Noise Abatement Go Around
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The Roman Empire
Posts: 831
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Noise Abatement Go Around
Today I think everybody, in Europe at least, do Noise Abatement Takeoffs (that means accelerating at 3000ft AGL).
But what about go around?
Can't get an official answer from my boss, but I think noise abatement is not required during a go around, because it's somewhat considered an emergency manoeuver, and it takes place before the runway, thus not sounding the bell on the houses after the runway.
But what about go around?
Can't get an official answer from my boss, but I think noise abatement is not required during a go around, because it's somewhat considered an emergency manoeuver, and it takes place before the runway, thus not sounding the bell on the houses after the runway.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Toronto
Age: 57
Posts: 531
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This may not be strictly "on topic" but I'm not aware of any requirement to make a noise abatement go around, which raises the question with me of noise curfews and fine avoidance.
I've not personally experienced this, but I've heard numerous accounts of aircraft arriving early or late at noise curfewed airports, avoiding the airport-levied fines for early or late landings by making a missed approach. Surely this is counter-productive making much more noise than a landing would have?
There was a thread here a little while ago, the details of which I'm not certain of (Virgin Blue at Sydney?), where an aircraft arrived a few minutes late, made the missed approach and returned to the initial point of departure (Melbourne?).
I've experienced long-haul carriers waiting on the ground at point of departure (both as an ATCO and even more annoyingly as SLF) because an "on-time" departure would cause an early arrival due tail-winds, with the resultant penalty.
The world's airports are full of weird and wonderful alleged noise abatement rules:
Do you still have to be towed on to T4 stands at LHR after the 0600 curfew ends?
Quotas for runway usage at airports like Amsterdam which, when reached, make aircraft use noise-preferential, but not operationally preferential ie downwind runways.
Night curfew waivers - what's the point in issuing a waiver to some aircraft but not others of a similar noise impact?
Noise abatement SIDs - a SID that turns to avoid a built-up area by a few hundred metres but in reality, due to weather conditions or track-keeping limitations, does not perceptably (sp?) reduce the noise impact on residents, but the line on the map shows that aircraft should not fly over the affected area.
I apologise if this has turned into a bit of a rant, I blame jet-lag!
I've not personally experienced this, but I've heard numerous accounts of aircraft arriving early or late at noise curfewed airports, avoiding the airport-levied fines for early or late landings by making a missed approach. Surely this is counter-productive making much more noise than a landing would have?
There was a thread here a little while ago, the details of which I'm not certain of (Virgin Blue at Sydney?), where an aircraft arrived a few minutes late, made the missed approach and returned to the initial point of departure (Melbourne?).
I've experienced long-haul carriers waiting on the ground at point of departure (both as an ATCO and even more annoyingly as SLF) because an "on-time" departure would cause an early arrival due tail-winds, with the resultant penalty.
The world's airports are full of weird and wonderful alleged noise abatement rules:
Do you still have to be towed on to T4 stands at LHR after the 0600 curfew ends?
Quotas for runway usage at airports like Amsterdam which, when reached, make aircraft use noise-preferential, but not operationally preferential ie downwind runways.
Night curfew waivers - what's the point in issuing a waiver to some aircraft but not others of a similar noise impact?
Noise abatement SIDs - a SID that turns to avoid a built-up area by a few hundred metres but in reality, due to weather conditions or track-keeping limitations, does not perceptably (sp?) reduce the noise impact on residents, but the line on the map shows that aircraft should not fly over the affected area.
I apologise if this has turned into a bit of a rant, I blame jet-lag!
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Skagness on the beach
Posts: 882
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
During any emergency there is no requirement for noise abatement. The pilots have enough to worry about without worrying about which Governor they just woke up. Now I can see if the pilot botched the approach and flew down the runway to far and had to go around his\her airline getting fined. 
Also, even if an airport is closed to a particular aircraft type because it is too noisy they still have to lend a hand and let it land if the pilot has declared an emergency. Imagine the press….. “Well they crashed into downtown trying to make an alternate airport as they were to noisy to land at the one closest to them…….”
Also, even if an airport is closed to a particular aircraft type because it is too noisy they still have to lend a hand and let it land if the pilot has declared an emergency. Imagine the press….. “Well they crashed into downtown trying to make an alternate airport as they were to noisy to land at the one closest to them…….”
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Madrid
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My company SOP calls for a thrust reduction at 1500 AGL and clean and speed up at miss apch altitude, usually well above 3000 AGL ( all engines running). This procedure is almost PROC A NAP of ICAO DOC 8168.
Apart from that, I think we shouldn´t consider a Go Around as an emergency manouver, cause in this case we will try to avoid it as long as possible. Few years ago my company asked for reports when a GA was performed and, finally they decided not to do it because this was a kind of pressure against the crew criteria.
We should consider a GA as a normal procedure when a safe land is not guarantee.
Apart from that, I think we shouldn´t consider a Go Around as an emergency manouver, cause in this case we will try to avoid it as long as possible. Few years ago my company asked for reports when a GA was performed and, finally they decided not to do it because this was a kind of pressure against the crew criteria.
We should consider a GA as a normal procedure when a safe land is not guarantee.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The Roman Empire
Posts: 831
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Totally agree with your rant, cossack.
Alatriste I agree with you also, considering a go around as an emergency manoeuver is ridicolous to me, but unfortunately is somewhat rooted in my country's culture.
Anyways, I personally tend to accelarate at 1000ft in a go around...
Alatriste I agree with you also, considering a go around as an emergency manoeuver is ridicolous to me, but unfortunately is somewhat rooted in my country's culture.
Anyways, I personally tend to accelarate at 1000ft in a go around...
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Skagness on the beach
Posts: 882
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lem,
Not to be instigative but...... If the GA is not considered an emergency what will you do if the airport closes for curfew by the time you get back around? Remember what happened to that Australian 737 a few months ago......
Not to be instigative but...... If the GA is not considered an emergency what will you do if the airport closes for curfew by the time you get back around? Remember what happened to that Australian 737 a few months ago......
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The Roman Empire
Posts: 831
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, 747FOCAL, I don't understand exactly your point: you mean we should consider the goaround as anemergency in order to be allowed to come back after the curfew has just started? 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Skagness on the beach
Posts: 882
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LEM,
Thats kinda what I was gettin at. It probably isn't a real emergency to do a GA, but in the interest of cost savings to the airline allowing the regulatory bodies to deam it as one might be for the best.
Especially if you are at an airport that bases their noise fees on monitored levels.
Thats kinda what I was gettin at. It probably isn't a real emergency to do a GA, but in the interest of cost savings to the airline allowing the regulatory bodies to deam it as one might be for the best.
Especially if you are at an airport that bases their noise fees on monitored levels.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The Roman Empire
Posts: 831
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Roger, but we pilots have no control over this aspect, unless we declare an emergency. of course, but are you gonna declare one just because you went around?
If you are low on fuel that's another story...
If you are low on fuel that's another story...
In a previous life I used to be one of the 'finers', for environmental matters. For a go round no noise fines were ever levied, nor were track keeping 'violations' logged, as it was always considered to be an 'abnormal' event and therefore not a normal operation. This would be regardless of an ATC or flight crew initiated go round. We used to get complaints about them, which were logged, but apart from finding the reason for the GA, no other action was taken.
As far as doing one to ensure a relaxed curfew, I can think of some mainland European airports where that would not work and the airport say 'tuff ****** off you aint landing now', Switzerland and Germany spring to mind. So I would advise caution so you don't end up using too much fuel on your 'planned' go around, and then have a fuel emergency, with all the filling forms that goes with it.
Noise abatement SIDS do work for the benefit of communities, sometimes as has been mentioned the noise may not be minimised, but the community will see the aircraft where its supposed to be, thus keeping them happier!
As far as doing one to ensure a relaxed curfew, I can think of some mainland European airports where that would not work and the airport say 'tuff ****** off you aint landing now', Switzerland and Germany spring to mind. So I would advise caution so you don't end up using too much fuel on your 'planned' go around, and then have a fuel emergency, with all the filling forms that goes with it.
Noise abatement SIDS do work for the benefit of communities, sometimes as has been mentioned the noise may not be minimised, but the community will see the aircraft where its supposed to be
, thus keeping them happier!
