dicksynormous,

Which companies require an ASR after a go around and why?
Could you print a quick list, please?

Why is this still in rumours & news?

While we're asking pertinent questions, why was this is rumours & news ever?

Please someone, stop the madness and close the thread!

Oh look, now it's not. That'll keep the "Gods" happy.

puff m'call

What on earth is wrong with 160 to 4dme? Too difficult for you huh?

I share HEATHROW DIRECTOR and others comments.

I also think this thread is a little trivial.

Could someone explain what 4dme means?

I think the thread is trivial unless it's in the Spotters Corner, and the spotters corner only.

After all, this is what the forum was designed for.

Just once, couldn't we provide an answer or offer some insight, without having to prove how clever we all think we are???

There are NO stupid questions, only REALLY stupid answers.

And by the way, does anybody happen to know what may have caused Emirates to go around?????

When asked to maintain '160 to 4dme' means; please maintain 160 knots indicated airspeed until you are within 4 nautical miles of the touchdown point. Thereafter you are allowed to slow down to your final approach speed.

This allows ATC to control the flow into airports

Regards

lovely jubbly.

While we're at it, what is the landing speed for a 777 and how does it get down to that speed with just 4 miles to go?

Cheers.

Puff M'call,

Please come and show us ATC's how to sequence... Maybe next time maybe 160IAS at 14d... Then you'll squeal too! You aren't the only plane out there....

URC

As an Ek 777 driver I must disagree with puff. London ATC are always very accomodating with speed for the -300.

Thank you to the London ATC gentlemen for the excellent service over the years.

Dubai could learn alot.


brgds


CRS

I love this website!!!

Based on the initial respones I got to my posting I thought the only thing left to do was attempt to get run over by an A320 the next time I visit Heathrow as I had clearly committed the most awful crime in wasting precious pilot's time with such a stupid question. But now I feel somewhat vlilified and would like to thank those who have offered some support.

I have learned one thing if nothing else throught this process - that there is a "Spectators" forum for posting such items - I hadn't appreciated this was the case.

I just hope those of you genuine pilots with absolutely no tolerence for people who make genuine mistakes don't ever fly me on mone of my regular trips to ORD / LAX as I suspect you are the most dangerous people in the sky.

Mate if you knew the number of people that posted "Why did XXX go around on XXX" questions in R&N forum you'd understand the level of vitriol.

BTW the description of the R&N forum is "Events that affect our jobs and lives as professional pilots" and a go-round at Heathrow just doesn't fit the bill.

Why someone's posts here might reflect the way they fly is beyond me and probably everyone else here and it might be a plan to refrain from making such comments in the future.

It's a pity some of the individuals on R&N don't point this out more quickly. However, that would take away the ego swell of being abusive to a "non-pilot" so you have to wait for the Mods to shift it.

My God, don't you get a lot of squealing from these 'civilians' when they come to this board and post a daft query in the wrong section, then moan how they weren't to know, and it really wasn't such a daft query after all! (it was). It is convention to get to know a bulletin board before jumping in with both feet.
Chalfontim <But now I feel somewhat vlilified and would like to thank those who have offered some support.>

Indeed you are absolutely correct. Consider yourself well and truly villified!

Chalfontim,
The reason could be anything but the two most common causes of Go Arounds are an aircraft landing ahead that is slow to clear the runway or an 'unstabilised approach'. That last reason sounds a lot more dramatic than it actually is so I'll try to explain.

Like most airlines, Emirates have set strict criteria for their crews to meet in terms of tracking, rate of descent,speed etc. when flying an approach. There are distinctive 'abandon' points which are at 1000' aal ,reducing to 500'aal the if you are visual with the intended runway and/or approach lighting, where you HAVE to be stabilised. If you are outside the parameters you have to discontinue the approach and Go Around. If you 'push it' the company's Flight Safety Department will want to have a 'chat' with you.

Trying to 'stabilise' a 300ton'ish beast from 160kias at 1200' aal to 140kias'ish at 1000' aal (i.e. less than a mile or 2 miles if you use the absolute min. of 500') is 'exciting' enough with a headwind but if there was none or even a tailwind(a la DXB) it can get fairly close. I hope this helps.:ok:

Notso

I agree that many people do post questions on the wrong forum. I also see that many of the pro's get really p..... off with 'what happened at wherever' type questions from Joe Public as it is (probably) boring and repetitive for you guy's for whom a go around is a practised for event and you will have done it many times. Joe doesn't get to see an aircraft event/non event so often and is therefore naturally interested in knowing more.
Whether you like it or not, your job and apparatus are very interesting to a great number of people. That is why questions are asked. If you were driving along the M25 and you witnessed a company 747 performing a go around, I find hard to believe that you would not be interested to know more detail. You have the facility to do this where you work, most others don't and therefore ask using this website which is probably the closest form of communication that many people will have with aviators.
I agree that the site was set up for professional pilots and that interested wannabees can be irksome to you. Maybe a new forum that is easily identified by those with questions of a'go around ' nature is the answer. I hope that you don't feel offended by my comment, and having seen several threads over the last few months suggesting that flying 'ain't what it used to be', please remember that people having a job that people are interested in is fantastic. It's when people aren't interested that status is ultimately reduced. Nobody EVER asks me about my floor sweeping technique!

A new forum for go arounds? Hmmm... we could call it something like spotter's corner...

We might be on to something here.

chalfontim

As Pontious states, the most common reason for a go-around at LHR is lack of separation with the previous aircraft. This can be for a variety of reasons such as the preceding aircraft just missing a turnoff and having to trundle down to the next one. However they can also be caused either by technical reason or because the aircraft that did the go-around was slow to reduce to the appraoch speed. As a pilot I am interested in finding out the reasons for go-arounds, especially if the reason was a technical one. Although they are not dangerous, they are a very high workload situation especially at the end of a long day with possible fuel considerations.
Several airlines, BA being one of them, require an ASR for all go-arounds. This is not because it is necessarily a safety issue but so that statistics can be compiled to try and prevent them in the future. I am glad that we are able to discuss them on PPRuNe as we are often able to learn something, such as the difficulty in slowing a 777-300.

Airclues

Believe me it would get shifted very quickly if we happen to be on 'patrol' in that section at the appropriate moment. But its par for the course that we are not. But........I agree, people do post what is clearly a spotters question in R&N - which is Rumour and News. A go-around is neither.

For once I agree with Notso. He has made the point (in his own inimitable style!) and it should be noted.

Interesting point about the 773 Airclues!

There was a notice to the approach controllers in Terminal Control a little while ago saying we should treat the "normal" approach speeds of the 777-300 (when being speed controlled by ATC) as 230, 190 and then 170 to 5.

I suspect some of my colleagues may have forgotten this and might need reminding. Maybe EK should have a word with TC Ops if they perceive a problem here, though hopefully more tactfully than whoever it was called us cr@p a page or two back :ouch:

Finally, Heathrow is the proverbial quart into the pint pot and missed approaches are a fact of life. They could of course be consigned to a rarity indeed, but that would mean landing rates routinely in the mid 30s instead of 40+ an hour.

WF.