B737 @ Aberdeen
 

There has been a well documented report in the popular press of a botched B737 go around @ABZ relatively recently. Subject to an initial AAIB report and curious radio silence around here. The modern 737s have a history of go arounds that have had less than optimum outcomes. The problem lies in the integration of the automation into an old technology airframe. If you know what you are doing and have good knowledge of the autopilot / auto throttle interface coupled with config / position on approach considerations then most go around scenarios can be handled proficiently with less ‘startle’ etc. Would be interested to know what happened for the purpose of education.

I too was surprised not to fond comment here sooner. The AAIB Special Bulletin stating the facts as known is here:

https://assets.publishing.service.go...8K5_G-FDZF.pdf

As a non pilot but long term observer of such things it does look a bit dicey given the altitude and rate of descent. Professional commentary will be interesting.

Penny to a pound it'll come down to "Read your FMAs!" . Do that and it's hard to get it wrong.
18 seconds from the instruction to go around and actually implementing it! Even though forewarned? Wow!

To be fair and correct he was not instructed to "go around" but to "break the approach" at 2600 ft , or 2400ft above runway threshold, an quite some NM out, so not a very urgent maneuver. But the problem does not lies there.

If you don’t need to go around immediately (ie at DA/close to the ground) taking a few seconds to confirm everything’s set correctly and how you’re going to do it with your colleague is good airmanship, particularly if you are very close to them missed approach altitude.

Funny that.

That's the standard quote from the training department. I respectfully disagree. Not saying the FMA:s isn't import, but much better is knowledge about pitch/power and ability to execute such in a high workload environment. Getting yourself into a dive at 3000 fpm and 280 kts means 1. You are overloaded, 2. Interpreting FMAs isn't going to happen.

The 737 is a baby to go-around in if you're one step ahead, like the one-push reduced G/A thrust. It's a nightmare if you're one step behind as you have to run the trim like crazy if you're turning, levelling off, reducing thrust simulatenously.

I feel sorry for the crew having to read about themselves in the newspaper.

There it is, 60's technology for you. I am not saying pitch and power isn't important, but the ability to keep the autopilot engaged at the beginning of the Go Around would make dealing with the workload less of an hassle.

The FO had been off flying for 11 months and had two flights with a Trainer in the previous week. This was his fourth flight in those 11 months, so I assume his second after “release”.
Unfortunately this report does not say who was the handling pilot.

Being a lowlife businessjet pilot, I always wondered about our training:

ALWAYS full power etcetc. At 2000ft plus there is no need for that. Apply some power gently, bring her nose up gently, raise whatever has to be raised and go about your business....

meleagertoo

Another one of those incidents that’s all too easy to criticise from the comfort of your armchair at home at 1g.

Truth is go-arounds are insufficiently practiced (I’ve done 1 real one in 5 years) and when they are, it’s generally in the sim from DA and you know it’s coming. Both Airbus and Boeing have some pitfalls with Intermediate GAs (close to MAA or above it) and the 737 adds the complexity of disconnecting the AP on TOGA selection and giving you a load of pitch/power etc etc.

As with all accidents, it can never be distilled into one cause. It’s been a crazy 1.5 years in aviation and many of us feel rusty. In this case they had a bad day in the office, but recognised and recovered the situation.

As PAX I want to ask, wth some SIM sessions, do they not just get you 'depart and get to cruise' to nominated destination. THEN they throw things at you? Or do you always know what is about to happen?

Sim time is very precious/limited (4hrs x 4 times/year) so there just isn’t time for a “depart and cruise”, which would honestly be a pretty wasteful use of the time. It’s generally a very hectic box ticking exercise to get all the mandatory manoeuvres ticked off - engine failure, go-around, 3d approach, 2d approach, low viz etc etc. and then training for stuff that comes around periodically - upset recovery, GPWS, depressurisation… and the list goes on.

There is an element once a year called a Line Operational Evaluation which is a small company scenario with some failures thrown in. Maybe 1hr of one of the 4hr blocks

PAXboy

Answering your first question first…generally these days no, you don’t know exactly, but sometimes, depending on what chunk of recurrent checking training you are doing you can make a guess…for example if you have just started the Low Visibility training part of a session you know there’s a high probability there’s a rejected take-off coming up….

Other than that as has been said given the requirement for mandatory items to be got through sim time is tight/precious…

As a result you’re probably you’ll never get a standard start up, departure and be allowed to get all the way up to 30,000 feet plus before the wings start falling off :}

You’ll either get ( thinking Long Haul sims ) a scenario where the failures are chucked in on a short sector, e.g. Bahrain/Doha or Heathrow to Manchester…that would be the Line Orientated Evaluation that zero/zero mentions…..or you (virtually) go off from London heading for the Middle East but the problems start immediately the gear is up, if not before…and you end up back in London having never got East of Dover….

If an exercise needs to be commenced at cruising level (e.g. depressurization and rapid descent..or maybe a problem that starts in the cruise such as a fuel leak) you’ll be fast forwarded to start that chunk of the lesson up there, so to speak…

This was the ALT-GO procedure we used and it works very well. Slows things down nicely and allows time to think.

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....1a8ec9075.jpeg

Yes, that is the nice difference between airbus and boeing. On the 737 there are only limited methods to get out of the approach mode: change the ILS frequency, TOGA, or disconnect the autopilot and reset the FDs. That said, in the airlines where i flew the 737 every ILS was flown dual channel, which allows for automatic go around without autopilot disconnect, which makes the whole thing a lot more relaxed.

Had an ATC advised go around this summer, since there was no urgency i took the time to do a short brief what i will do next, and then calmly did it. Quite often there is no real urgency during an intermediate go-around and a few seconds waiting helps a lot. During my career i was lucky enough to had to do roughly one go around per year on the line, and most of those were intermediate ones, not the normal training case of one engine inoperative at minimum or below minimum (balked landing training).

PAXboy

Licence revalidation checkride
- single-engine ILS
- single-engine VOR
- single-engine G/A
- EFATO w/ max x-wind
- max x/wind dual eng apch without FDs
- dual hydraulic failure
- emerg elec (backup gen only)
- emergency DES
- probably FAC1+2 with single engine
- ground evac due fire
- TCAS excercise
- WSHR recovery
- GPWS escape
Those are the pretty much the mandatory exercises. Apart from the Emerg. DES and WSHR all manual flying.

Firstly my sympathy to the crew. They had probably been up at "oh-god o'clock", and doing a Palma W pattern can be a frazzling experience, especially after almost a year of not flying.

I think there are two aspects to this. First; I know that both pilots had been in the SIM, but a concert violinist would never be expected to perform a difficult musical passage well unless they had had days or even weeks to practise it at home, over and over beforehand. Unfortunately, we are not allowed to take the aircraft home to practise!
Even in the SIM, one never has the luxury of practising go-arounds say five times in a row in order to hone our responses. Usually even if it was wobbly and untidy; if the manoeuvre is flown just about within the limits then the box is ticked and the session moves on.

Secondly the 737.......There will be those shouting at the screen: "just fly the got-damned plane! Are you a pilot or an idiot?". However the limited 1950's technology of the B737 and the pitch-power couple from the engines demands a hefty push forward on the yoke and a trim forward during the go-around transition, which is opposite and counter-intuitive to what one would expect when wanting to go up. If you fly a go-around every day or every week; fine, but once a year ?

Why Boeing have still not introduced FBW or decent autopilots and auto-thrust that can handle all flight phases to the 73, baffles me. They could even have brought in FBW just in pitch, which would have made a huge difference enabling auto-trim, and things like bigger engines and MCAS would have been very easy and safe to implement.

Denti

This would work, but with one caveat: the AP must be disengaged by 350 ft RA to avoid having an aircraft severely out of trim.

Well, true in one way. Although even in the initial type rating and line training it was specifically flown to 200ft on two, click it off and land it. Yes, one has to be aware of the (unfortunate) trim, but it is very much manageable. In normal line life it was usually disengaged well before that, except for autolands of course, which both pilots could do whenever they wished to, on CAT III capable runways.

That said, the main culprit in many ways is, outside of EBT, the fact that there is the usual litany of standard stuff one has to do every simulator which is basically box ticking but does not really help all that much on the line. Like for example intermediate all engine go arounds, which are rarely if ever practiced.

Hopefully we can all learn lessons from the incident, once the full report is published. Probably worth including relevant actions in the approach brief when operating into airfields with particularly low MAAs…ESSA comes to mind, but I’m sure there are many others (perhaps not directly relevant to this incident, but an example of a situation which requires a little thought).

The sad reality is that anything out of the ordinary has a tendency to catch us out, regardless of experience.

Banana Joe

Unless you are in IMC, I fail to remember a time when I have left the autopilot in that low, I always disconnect roughly 1000agl, regardless of the wind/wx, it helps you get a 'feel' of the aircraft, I know some companies don't like you disconnecting too early but 350ft......

This type of go around is always going to be an issue, light aircraft, low level off etc, although its easy to criticise the crew of this, we all could have been there.

In recent years, I have had the pleasure of flying many times with a low landing weight 737, I find during the brief discussing the G/A Power setting helpful. In this case where I would break off an approach, I would find the old philosophy of Automatics in or Automatics out more helpful, I would be much happier setting the power manually. but then I am a dinosaur.

Easy to sit back in one’s armchair & pontificate.
An unusual G/A which was probably never encountered before on the 737. Probably just read about it in the dim and distant.

One thing to bear in mind is that once TOGA is pressed the single channel AP disconnects and you are now handing flying, with increasing thrust and pitching up which needs to be controlled with application of forward trim.
Flap 15 retraction to say F5/F1/UP with pitch down resulting. This is particularly noticeable from F1 to flap UP. Significant back pressure is necessary with trim in a timely manner. Lack of scan with low situational awareness.
Unless this is regularly practised, it doesn’t come as any great surprise that it catches inexperience pilots out. No mention who was PF. I would speculate the FO…?? Add to this the lack of flying. Was the PM monitoring effectively….? Also caught out…
Emirates SOP (was?) leave the flaps at F15 until platform altitude. Then retract having ‘bugged up’.
Reduce the workload by timely reengagement of the AP once trimmed.
All easier said than done in the comfort of the armchair.

What will be interesting is the response of the Training Dept…

The problem for the training department is satisfying the requirements of the LPC. A "test" that is so out-dated it is not fit for purpose. It hasn't been relevant for about 30 years or more. I went to a training conference just after the 787 went into service. A photo of a 787 flight deck with HUD was presented next to that of a DC-3. The one thing they had in common was the check schedule to revalidate the type rating. Until the regulators get their heads out of their arses mishaps like this will continue to happen. Anyone out there ever actually had to hand fly a single engine ILS and G/A for real? Yet we will all do it hundreds of times in a career in the sim. A total waste of time.

Well, some years ago my company (a particularly garish one) realised, possibly following a similar incident, that the most commonly cocked-up manoeuvre was the two-engined medium level go-around. hardly surprising as it was only ever practices once on type conversion and afair never seen again - and here is that very same manoeuvre cocked up...
I seem to recall that Mr Boeing built some pitfalls into this seemingly simple execise though my menory is clouded with subsequent Airbus time and which procedure was which.

My 737 training emphasised rigidly that a/t was NEVER to be used a/p out - either both in or both out. You either flew manually or automatically, one or the other - and the other one was to learn to fly 'through' the f/d if you got in a pickle. Fluffing your mode selections and/or failing to read FMAs could be very distracting indeed and it was necessary to learn to fly manually while ignoring the flight director.
I wonder how many are taught that today?

But then, I was taught the see-saw runaway trim detail that could just (perhaps)have saved the Max crews too, had they been aware, or rather awake enough by use of basic airmanship never to have gotten into the problem so deep that they neeed it..

Two words: type commonality.

To be honest, yes, 737 has lots of issues, but on the other hand, a go-around at 2000ft AAL on ATC request should hopefully be a non-event for a professional crew in any airplane type. There's plenty of time to discuss the actions, verify missed approach altitude and go about it nicely, slowly and methodically.

It's the pushing of TOGA for dear life when there's no immediate threat that gets people in trouble.

Airline I worked for until a couple of years ago had an enterprising individual who would sell you a copy of the TRE notes for the Sim session. You would always know exactly what was going to happen.

FlyingStone

Whilst I don’t disagree with the theory, recent events (this incident, the French Bee A350 at ORY - and others) would seem to suggest that non-standard GAs are not “non-events” for experienced crew. So I think one of the questions we need to ask is : WHY ?

FlyingStone

No easy solutions... many training departments try to take away the grey areas by simplifying the procedures and having one GA procedure regardless of where you initiate it. As we've seen; this is particularly pertinent on the Boeing where it's not necessarily easy to get out of approach mode

Why single-channel AP on the ILS?

Flying a CAT 1 ILS with conditions above minima for CAT1…

As previously stated, a dual channel AP approach (CAT3) results in autotrimming up at around 350’RA.
You could fly Dual CH, remembering to discount prior to this trimming, or dealing with an out of trim ac below this point once the AP is disconnected.

QUOTE=FlyingStone;11151846]Two words: type commonality..[/QUOTE]

Fifteen words: Trying to maximise profits rather than improve their aeroplane and bring it up to date. :)

I agree with your other point though, I cannot remember the Boeing 737 FCOM now, but surely a discontinued approach from well above DA need not employ TOGA; just a level off then a gentle climb and clean up.

Yes you can certainly use vertical speed above a height which I no longer remember as I have used it in earlier days on a 737 discontinued approach. I expect Denti will know.

Dual channel autopilot go-around isn't available on the 737 unless both autopilots are engaged and FLARE armed is announciated, which won't be until after the self-test is completed below 1500ft RA.

Question for the 737 pundits - can avoiding using the toga button for aborting an approach, cause complications for the FMC logic/legs/route sequencing?

No, one of the conditions to sequence to the missed approach segment is a RoC above a certain value specified in the FCOM.
​​​​​​Just disconnect the AP, ask the PM to recycle flight directors and engage LNAV or HDG SEL and LVL CH. Around 75% N1 with 7,5° nose up attitude should establish the aircraft in a gentle and manageable climb with flaps 15 and gear up and gives the PM time to rebuild automation.

Thanks. I guess that's what it was - we stayed in VS to gently capture the MAA, either from above or below, and I momentarily had problems joining the route up for another approach in the FMC (I forget how we got around it, or maybe it was fat finger syndrome; it just had me scratching my head for a moment).

Thanks for that. Fairly new to the 737 (about 300 hours over 22 months thanks to Covid and furlough) but that’s what my thought process was. TOGA making things far too exciting in that scenario. One potential gotcha that occurs to me with the relaxed go-around though, is missing the normal sequence, eg
‘Go-Around. …Flap.(if appropriate)‘
’Positive Climb’
’Gear Up’
Similar to a wind-sheer escape where we brief that once clear (obviously without changing configuration) we will then make the ‘Go-Around’ ‘Flap 15’ call to get into that mindset and ensure we don’t forget to raise the gear etc.

Why take the autopilot and A/T out?

De tune ILS freq, (A/P will revert to CWS P and R)
Press HDG SEL
V/S +700 ft per minute
Don't forget a appropriate speed in the IAS window
The automatics should take care of everything else

Its the old KISS priciple

Did it once on a Classic and the behaviour was not as advertised, the autopilot disconnected. I may give it a try again the next time.