Article by COLUM KENNY of the Irish Independent.
 

I suppose this is why I wouldn't let a journalist be in charge of a car, never mind the pointy end of a jet...

*Edit: To keep Mr Kenny happy, I have removed the actual reproduction of the article and will just leave the link to it instead.

I find it hard to understand why posting it here upset him so much, seeing as I left his name, newspaper and link to the original document all untouched and visible to all. There was no attempt to take credit away from Mr Kenny.....in fact it was the exact opposite that brought it here in the first place.


http://www.independent.ie/national-n...ek-995309.html

Mr Kenny,

You are a weanie ....

this gets my vote for the worst piece of research in jounalistic history. shoesmith come back, all is forgiven :-)

It's a fact; go arounds scare the bejezus put of pax (and many cabin crew) and a reassuring PA from the captain as soon a s possible after the go around can do wonders in calming them down - (but only if the captain doesn't sound as rattled as they are)!

However, I've been a passenger on more than one occasion where we've had to go around and have heard absolutely nothing from the flight deck for the 20 minutes or more it took to make the second approach. (It's my habit to hand over to the FO as soon as we've completed the clean up and got everything squared away and make a PA, and if the weather is really marginal, to tell them of the possibility of a go around in my approach PA, including what it will involve, (pitch up, loud engine noise etc "basically, just like a take off"), stressing the fact that it's quite normal and something we practice in the simulator every six months.)

We would all agree that the article here is nothing more than sad yellow journalism at it worst, but too many of the punters we carry are all too willing to drink that kind drivel in. many with what appears to be unbridled enthusiasm. I don't know if it's not a subconscious desire by some people to want to think they've been involved in something dangerous so they can breathlessly pass on their 'close call with death' to friends and families.

It's on a par with the current equally sad journalistic practice of labelling any soldier who has so much as put his boot into a war zone as a 'hero'.

Then a mighty roar came from the engines and the aircraft's nose went up. Its wheels slammed shut as we flew faster and faster, banking right and disappearing back into cloud.

Passengers fell silent.

Then the pilot announced what had actually happened. A jet had been slow to clear the runway on which he was due to land

The episode was "absolutely routine", according to the Irish Aviation Authority.

She said that both pilots and air traffic controllers are trained for them.
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

You may not like the lack of comprehension of a normal procedure, but the piece did not strike me as being sensationalist and the writer seems to have spoken to the IAA and the airlines to investigate go arounds. In fact I would say that he has been careful to balance his (incorrect) perception of 'danger' with reassuring comments from the industry.

Rather than bitch about the guy, maybe a more constructive approach would be to contact him and offer the flight deck view.

Compared to the recent compost in the Daily Mail about the easyJet descent, I think this guy might actually be trying to get to grips with something that pilots understand very well, but that seems scary to those who don't.

Erm so! What point are you trying to make? :}

Quote: "Bit like me trying to show that all airline pilots are dangerously hopeless by using the example of a dumb mistake by an inexperienced PPL."

True but the difference here is that an "inexperienced PPL" is not going to be flying a jet full of passengers. This piece was allegedly written by a "Professional" journalist not a "PPL"- although it reads like it was written by an excitable 14 year old.

......"but the piece did not strike me as being sensationalist "

"Its wheels slammed shut as we flew faster and faster, banking right and disappearing back into cloud. Passengers fell silent. The first thought that crossed my mind was that it was a near miss - and I just hoped hard that there was no light aircraft or flock of birds in our exit path." :yuk::yuk:

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.

Of course the consequences in each case are somewhat different, but a journalist can do a significant amount of "damage" with ill-researched and sensationalist articles which are then consumed by the masses as gospel.

I don't even know what the point of the article was driving at other than the IAA don't keep stats on go-arounds????????

A4 :hmm:

You could argue ..... "Why do we post this Rubbish on PPRuNe" .... :(

You could argue ..... "Why do we post this Rubbish on PPRuNe" ...

I'm not sure what, exactly, you are refering to. As far as I'm concerned at least we get a right to reply via this site. I'll wait for a few more replies and then e-mail said journo with a link to the thread to allow him to see the reaction to his article from a group of more aware readers.......

If you're refering to the original article then yes I agree... it was rubbish.:ok:

A4

I am a humble SLF.

While go-arounds happen, and may be routine, almost, I can't help feeling that the frequency with which they occur at some airport is worrying. Now, Dublin is nothing like as frequent as Heathrow but to a passenger even one occurrence is one too many (I've done 4).

There are some that it is arguable are unavoidable - low visibility approaches spring to mind. But to operate the system at a rate which means that one small error/slow clearance causes a go-around is something that you all need to think about.

Is it really acceptable that you simply accept go-arounds?

"Its wheels slammed shut as we flew faster and faster, banking right and disappearing back into cloud. Passengers fell silent. The first thought that crossed my mind was that it was a near miss - and I just hoped hard that there was no light aircraft or flock of birds in our exit path."

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.

When I've experienced go arounds as an airline pax, the nervous silence (plus white faces) has been very noticeable, so the journo has no tried to sensationalise this obervation. He could have written about sheer panic, creaming pax annd weeping kids - but he didn't.

The second sentence is simply the immediate reaction of someone who does not understand what happened.

Finally, A4, as you are not a journalist, I suggest that you do not judge what is "crap", since you are doing to him exactly what you despise in his writing about your profession.

Jeez, give the guy a break and feed him some positive advise - you might get a half decent story out of this guy - he obviously thinks that G/A's are dangerous and we all know that they are not.

I've already emailed the editor to point out its a normal procedure and suggests he contacts IAP to get the flight deck percpective.

Hello Hartington,
I respect a missed approach probably is alarming to pax and any half decent Captain should come on the PA once the house is in order just to reassure everyone...

However, may I suggest you forward your concerns and comments to the numerous anti airport expansion groups...... when airports only have one runway the chances of missed approaches are significantly increased due to capacity issues and trying to utilise the runway to its max. 98% of the time ATC and pilots do a great job and all is well. Very occaisionally it doesn't work and we go around and fly the approach again..... all that fuel/NOX/CO2 -do the "anti's" factor that into their arguements :rolleyes:

The NIMBY fraternity in this country are very good at delaying the inevitable - the south-east needs additional runway capacity now - not in 5 years times. The Dutch, Germans, French and Spanish have all added additional runways in the last few years - the UK has done nothing (in the south where the demand is....) for 20,30,40 years.

A4

While the article appears sensationalist to the aviation professional exactly which piece of it has been poorly researched? Seems to have gone to the trouble to obtain facts even if you don't like the way they are presented.

What the majority of previous posts don't seem to appreciate is that to the average SLF, when they've been in a go round they've nearly been in a crash.

What is needed is communication, communication, communication (well done, Wiley!:D)

Hartington's point about the increasing frequency and the reasons why, are worthy of more consideration.:D

Hartington, it's called m-o-n-e-y. When many airlines want to utilise an airport, as with Heathrow, everyone concerned tries to get the maximum THEY can get out of what's available for the minimum outlay, and who would have it any other way? That's the system (capitalism) we all work in.

The controllers at Heathrow (and the majority of pilots who fly into that port) have it down to a very fine art, to the point where it wasn't all that unusual under the now superceded system to get landing clearance almost in the flare.

The new procedures allow the controller to clear a following aircraft to land with another aircraft still occuppying the runway as long as, in his judgement, the leading aircraft will be clear of the runway by the time the following one lands. (This saves a badly timed radio call from another aircraft preventing the controller from getting a vital landing clearance call in should spacing be that tight.)

In the vast majority of cases, the system works, and works very well. Every now and then, (in a very small percentage of cases), something happens to cause the controller to have a following aircraft go around.

We - the people who fly into Heathrow and other busy airports -aren't attempting to make out we're terribly cool by saying that such incidents are no big deal. In the vast majority of cases, they simply aren't. They make a bit of noise and cost the operator a lot of money - in a 777, for instance, nearly 2.5 tonnes of fuel on average at Heathrow, but given how seldom they do occur, that's a lot less fuel than would be wasted in the long run if we were forced to stretch the separation on landing aircraft to accommodate your suggestion.

Think of it as getting two takeoffs for the price of one ticket, because that's pretty much what a go around is, just another takeoff.

F3G,

Perhaps I was a little harsh. However I maintain that the word "slammed" is unnecessary. Did they "slam" up on the original take-off? 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?

Just because a Journalist does not understand a subject doesn't mean it's ok for him to write what he thinks is correct - that's just lazy and will provoke the "victims" of the inaccuracy. The problem is, once it's published the damage is done.

A Professional Journalist has a responsibility to ensure that he has got his (basic) facts right before publishing (see the Calder thread.....). What if Professional pilots were so lax..........

I accept the word crap was a bit strong - weak?

A4

Even the honourable wan. er gentleman's words can be taken out of context:rolleyes:


I believe that this would be himself:
http://www.comms.dcu.ie/kennyc/

Tell them how it is. What you have done and why. Reassure dont patronise

Good advice to some journalists!!

I will say no more on this thread.

Out.

A4

Rather a Go-Around every day, a few mins delay, than be part of an accident. That's why we all train for them for what ever reason they occur.

Poor standard of todays reporting by the media in general, anything to get a headline. We just see the in accuracies with the bits we have knowledge of so how correct is the rest ??

Yeah, read the article too and it appears the said journalist has the mind of a 10 year old. Dublin airport has got busier than ever imagined, more traffic means invariably more G/A's....that's life.

Lou Stulewater, on what statistical basis do you make your observations?

A GoAround is a "normal" manoeuvre which may be required for a number of different reasons.

I am curious to know what you mean by "underpractised" and "usually messed up". Please explain more fully.

.....and 10 minutes on the phone to research a few facts would have allowed him to write an article with all the sensationalist twaddle removed. Whilst the noises and aeroplane manoeuvres may seem dramatic to the non-aviator, any pilot (or even experienced traveller) could have explained to Mr Kenny what it was all about.

Mr Kenny could then have written an informative piece along the lines of "Ever wondered what happens when an airliner goes around?". He could have explained what happens, why it appears dramatic and why the go-around might be flown in the first place. He could have explained what the noises of the gear and flaps are, why the nose rises so much, why the aeroplane banks at relatively low levels. But that would not have been dramatic enough for him or his his editor, so we get this simplistic, shallow hype instead.

This is a rather poor example of work - utterly typical of the majority of journalists when they get near an aviation story. It doesn't even report facts so mucvh as the journalists's emotions - two very different things.

PPRUNERS - think on this. We know that 95% or more of all aviation-related stuff that appears in the popular press is poorly researched, innacurate, fabrication, hype or just plain nonsense. We know that because it's our field of expertise. Now think of how much you read in the press that is not in your field of expertise.....................

Never forget a little knowledge is dangerous :ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:
When it comes to aviation journalists seem to have a little knowledge and make up the rest. Except of course for a few well known aviation publications.

We really need to start an award for this stuff...on a yearly (twice yearly??) basis.

Moggiee

.....and 10 minutes on the phone to research a few facts would have allowed him to write an article with all the sensationalist twaddle removed. Whilst the noises and aeroplane manoeuvres may seem dramatic to the non-aviator, any pilot (or even experienced traveller) could have explained to Mr Kenny what it was all about.

To be fair to Mr Kenny, he did spend his 10 mins (at least) speaking to an airline and an airport authority and less he has completely misquoted his sources, the information supplied has not exactly shed the light it could have done on the situation.

I wonder what he would have written if he had been put through to the chief pilot or some other authority figure from the flight deck community, who had explained the situation and allayed his fears?

But he did make the effort, so I don;t think he should be criticized for that.

whoop whoop

I understand our frustration, but I don't believe this guy is an aviation journo - just a journo.

If you read the piece again, there is no mention of plunging aircraft, screaming pax etc etc, just a layman's description of the event he experienced and some comments on go arounds that show he is a layman; but I don't see anny of the sh*t stirring rubbish that I read in other paper.

In other words, here there MAYBE a guy who would write a good piece with the right info - I'm not aline pilot, so I cant do it, but perhaps someone else can.

Experience in other fields suggests that guys like Mr Kenny can be helpful if steered in the right direction.

Many pilots fail to realize that a go-around scare probably half of the pax on the plane ****less. They don't know what's going on and assume the worst, near miss etc.
I've seen go-arounds covered in the media far more sensationalist than in Mr. Kenny's piece. 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... In any case, always make a PA as soon as possible after a go-around, explaining what happened and why, and stressing that it is a controlled operation and not out of the ordinary. Don't tell them you practice it two times a year in the sim, they don't find two timeas a year reassuring. Just don't let them leave the plane thinking they experienced a near miss...

fireflybob,
my post is self explanatory.
however I have been involved in FDM analysis since its inception and responsible for its application in two uk companies.
I didnt say it isnt a normal maeuvere. I inferred that people dismiss them as a normal occurrence and not worth mentioning.. They are not. A landing should be the normal occurance from an approach.
I also stated that they are messed up to some degree. That means anything from poor tracking, speed control to piss poor flying and dangerous practice. You see thats the beautiful thing about the phrase I used.it covers the small to large errors. If such an alledged straightforward maneuvere causes so much hassle then why is it fobbed off as a non event? arrogance? probably. It isnt a non event and to act that it is indicates,from my 25 years in the business an accident waiting to happen from some skygod or other. Thats why we have fdm now.

How many times have you practiced go arounds on good engines in the sim from a non usual vertical or lateral position? Try it.ask the IP to insert it at random in the two days. Watch the fingers and thumbs, the poor fd work, tracking and flap discipline. Lets say ga 1600 feet flap 25, level off 2500feet with a turn at 185kt at x miles followed by a further climb and then aninstruction from atc to do something else. Ie not a briefed GA from decision alt at a familiar airport.
Or simpler at man go around at 350 feet. ..initial clean up roll mode 0 dme or 750'. I'll bet it gets screwed and the turn is missed due to a late roll mode, or the ga is cancelled due to ap selection because it wasnt in a set sequence that you practice so well.. I could go on ive seen many but quite frankly i cant be arsed anymore.

Rick .

good post. My thoughts exactly

I agree with Lou Stulewater. I cannot tell you how many go-arounds I have seen flown inaccurately in years of training and examining. I have lost count of how many times I have briefed pilots that there is no point in flying a beautiful ILS if you then screw up the go around. I have also lost count of how many times I have told them that, if they screw up the go around, then they are also going to have to fly the ILS again.

Now that is not to say that we are talking about dangerous manoeuvres. We are talking about inaccuracies such as poor tracking etc.

Another consideration is that go arounds are normally practiced twice a year in the simulator. As often as not they are practiced at MLW with one engine out.

I once had to go around at LGW in a DC10-30 after a flight from LAX. The aircraft was very light and all engines were operating. The rate of climb when I hit the TOGA button was astronomic and it was quite difficult not to bust the missed approach altitude believe you me.

So, go around manoeuvres are normal manoeuvres but they are not practiced as often as some of our brethern seem to think is necessary.

The travelling public need to have little to fear sitting in the back whilst a go around manoeuvre is being flown. You are in safe hands but the guys in the front will be working quite hard for a little while so don't expect an immediate passenger announcement.

I fully agree with what many have said - i.e. make a passenger PA as soon as is practicle ... I always do this myself - it calms veryone down.

HOWEVER, the travelling public DON'T require an explanation for every manouevre we fly , and there is no reason to educate them on the finer points of a go-around.
We (the public) do not question a surgeon, nor a lawyer, nor the bus driver when he has to brake sharply ...

Just allow the professionals to do their job for chr1st sake ! :ugh:

If you don't trust your pilots, DON'T GET ON THE AIRPLANE

Those of you who are not familiar with the Irish media ought to be informed of the nature this particular newspaper before making further judgements on the journalistic standards in said article.

The 'Sunday Independent' (affectionately known in Ireland as 'The Sindo') is part of Independent Newspapers Group (ING), a publishing company owned by 'Sir' Tony O'Reilly, an Irish multi millionaire businessman. More on him later.

The Sindo is a newspaper in similiar vein to the UK tabloid 'The Sun'. It is a scandal sheet masquerading as a broadsheet (in only the thinnest of disguises). It is legendary among Irish newspapers for its willingness to print any lie or innacurracy it believes will sell to the public. It's cover page normally consists of a bombastic headline juxtaposed with a picture of a scantily clad female - not a 'serious' image right from the start.

The inner pages continue in much the same vein - little actual news, but plenty of innuendo, insinuation, sensationalism, prurience and character demolition. It focuses heavily on 'celebrity' stories and is as Right Wing in its politics as Bill O'Reilly.

Just as an example of its gutter journalism, the same issue which carried the article we're discussing also printed a 'report' from a journalist who had interviewed a DRUG DEALER who informed her that his best customers for his cocaine business include 'an airline pilot'. No names, no evidence, just a despicable accusation, allegedly from a self admitted criminal.

Mr.O'Reilly - the proprietor - sets the tone for this rag. His company ING effectively controls 80% of the Irish print media, and he is not averse to using this influence to ridicule, undermine or even destroy his victim du jour. His own Right Wing agenda is well documented and reflected in the editorial direction he encourages, witness his papers history of union bashing. The sacking of journalists who don't toe the party line was well demonstrated by the departure of Justine McCarthy after she wrote an article sympathetic to workers in the Irish Ferries dispute in 2005.

In short - if you MUST read a comic like this, please don't be foolish enough to take anything written therein seriously.

For most of us familiar with Irish media would find characterisation of O'Reilly and the Independent as far of the mark as Professor Kenny's:rolleyes:

All the points re money and putting quarts in to pints and nimbys are well taken. Furthermore, I appreciate the job that all of you do (I was privileged to ride a number of jump seat departures and arrivals over the years pre 9/11). I once saw the "clearance in the flare" happen from the jump and the (apparent) calm in the cockpit was impressive.

But you do yourselves a disservice when you slag off the journos. You need them on your side so they don't write sensationalist rubbish.

I frequently get a good laugh out of sensationalist reports of go arounds. Some are quite hilarious. Mr Kenny's is not the worst I've seen and amounts to no more than a filler that journalists waste their lives writing. But to be fair to the average passenger a go around is scary. I experienced only one as a pax. My gasp of exasperation because I knew I was about to miss my connection was misinterpreted by the woman beside me as fear and she glanced at me worriedly. I apologised and explained that most probably it was simply because the aircraft ahead was slow to clear the runway. Kudos to me when it was announced as exactly that. I explained go arounds and she relaxed.

Like it or not go arounds are a bit scary for the uninitiated and scary for those like Mr Kenny with a little knowledge.

It is surprising to me, sometimes just how little knowledge of flying so many passengers have despite the huge growth in air travel. It is still something of a mystery to many people. Every trivial incident seems to garner acres of newsprint. I'm not sure how this kind of negative attitude can be reversed.
So I guess we'll have to put up with this kind negative press.

I wonder if any of thought to contact Kenny directly and educate him a bit more. (Not abuse him:=):) It would do no harm.

Corsair

Yes, though only a PPL and I don't have the same perceived authority as a line pilot.

Given it was written by a layman, I thought the article was a reasonable attempt and the journo might actually do a good job with a better grasp of the subject.

Both rather missing the point, eh?
These are not mere "Passengers". They are so-called "Professional Journalists".
In my humble opinion - a "Professional" is required to know what they are talking about, rather than discrediting themselves by printing rubbish. Otherwise, why waste our money and time buying and reading their trash?
After all, these are the very same people who comment on our "generous wages" and "cushy working conditions"! They seem to expect us (and the credulous public) to blindly accept their pronouncements as gospel truth, when the reality is that most of their 'NEWS' is nothing but mere Opinion from a bunch of ignorant lazy hacks with a domineering editor who is employed by a millionaire proprietor with a clear agenda.

We need to "suck up to them" and "get them onside"?
Excuse me, we are not politicians. We don't need to give a damn for journalists opinions - stick them.

What matters is the truth.
If you journos wish to print lies and spin then go ahead and be damned - they sell well. The only people you fool are yourselves and the ignorant public. Don't try to rope professional pilots into your sleazy circle of back-scratching pols and hacks.

This is the level at which tabloid 'journalism' operates in the UK/Irish press - pure guttersniping bull****. There are decent journalists out tere Danny, no doubt, but bull**** is bull****, and a hack is a hack - especially when employed by the bottom-feeders like the Sindo.

Desrt2005, I'm sure Tony O'Reilly deeply appreciates your craven and snivelling imprimatur.

This would be the same Colum Kenny that is the journo and college professor on journalism in Rathmines or at least he used to be. When the industry needed an 'expert' to talk to about radio stuff they would turn to this guy for advice! To be honest I expected more from him than this crap but thats the indo for you. More and more like the Star every day.
Incidentally, The BCI, those are the boys that regulate the broadcast industry in Ireland take broadcasting breaches very seriously. Things like 'dead air' are one such incident. However I dont think the BCI will be informed of this incident and I certaintly dont think the newspapers will carry a big story tomorrow about the 'loss of communications' at a Dublin radio station. In my business (radio) this is a big deal!
http://www.radioviews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=395
I think Mr Kenny should stick to talk of radio and leave the stuff that he has no idea about alone. Or would he prefer if the offending pilot landed and plowed into the back of the departing traffic. :=

Sorry he is now in DCU. I suggest you send him an email.

http://www.dcu.ie/info/staff_member.php?id_no=987

"methinks though does protest to much"
In 20000 or so hours I have performed only a few go-arounds as opposed to "discontinued approaches" However as a trainer I have observed a multitude of screw ups in the sim, usualy with all engines operating. Is just something that we dont do very often and with modern aircraft perfomance it all happens a bit quick.
I thought the artical just expressed a laymans opinion, why get excited?

time for a new forum?
 

you know, I would almost suggest a new forum along the lines "stupid stuff in the press today" and all these threads could be shunted there never to return! It must make up at least 10% of the traffic on rumours and news, and there's obviously a hard core of people that get some satisfaction over nit picking over the missed school/wrestling pilot/screaming engines sections of each report!

Doesn't anybody have an off switch where they can just ignore these threads when they appear?

G

The content remains rubbish though.:ugh:

The word would be INDIGNANT actually.

Why get indignant?
Because this is not just a laymans opinion - it is an opinion from a journal with an axe to grind. An agenda to discredit.
I've tried explaining this, but you obviously aren't getting my drift.

Can anyone get hold of the e-mail adress of Mr. Kenny? I would love to e-mail him the link to this thread!
Let's see what Mr. Kenny has to say to all this journo-bashing.:E