No fault go around policy
 

There was a really good article in Flight International about runway safety and one of the points made was that all airlines need a "no fault go around policy".

Of course the reason being that no pilot should have anything other than safety in mind when making a decision to go around or not. One should not be thinking, "if I go around I will get a call, or have to write a report".

At my airline we do not have to report go arounds at all and the management will bend over backwards to never contact you about it. (Only time that they will is if a pax asks questions and they need something sensible to put in their response).

I have gone around many times and never ever been asked about it or needed to report it.

This is obviously an applaudable attitude from our managers, but the fact that this article makes the point must mean that not all airlines are as good about it.

Would be interested to know what your airline does and your views on it.

FMGC

"I have gone around many times........"

Not all on one flight hopefully! :p

UAL used to have one write a "Captain's report" for a multitude of things, including a go-around, but, for the reason you mention, stopped that requirement.

I do lots of go arounds too! (I'm paid by the minute....) :E

Seriously though, go arounds are generally few and far between if weather related since we went to an all Cat III fleet. Always a surprise here and there of course, such as runway occupied, windshear etc). For that reason, we like to brief the mechanics of a go around as part of the approach briefing. When you do something very infrequently (go around, V1 cut etc) it's good to have a review of how to handle it....

OH

Hi - Interested SLF here. First post so please excuse any intrusions/indiscretions etc. Here to learn only.

Glad to hear your company doesn't ask you about go arounds. But do you offer to tell them the reason? As a businessman (of sorts!) where money is important, I would sure want to know why I'd just spent quite a bit more money than anticipated. I'd certainly be asking - not in the proverbial "tea and biscuits" sense, but to see if the particular circumstances appertaining to that incident could be avoided again.

Just curious, that's all.

I am familiar with an airline in the ME that asks for a report and have seen pilots avoiding a go-around by making less safe orbit on late finals when too high for a landing. Safety was not the prime concern but maintaining their personal image was. Bad situations like this probably contributed to the Gulf Air A320 loss at Bahrain.
Most airlines that I have flown with have an enlightened attitude to go-arounds.

Hi there,

NJE considers a go-around a normal procedure, so no report is required. This is unless the crew thinks that safety was in danger and that a safety report would enhance safety by communication. This is a policy that I find absolutely correct.

:ok:
At my airline we don't have to write a report either. just push the toga buttons and enjoy the ride.
We do however have to mention that we have made a go-around on the acars flight log. This is for the maintenance department to keep track of the number of takeoff cycles the engines have made. Overall a sensible way of operating in my opinion.

I have yet to work for a company that sees any "fault" in performing a go-around, however most of these companys do require a report to be writen as to why the go-around was required.

The problem is that some in ppruneland see any report to the company as a chance to bring trouble on themselfs, if this is the case you have the wrong attitude to flying or more likely you are working in the wrong company.

Fortunatly the company that I work for (like most in the UK industry) use go-around data to help improve flight safety and nothing else.

At my airline we have to write a report on any go around, which then goes straight into the big statistical database and is never heard of again. I've done lots of go arounds and I've never been influenced in my decision by the requirement to write a report.

According to CAP 382 (The Mandatory Occurrence Reporting Scheme) a go around is an occurrence which MUST be reported.:ok:

Rubbish Fr@nk. CAP382 states that a go around that produces a hazardous or potentially hazardous situation must be reported. That is most certainly not every go around.

At Air Canada an Aviation Safety Report is required after a go-around. The reason for the go-around should be given also.

The Aviation Safety Reports are monitored and categorized to determine trends or weaknesses in the system. If a trend is noticed in an increase in go-arounds at particular airports, then maybe it is an ATC issue. ATC can be worked with and possibly procedures changed to make the system safer for everyone.

Also, maybe Air Canada finds through the Aviation Safety Report that we are doing a lot of go-arounds at a new airport that we are flying to. They can investigate and it might be determined that there is often a tailwind on approach that the pilots don't anticipate. This information can be added to our charts to give us a better understanding of the local conditions at airports that we don't fly to often.

Also, something that has been noticed in the reports from the pilots is that while we are great at doing go-arounds from minimums (we all get that in the simulator, right?) we are not so good at conducting go-arounds from a higher altitude (ie...outside the outer marker). As a result Air Canada has been concentrating on giving us go-around practice from various heights on the approach.

So in answer to your question, while Air Canada's policy is to report a go-around through the Aviation Safety report, it is definitely considered no jeopardy.

You did two of those with me. Mind it was sh1te wx in LPFR that day :ok:eh!!

Your company, my ex has a great safety culture in general, but that is not so at all companies. At EK, you MUST file an ASR for any go-around, wx or non wx go around. However, if the approach is not going to be stabilised by what is in reality very complex criteria, then you go around, no questions. The company would rather us do that than push on, which is fair enough. The safety bods review the QAR data, to check compliance with the stabilisation criteria, and those that transgress get hauled in. We have no union or gate-keepers for the Safty managment system :{:{

Keep the sunny side up

EGGW

Hi,

thought in EK its only a requirement to report a G/A if below 1000 ft. That's my understanding, which could be wrong.

Rgds.

My company requires an ASR for any G/A. Some airfields identified as having more G/A's from visual approaches than others using recorded data and training directed as such.

Just the way it should be in my book. All G/A 's have a root cause, some are possible to reduce others, such as weather, are not.

There have been many accidents (normally wipe outs) during go-arounds. These are invariably because the crew was unprepared for the event. Yes, I know it is covered in the approach/landing brief (or should be) but how much attention is paid to this item. I find that, if I get my students into the mental attitude that all approaches are for a GA and that landing is a bonus, they fare much better and even the most complicated GA procedures (Coventry westerly) are handled well.

I can understand the point of filing reports for trend monitoring with no jeopardy but there will still be the omg if I go around I will have to fill in a report, couldn't be @rsed with it!

EGGW, congrats btw. She is too good for you though!!;)

If I remember they tried to put a FCA 757 in the hold at the same level as us that day, a note from a trainer saying "see what happens if you send boys to do a man's job"!!! :}:}

It's good to have management doesn't hassle about a GA, but surely it's worth recording somewhere, if only to note that a particular approach needs a bit more practice either for everyone or particular pilots? Obviously there will be the spread of general "something went wrong" but common factors need to be collated somewhere. Even if it's an anonymous tick sheet where you fill in the name of the airport and tick the "wind", "cock-up", "runway occupied", or other reason and put it in the box, it's got to help.

With Quick Access Recorders a company's Flight Safety Dept. can monitor Go-Arounds and look for dangerous trends etc without Pilot reports.

My previous employer had this system but, at a Flight Safety meeting the "non-pilot" who monitors these things came up with the statistics that there was a big issue over the increase in G/A's on the new fleet (737). Over 20 were recorded at one airport in two or three days. I think his face went red when told that crew training was in progress.:ugh:

What a load of crap !

As modern professional commercial pilots, why are you afraid of executing a go-around in accordance with company/manufacturer ?

That seems to be what people are saying !
Almost every airline now has a flight data analysis programme, so if its 'problem go-around', the safety man is going to come looking for you anyway !

'No fault go around policy' - you are the CAPTAIN - everything is your fault.

We talk on this forum all the time about the dumbing down of the industry; about the fact that no one respects us anymore - but we get really excited when we have a 'No fault' policy :ugh: