from Dublin or elsewhere in Ireland.

Permission
 

Thank you for your generally courteous and detailed posting Moggiee.

You yourself write, "In fact, the rules of the air state that when ATC clear a crew to fly an approach, they are also giving that crew permission to fly the go-round and MAP, therefore the crew do already have permission!"

This puts in a different light the statement by an earlier contributor, about which I expressed surprise (in my posting). He had written, "No-one asks ATC for permission to go around". My suprise at his suggestion that pilots could goaround wthout permission was justified, and his statement disingenuous because they already have permission.

I would also point out again that I said nothing about ATC permission in my actual short article.

Again, no errors of fact in my article are asserted. I appear to be criticised for not writing a longer or different article which might have reassured readers at greater length than I did about go-arounds, rather than querying the absence of data on them.

As regards the person ("Jolly Roger") who writes that it is highly unlikely that the IAA did not known of all four goarounds, I simply depended on is what the IAA told me about its records. And, for the benefit of others who tell me that I should have spoken directly to Air Traffic Control, you should know that queries there are referred to the IAA for comment.

By the way, just so that it is not forgotten, what I DID write in my article was that, "The episode was "absolutely routine", according to the Irish Aviation Authority.... She said that both pilots and air traffic controllers are trained for them."

I would give no interviewee a guarantee to quote her/him at length and in full, nor an opportunity to approve my article in advance.

Might I suggest also that if someone had not had a letter accepted by the editor of any newspaper on a flight topic then they post it on PPRuNe if it is not libellous.

Colum Kenny typical media arrogance.
 

Quote from Colum Kenny's latest posting:
'I would give no interviewee a guarantee to quote her/him at length and in full, nor an opportunity to approve my article in advance'.

This is typical of the arrogance shown by the media 'Kennys'.

I was interviewed recently by a media person and I agreed to the interview so long as she read back to me what she intended printing - to ensure my comments were reported accurately. She agreed and in fact there were a couple of points which needed correction.

Judging by Colum Kenny's comments he would not agree to this - would you?

More abuse
 

More anonymous abuse, this time from Heidelberg, who like quite a few others appears to disregard the PPruNe forum rule that reads, "Be Courteous! Don't attack others. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Challenge others' points of view and opinions, but do so respectfully and thoughtfully... without insult and personal attack."

He/she might read what I actually said and what the earlier contributor requested. I could not agree "to quote her/him at length and in full", nor give him an opportunity "to approve my article in advance'. This is a usual and practical professional postition.

However, it is also a normal courtesy to read back a specific quotation that one intends to use if the person requests one to do so. It is just such different circumstances to which Heidelberg appears to refer in his/her own case.

Perhaps those aviation professionals on this site who feel so agitated about alleged journalstic bad practice should do something about it, auch as have their professional bodies organise an event at which it could be addressed in a balanced fashion.

Mr. Kenny,

Your arrogance astounds.

Your article was poorly researched, sensationalist and just plain inaccurate. You know it was, and it is disappointing to see you unable to accept constructive criticism from the professionals who actually do the job. Your approach to 'come out swinging' is regrettable, but I would expect nothing less from a journalist from Independent News and Media.

Mr Kenny, your flogging a dead horse here.....I would be embarrassed to have 4 pages and increasing on a pprune thread about an article I wrote......there has to a reason for the reactions......

Mr. Kenny,

Moggiee's erudite and factual explanation of the technicalities of a missed approach and go-around, obviously did not prevent you from rationalising (very poorly in my opinion) your reasons for your words. Had you carried out adequate research before going to print, this thread would have been put to rest some time ago. Why don't the press obtain some professional advice on matters outside their expertise before publishing misinformation?

Mr Kenny, you were right to consider your piece newsworthy and now having seen the true nature of some of the minds that make the decisions, you might see the basis of further newsworthy items.

Unfortunately many of the contributors to this forum consider themselves to be infallible, unassailable professional experts and controllers within their own world. They often consider the opinions of outsiders to be valueless unless you feed them carefully.

Unluckily for you, they can see that despite your 40 years of flying, you have never been a pilot so some of your latest comments are very conspicuous as obvious 'back-seat driver never learned to drive myself never saw the point' type comments which sadly dilute the original point of your story i.e. that there may be more poorly controlled aborted-landing incidents at some airports than most people would expect.

There are however some in this thread like Luke Stulewater who present a balanced understanding of the world of aviation (there is no world of aviation worth speaking of without the one that includes fare-paying passengers).

As a perhaps rash generalisation, it might be said that go arounds do often up the ante both on the flightdeck and in the back.

There are reports that the dreadful Sao Paolo incident last night may have followed a "go around", and yet further reports that a second go around may have been attempted during the landing roll that led directly to the crash. If so, it might be fair to ask why did it go around the first time, and why did it not go around the second time?

Gentlemen, gentlemen. Re-read the article. It doesn't really say that much. None of the usual bravely narrowly avoiding schools, hospitals, bus full of kiddies, motorway full of traffic. He does say something about a light aircraft + flock of birds that didn't show up but not really in a shock horror oo la la way. So the journo in question knows buggah all about aviation...is there something new here? I think not but I do think I have seen a lot lot worse.

Only conclusion I can find is IAA don't keep statistics about go-arounds. Big deal. Bit of a non-article really.

Now then now then, what about that old chestnut they drag up every summer about Tenerife sliding into the sea and causing a tidal wave which will drown the whole of the western world. About time we had that one again. Sky News used to carry it every year usually about mid-July. Should be due shortly :)

Gents,

I trust that Mr Kenny won't mind me making this post as I believe that it seems to show a desire to move forward, for the benefit of all.

Mr Kenny has been in touch with me to express an interest in taking up my offer for him to use the information I posted above (re:go-arounds) in a forthcoming article about "what happens on a go-around" or words to that effect. This would involve, as I offered, me allowing my real name to be used and he has indicated which passages he proposes to use.

I am minded to do this as I think it will help set the record straight - but would appreciate comment from my peers here as to the accuracy and relevance of my post. The sections to be used are:

"The crew and ATC know that this is a safe route because ATC do not put any other aeroplanes into that piece of airspace. At no point should it require the crew to use more than the normal bank angle for an airliner, although due to the relatively low speeds flown it will feel like a tighter turn."

"A go-around feels dramatic because the aeroplane makes the transition from a descent at around 800 feet per minute (along a glidepath which typically has a 3 degree descent angle) to a climb at several thousand feet per minute and a climb angle in excess of 10 degrees."

"In fact, the rules of the air state that when ATC clear a crew to fly an approach, they are also giving that crew permission to fly the go-round, therefore the crew do already have permission! It's a bit like a car rally - Colin McCrae doesn't have to go slowly round the corners because he knows that no one is coming the other way."

Your input please.

Don't start on at me, but moggiee, unfortunately, I think that probably goes some way to proving a point for the journalists. Too much technical stuff and they'll turn to the next story of someone from Big Brother saying that they haven't heard of Shakespeare. Sad, but true. :*

I say 'they' because I can't be arsed reading newspapers. They're just less humorous versions of Viz. Which, incidentally, isn't as funny as it used to be.

I think you are spot on Moggiee. I can't exactly recall the number of missed approach/go arounds I was involved in as operating crew in my 33 years of aviation career but being based in Asia, flying in Typhoon conditions, they were more than I can count on ten fingers. An MOR was submitted on every occasion and not one of them were ever questioned. The decision to go around was in the majority our own alone. It might be worth to mention, that just about every PC or refresher program in the simulator includes at least one engine out missed approach and go -around and the missed approach briefing on every flight before top of descent in real life.

It isn't going to happen - apparently there can be no guarantee that my words won't be edited (even "just for space constaints"), so they don't get to use my real name. End of story - any editing is unacceptable to me. However, Mr Kenny is free to use my words (which were freely given) - but he doesn't get my name to go with them.

I'm afraid to say that I have never read any newspaper that I regarded as reaching an acceptable level of accuracy on aviation reporting - and that includes "grown up" ones such as the Daily Telegraph and The Times. As such, I am not prepared to put my name to anything over which I do not have 100% control. It's a shame - I wanted to help but there you go.

I know that the following is from the Evening Standard but it gives an idea of the sort of thing we're up against: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/a...0ft/article.do

and this: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1951

The Gary Lineker one I know to be pure fabrication - I know the Captain in question and at no time did he say "I don't know what he's been up to this morning, but he's missed the flight.". BA told him to ignore the Mail because everything they write about BA is rubbish.

I liked the comment "...and there was a strange smell of sweet tobacco. The plane suddenly shot down and my life flashed before my eyes." Sounds like someone, perhaps in the seat behind, had decided to introduce a new calming ingredient.

BTW I thought the report itself was perfectly valid and correctly conveyed the seriousness of the incident. Suppressing such a report would not have been helpful.

As a mere (frequent) passenger with an interest in the machines in which I spend too much time, I felt the article was not very clear, fair and balanced. I'll happily explain the reasons why to Mr Kenny if he cares, but it wouldn't be very constructive for me to pick through it word for word. I simply dismissed it as silly nonsense at the time - something we have to do with most newspaper articles these days.

But never mind - few people probably read it as it wasn't about sports, sex or Paris Hilton. Now if she was onboard, that would be different. "Paris tells her near-death story".

Fly safely guys. Especially if I'm in the back. :)

Quote:

---

apparently there can be no guarantee that my words won't be edited

---

What a surprise! No offence meant, Moggie, but if you were considering doing this for SOME other news organisation other than the aforementioned, it might have been a good idea. Your detailed explanation was good and should have had great 'public information' value for a professional journalist with that interest/agenda - but of course that would not do here. But then there's already been quite a few posters here attesting to the type of 'news'paper published by THIS particular one.
As far as the comments of others concerning arrogance: a non-pilot/aviation professional coming onto the 'professional pilots rumour network' and, by the third post, is quoting forum rules to everyone else here.... Maybe Sky's looking for another 'aviation expert'??????

Personally, I think this thread should have been a non-runner after post number 3: 'TwoOneFour' puts it quite succinctly. But then again, non-aviators/non-aviation savy people wouldn't have had the advantage of Moggie's free and accurate advice. (As opposed to the 'newspaper').

mmmmm....... :confused:, or is it :{, or maybe :O

Mr Kenny:

To help clarify the reason why its necessary for pilots to have immediate and final authority to carry out a missed approach or 'go around' without first requesting permission from ATC, please consider the following:

A plane which is descending at 800 feet per minute, 300 feet above its touchdown point experiences sudden atmospheric change such as wind sheer, or a violent crosswind to the extent that the approach is too dangerous to carry out, and must be aborted. Lets assume this particular ATC is busy, the pilot may have to wait a few seconds or longer for the frequency to become free to request a go around. Then he has to request the go around and wait for a response. Then ATC informs him he is cleared to go around (or perhaps informs him he cant go around?!?). As you can see this takes time and could reasonably take 20 seconds or so for such a clearance.

Now if the plane is descending at 800 feet per minute, 300 feet above the runway when it becomes apparant that a safe landing isnt possible, it hardly makes any sense for the pilot to have to wait for a clearance to go around, when his plane is just moments away from slamming into the ground, does it? For this reason the necessary safety conditions are in place for any pilot on final approach to carry out a 'go around' at his own discretion.

Hope that helps clear things up!

Disingenuous?
 

How dare you, Mr. Kenny.

You wrote about a flight EI169 "requesting permission to go-around", and then deny you ever referred to "permission to go-around". Now that is disingenuous in my book, even dishonest.

I am a professional pilot, and am against scaring the public by publishing articles that contain factual inaccuracies or un-necessary exaggerations.

I know you are only one small part of the "dumbing-down" army of journalists ready to make your living in this way, and I blame the editors and publishers as much as yourselves for your irresponsibly written and published articles. But by sticking your head above the parapet, you must be prepared to accept criticism, particularly from people who know their subject far better than you.

"Out".

Roy Hudd adds some more abuse to the site, which I shall ignore. But he has a reasonable (if not entirely accurate) point when he says,

I did not metion permission. What i actually wrote, was, "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..."

The IAA made it clear to me, and I understood it when writing the article, that some goarounds are directed by ATC and some are at the option of the pilot. I said nothing about ATC permission in my actual short article but accept that the phrase which I used could be read as implying that. I did not intend to be disingenuous, and think that it is something of a red herring as this issue is entirely incidental to the point of the little piece that I wrote. Also, stating that the pilot requested a goaround could not possibly scare any reasonable reader.

As regards Theamrad reproaching me for

I can only point out that I did not originially come on this site but was put on it when my article was published here in breach of my copyright and contrary to the forum rules. The continuing abuse is also contrary to rules. I normally ignore anonymous or pseudonymous communications of any kind but decidecd to request permission of the administrator to respond and was eventually given it. I did so because the site does appear to be used by some serious professionals who rise above abuse but feel the need not to disclose their identity, and also becuase it is an interesting exercise to see the dynamics of such a site of this from the inside as a participant.

You appear to query my statement that the Sunday Independent is Ireland's most widely read paper across all social classes, but you can see independent research at www.nni.ie. As regards media standards generally, I have concerns of my own but they are not as sweeping or simplisitc as some of those that have been voiced here.

I have explained to Moggiee that it is not the practice of broadsheet newspapers to give interviewees a promise that everything said by that interviewee will be included in the final article, or to allow a veto over the article by providing it in advance of publication. Such options would be unworkable. I appreciate his offer and he is of course entirely free not to proceed if he wishes. Editing is a normal everyday part of publishing, and I did show him the quotations that I would attribute to him.

No problem
 

Snipes writes, in posting no. 1 as recently amended,
In fact, I have no objection to the article appearing as such. But it is a courtesy, as well as a legal and PPRUNE forum requirement, to ask permission of property owners to reproduce their articles. I pointed out that this was not done.

I think that it is reasonable to expect contributors, especially if they wish to hide behind a shield of anonymity, to abide by the rules of the forum on this and on matters such as courtesy. In that respect I also differentiate between criticism (which is reasonable) and common abuse (some of which has displayed a level of emotionalalism that strikes me as odd if those penning it as really the airline professionals that they purport to be).

One achieves more by dialogue than by condemnation, in my experience, and I am always open to hear criticism of what I write. Airline professionals should also be open to seeing how passengers view the world, and to hearing what journalists perceive to be relevant issues: in this case the absence of centralised and coherent public data that permits one to assess the frequency and reasons for ATC directed goarounds at various airports.

Really Mr Kenny - RoyHudd's message #79 is abusive!
It is not abusive in my opinion.
Your response is fairly typical of paper journalists who are used to having the last word. However on PPRUNE you Mr Kenny, for once, will not necessarily have the last word.
Is it any wonder the general public have such a low opinion of media journalists in general (there are exceptions I'm sure but you're not one of them Mr Kenny). Your response to the very helpful 'Moggiee' is fairly typical of the arrogance one associates with newspaper journalists.
Please 'cop on' to yourself Mr Kenny.
Guys let's ignore him from here on in.
OUT.

Maybe you investigative "talents" would be better employed to look into "the absence of centralised and coherent public data that permits one to assess the frequency and reasons for locating speed cameras at locations where they maximise revenue from fines, rather than at accident-prone locations".
You might even win some support from people on this forum.

"emotionalalism"

You inventing words as well as non existing drama now Mr Kenny? :sad:

I suppose he is entitled to invent new words. After all, Dr. Colum Kenny is a research Fellow of the School of Communications of DCU.:ok:

Latest from Colum Kenny
 

Click on link for latest from Colum Kenny in to-day's Sunday Independent (Popularly known in Ireland as the SINDO!).
http://www.independent.ie/national-n...s-1042356.html

Thanks for the link heidelberg, I've just read the article and was gratified to read the Dr. Kenny has taken on board a lot of what was written here. I'm sorry that your first go around scarred you. I hope your own research has allayed some of that fear and that the next time it happens you will confidently be able to explain to the frightened passenger next to you what is occurring just prior to the captains' reassuring p.a.