RYANAIR **** GO AROUND (again)
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
From: Hong Kong
[aka HKGpax]
Can anybody out there produce any statistics on the proportion of landings that result in a go-around?
I ask because the professional opinion here is clearly that they are a normal or even frequent part of flying.
I certainly accept that they are a well-established procedure and not a problem or inherently a cause for concern.
But on the other hand, I have racked up approaching 500 landings as SLF in commercial airliners in the last 3 years, and I have not had a single go-round (or aborted takeoff, or anything else untoward except a little coffee in my lap in some mild turbulence once). Is this statistically unusual, or is the general opinion that something is "normal" if it happens in less than 0.2% of cases?
Can anybody out there produce any statistics on the proportion of landings that result in a go-around?
I ask because the professional opinion here is clearly that they are a normal or even frequent part of flying.
I certainly accept that they are a well-established procedure and not a problem or inherently a cause for concern.
But on the other hand, I have racked up approaching 500 landings as SLF in commercial airliners in the last 3 years, and I have not had a single go-round (or aborted takeoff, or anything else untoward except a little coffee in my lap in some mild turbulence once). Is this statistically unusual, or is the general opinion that something is "normal" if it happens in less than 0.2% of cases?
"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
Joined: Jan 2000
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 4,331
Likes: 486
From: England
No, Hogg, landing are not an option. Take-offs are but, once airborne I'm afraid landings are mandatory. Seriously though, as ATC are being forced to squeeze yet more movements out of a finite piece of airspace, go-arounds are becoming more commonplace. Not dangerous in any way, just inconvenient. I suppose the cost of the odd go-around is more than offset by the extra movements that are being fitted in.
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 438
Likes: 0
From: Sunny Warwickshire
When I was a tower trainee, my mentor said one thing that has always stuck in my mind, "If you don't have at least one go around a shift, then you're not using the runway to maximum efficiency"
They're a safe and everyday procedure, pilots brief for it before the approach, we in ATC know how to deal with them when they're not instructed by us, the media on the other hand write "Giant Jet Drama over Skies of London"
We all know better
They're a safe and everyday procedure, pilots brief for it before the approach, we in ATC know how to deal with them when they're not instructed by us, the media on the other hand write "Giant Jet Drama over Skies of London"
We all know better
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
From: SW, UK
Ref the post of Low Cost and Low Cost airlines.
Comments to the effect we came in really fast and Ryan fell out of the sky as if the pilot was trying to carve his initials in the runway.
I'm surprized Ryan have got the time for G/A's.
On a different note. PAX from Newquay have been complaining that Ryan insist that they show photo ID, passport or new driving license. They are saying this is discriminatory to those without.
If they realised the security requirement here post 9/11 I'm sure they'd find it more than acceptable.
Sorry to go off thread...
FS
Comments to the effect we came in really fast and Ryan fell out of the sky as if the pilot was trying to carve his initials in the runway.
I'm surprized Ryan have got the time for G/A's.
On a different note. PAX from Newquay have been complaining that Ryan insist that they show photo ID, passport or new driving license. They are saying this is discriminatory to those without.
If they realised the security requirement here post 9/11 I'm sure they'd find it more than acceptable.
Sorry to go off thread...
FS
Thread Starter
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 1,232
Likes: 0
From: Somewhere between here and there....
The reason for posting this thread is simple. The high amount of traffic that the low cost sector is producing is obviously placing a strain on our Air Traffic Controllers, who are already very busy. 2 go arounds at one airport in 6 hours, in my opinion, is not normal but is proof that the runways are indeed getting to capacity.
Yes I agree, to go around is the safest thing to do when congestion or trouble lurks on the runway, but it also places an extra amount of pressure back on the radar and approach guys/girls who have to put the a/c back in the circuit for another attempt.
Heathrow Director - this is a serious thread. I have been in this business for 21 years and the growth rate in the last 5 has outdone the previous 16. Surely you would agree, low costs for the punters is very good news, but low cost is placing a strain on our already overstretched ATC system.
Yes I agree, to go around is the safest thing to do when congestion or trouble lurks on the runway, but it also places an extra amount of pressure back on the radar and approach guys/girls who have to put the a/c back in the circuit for another attempt.
Heathrow Director - this is a serious thread. I have been in this business for 21 years and the growth rate in the last 5 has outdone the previous 16. Surely you would agree, low costs for the punters is very good news, but low cost is placing a strain on our already overstretched ATC system.
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 8,266
Likes: 1
From: Berkshire, UK
Viking9. You're obviouly neither a pilot nor an ATCO and without wishing to offend please believe that those of us at the sharp end know what we're saying. The fact that there were two go-arounds by the same airline in a few hours means nothing unless you know the reasons for the go-arounds. I've had 4 consecutive BA a/c go-around because a runway was blocked. So what? It doesn't mean it's any less safe flying with BA. I have seen a/c go-around in the middle of the night with nothing else around....
I've got 31+ years in as a Heathrow controller - 23 of those in the tower so I know a lot about go-arounds. OK, the commercial pressure on us to achieve higher landing rates will inevitably result in the odd go-arounds but many, many more occur because of other factors. We use a standard minimum of 3nm spacing on final approach - 2.5nm in certain weather conditions - which means one a/c is leaving the runway as the next is on short final. This has been the situation at Heathrow for many, many years. We currently shift 1200+ movements a day compared to around 7-800 when I started. That does NOT mean the a/c are getting more dangerously close together; it means that we don't have so many quiet periods. We still fall asleep early afternoon and after 9pm and could easily land another 50-100 a day under ideal conditions.
Go-arounds occur for a large number of reasons, including:
One ahead slow to clear the runway.
Blocked taxiway meaning someone has to taxi down to the next turn off.
Landing a/c bursts a tyre (nothing exciting) and blocks runway for a few minutes.
LVPs or other weather problems on final approach.
Maybe the wind as dropped off suddenly producing an increased groundspeed on final approach and a "catch-up" situation develops. Windshear may cause a go-around too.
Runway problem - maybe broken light fitting, broken concrete, etc.
A/c problem - a mechanical problem on final approach usually means a go-around so the crew can sort it out.
Someone went around recently because the cabin wasn't ready...
Maybe there's a helicopter ambulance going to an accident on the M25 - they are Cat A in that case and everything has to get out of the way.
Oh.. I could go on all evening. Your suggestion that it makes more work for us radar guys is colouring things a bit. It is absolutely NO problem to fit a go-around back into the system.
I'm sure you mean this to be a serious thread but please don't try to over-sensationalise a perfectly normal and safe procedure which causes neither pilots nor ATCOs to lose any sleep..
I've got 31+ years in as a Heathrow controller - 23 of those in the tower so I know a lot about go-arounds. OK, the commercial pressure on us to achieve higher landing rates will inevitably result in the odd go-arounds but many, many more occur because of other factors. We use a standard minimum of 3nm spacing on final approach - 2.5nm in certain weather conditions - which means one a/c is leaving the runway as the next is on short final. This has been the situation at Heathrow for many, many years. We currently shift 1200+ movements a day compared to around 7-800 when I started. That does NOT mean the a/c are getting more dangerously close together; it means that we don't have so many quiet periods. We still fall asleep early afternoon and after 9pm and could easily land another 50-100 a day under ideal conditions.
Go-arounds occur for a large number of reasons, including:
One ahead slow to clear the runway.
Blocked taxiway meaning someone has to taxi down to the next turn off.
Landing a/c bursts a tyre (nothing exciting) and blocks runway for a few minutes.
LVPs or other weather problems on final approach.
Maybe the wind as dropped off suddenly producing an increased groundspeed on final approach and a "catch-up" situation develops. Windshear may cause a go-around too.
Runway problem - maybe broken light fitting, broken concrete, etc.
A/c problem - a mechanical problem on final approach usually means a go-around so the crew can sort it out.
Someone went around recently because the cabin wasn't ready...
Maybe there's a helicopter ambulance going to an accident on the M25 - they are Cat A in that case and everything has to get out of the way.
Oh.. I could go on all evening. Your suggestion that it makes more work for us radar guys is colouring things a bit. It is absolutely NO problem to fit a go-around back into the system.
I'm sure you mean this to be a serious thread but please don't try to over-sensationalise a perfectly normal and safe procedure which causes neither pilots nor ATCOs to lose any sleep..
Thread Starter
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 1,232
Likes: 0
From: Somewhere between here and there....
Heathrow Director (and others come to that) - thanks for your input. I started the thread so as to try and replace some of the cr@p that others start. I thought my topic was going to bring useful information forward, but all you lot want to do is slag me and the thread. I DO know what I'm talking about thank you but there are others on here who don't and want to learn more about how our environment ticks. It's a shame that all some people do with their time is run others down, not aimed at you LHR Director, rather than be proactive.
Think we can safely say that the thread is now CLOSED.
:o
Think we can safely say that the thread is now CLOSED.
:o
