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:

All the operators for whom I've flown have required a report following a go-around (used to be called an overshoot).
I utterly disagree with this requirement.
A go-around is a normal procedure available to the aircraft commander.
What's so difficult about conducting a high energy manoeuvre?
You can do it from 5 feet and if you brush the runway, so what?
Go around - max thrust - flap 20 - pos clb - gear up.
Did I miss anything there? Haven't flown for a few years.

BA require an Air Safety Report. It is used for monitoring purposes and is never used as a tool for disciplining a pilot. BA may have many faults but its no blame and open safety culture is one to be envied.

I know that if I make a bad decision or end up operating outside company SOPs for whatever reason as long as I am honest, do not try to hide a transgression and have not been wilfully negligent then I may receive remedial training but will not be disciplined.

"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."

Good post, and quite agree. We are asked to file a report on any G/A below 1000ft so that the company can keep track on these events and try to sort out airfields and approaches that produce high numbers of go-arounds, Nice 04L steep ILS was one I can think of in the past that was changed as a result of many operators reporting go-arounds due not stable, and I don't feel under any pressure not to go-around because of paperwork. All the company want is "g/a not stable" or "g/a runway blocked" etc. and you never hear about it again, whats the problem.

Interesting to see the differences here.

From an ATC point of view, I can only speak for Heathrow, but we report every go-around.

It doesn't get submitted into our Safety Tracking and Reporting system (ASR equivalent) unless the ATCO in question feels it deserves an MOR or a non-MOR observation, but routine GAs do still get entered by the Tower Supervisor into our GA database; time, callsigns, types (of the one ahead, and the one going around), runway state, day/night, reason, and any other information.

This is used mainly for statistical analysis and trend identification.

For example, a VIR A346 is far more likely to go around than other types, on a pro-rata basis.

Airline # 1: Not required to report.
Airline # 2: Not required to report.
Airline # 3: Required to report if performed from below minima.
Airline # 4: Not required to report, but I do it anyway. That way it's in the system should any questions come up from pax, media, the web or God knows who else who might ask about it a year or so later.

"For example, a VIR A346 is far more likely to go around than other types, on a pro-rata basis."

:eek:

Care to use some numbers? And why is that particular airline and aircraft being singled out by you? Fascinated to get some input from my VS colleagues! :ok:

Never required, and never should be in my opinion.

I dont see the problem. A GA always has a cause and if a report helps to elliminate these all well and good. I have never worked fo an Airline that attaches any blame to a GA.

Interesting development at my company. I have recently had to go-around due turbulence induced conditions. The follow up question: why was a (4000 hour) first officer handling in winds gusting upto 35 kts (down the runway). A colleague had a similar experience and was reminded that "we are a commercial operation - go arounds cost money!" and that "maybe it would be better had the skipper being the pilot handling"

Seems F/O s can't get any handling experience now if the windsock shows any sign of movement. I worry then that the first time these pilots get experience of gusty conditions is when they are in the left hand seat. As for me, I'll still just take those management bo###kings - pilots need to obtain those skills and it's better doing it with someone more experienced next to you than someone less experienced relying on you!

Thoughts??

or should I accept the commercial realities

sunny side up

"A colleague had a similar experience and was reminded that "we are a commercial operation - go arounds cost money!"

Not half as much as a prang! Bird-brained, bean-counters!

As a former airline instructor, I used to teach my students, especially those doing their first command upgrade, is that the 4 most important words you can know as a captain are, "BRAKES SET," and "GO-AROUND!" Don't like what you see around you? Keep the Parking Brakes set until you're satisfied. Don't like what you see, or don't see, off the nose on approach? Go Around! It really is that simple, bird-brained bean-counters notwithstanding.:ok:

Which airlines "bean counters" or anyone else attaches blame to the crew for a GA?

Sorry - was a bit tired and emotional when I posted the last and may have confused the issue - The company supported the Go-around and always will support Go-arounds when necessary.

The issue was that they criticised the captain for allowing the First Officer to handle in gusty conditions when the go-around occured.

In spite of all the doubters Ryanair also has no blame go-around policy. Obviously if you had done something questionable to require a go-around you had better get your story straight and sharpen up your English, but there you have it. So lets not go down this road ref our slip up in France please.

Regretably, you are number 4 in the list of priorities after 1 - fly the aeroplane , 2 - communicate with ATC , 3 - communicate with the cabin crew.
However I , and any of my colleagues who consider themselves professional, will always try to give a quick ( hopefully reassuring )P.A. along the lines of , "don't worry we are not all about to die , Oh and by the way we are now diverting to Timbuhktu, where buses will be along in about . . .Oh 5 hours or so."

John R,
I was pax on a go-around a few weeks ago in a B777 at Newark.
From the cabin it was a smoothly flown non-event and I am sure most pax did not realise what had happened.
Re communication from the flight deck: In a busy terminal area, ensuring that: the aircraft is safely climbed and accellerated, correctly configured, the first and subsequent altitude restrictions are achieved, lateral navigation is accurate, ATC is informed and alterations to the standard go-around levels and routeing applied and checklists executed can generate quite a high workload.
That is before taking into account reason for go-around: weather, conflict, obstructed runway or the captain was not happy with his or his first officer's approach. Make another approach? Divert? How's the fuel?
A passenger would not expect a surgeon who has encountered more bleeding than expected during a procedure to pick up his mobile and tell the relatives about it. They would, quite rightly, expect the problem to be dealt with asap.

Yours was a valid question and please, please don't think I'm having a go. We do try to get a word in but on occasion there just isn't time.
In the days when the Chief could just walk into the flight deck we could turn around and, in amongst a lot of other chat, say, e.g: "Something on the runway, having another go, about 15 min to landing." and that would be passed on, in a less abrupt manner, to the passengers.

Perhaps the unlocked flight deck door, and suspender belts, will make a comeback. I won't hold my breath :)

John R, by the way, the Automatic Go-Around (at least on 737-800) which will be the one you could experience on a foggy day for instance, is quite aggresive ( i'm sure Boeing would prefer I describe it as positive) As the G/A may be commenced as low as 50 ft it has to be, but it could catch you unawares if sitting in the back and not expecting it.

Ryanair only require a report for a GA below 500 ft which is usually because Ops One has spotted a sweet wrapper on the runway.

Recently had to do a GA and descend which takes a bit of thinking when the a/c wants to go up. Fortunately flown by the FO who had quite a lot of Playstation time and was very impressive with the button pressing.

can you expand on that? I'm guessing you commenced a GA early in the approach, but had a 'not above' restriction somewhere on the missed approach? did you fly it all manually?
Genuinly interested - not come across that scenario myself, and as they say, every day is a school day!

Excellent point by Grond.
Whereas a standard GA usually means immediate climb, there are occasions in which, in order to maintain separation from other traffic it will require descent then climb.
"Don't the automatics do it all for you guys?" Yea right!

This is always a possibility at a place like Bergamo, where the G/A altitude is very low.
I always brief " in the event of G/A above that altitude, please try and tell ATC that we are going around altitude is----ft , what would you like ?". . . . . . expected response " Standby coordination in progress"