Go-Around at higher than minimums

[Centaurus]

Pilots should be pilots. Don't let automation make you a stupid robot.

You are so right. But tell that to the tens of thousands of pilots who are so addicted to automation (or forced into it by company SOP) that some have crashed because they are so frightened of hand flying that they attempt recovering from an unusual attitude by pressing buttons instead of immediately disengaging the automatics and standard hand flying to get out of trouble.
Another example seen in the simulator is during the initial actions on a high speed rejected take off, where, instead of first rapidly closing the throttles, the pilot presses the auto-throttle disconnect switch (in the end of each thrust lever on the 737) then before closing the thrust levers. That loses one second or more before the action of closing the thrust levers. End result is 250 feet of extra runway required to pull up.

At those high speeds, the disengaging of the autothrottle does nothing as by then it is already in throttle hold. This habit stems from the standard Boeing procedure for closing down an engine in flight where it says as first item "Autothrottle (if engaged)....Disengage"

[de facto]

One common item seen in the simulator is where on a high sped rejected take off, the pilot first presses the auto-throttle disconnect switch (in the end of each thrust lever on the 737) then closes the thrust levers. That loses one second or more before the action of closing the thrust levers. End result is 250 feet of extra runway required to pull up

The disconnecting of A/T and closing thrust levers are to be done simutianously,obviously the finger disconnecting the AT is a quicker movement than of retarding your arm to close the thrust lever.
You may see this as an issue,i dont.

At those high speeds, the disengaging of the autothrottle does nothing as by then it is already in throttle hold

It is a procedure to follow as not to have the auto thrust quicking back in after the thrust lever has been closed,low or high speed,it is to be performed the same way.

[sevenstrokeroll]

Thanks aterpster.


its DANDY like CANDY.

Fine and Dandy, sweet as candy.

[aterpster]

de facto:

Flying in a different manner that the manufacturer recommends all the time for some dodgy reason not to scare your pax,and you call that a reason of professionalism?get out of here

All the time? What the manufacturer recommends?

The issue for the OP was a go-around well above DA/MDA. That certainly does not constitute "all the time" and may very well occur less frequently than a missed approach at, or near, DA/MDA.

A go-around just inside the FAF and perhaps above the terminal's minimum vectoring altitude might very well result in an ATC instruction to level off. It is simply quite different than being down "in the weeds" for a number of reasons.

The manufacturer's recommendation is likely predicated on the circumstances of being at minimums when initiating a missed approach procedure.

Professionalism requires both skills and judgment that sometimes must be discerning.

Maybe the GA button is mislabeled. Perhaps there should be a MA button and a GA button. That would keep it all the realm of a video game.

[FullWings]

To answer the OP, in my company it is SOP to execute a 'standard' GA below 1,000' (TOGA and minimum altitude loss). Above that we have discretion.

I normally brief some of the alternatives available but I think the main considerations, as pointed out by other posters, are:

Where am I? (Config, altitude, speed, lateral path) and
Where do I want to be? (As above)

Choose what you think to be the best method to get from A to B. On many occasions, it's not so much a GA as a "not landing", so you've got a little time to discuss/rehearse your actions before taking them.

Be aware of how the AP & AT, if used, will react to various commands, alt. capture, etc. and how you will avoid or mitigate undesirable effects.

You may be above or below AA, the flaps will be in one of several possible positions, the gear may be up or down and you may be above or below the GA altitude... A little thought goes a long way!

[Smilin_Ed]

Scaring Passengers

Why push the toga button if you have to climb 500 ft? It will scare the hell out of all of your passengers.

A couple of years, as a passenger on Lufthansa, we were approaching Cairo at night. We were around 1,000 feet when all of a sudden, they hit TOGA and pulled up sharply. It did scare me and some others. It turned out that the plane ahead of us had not cleared the runway expeditiously and we were told to go around. It was obvious to me that there was no reason to go to TOGA, just policy.

[bubbers44]

SSR procedure would have made it a non event for the passengers with no safety sacrifice. SOP's are important for the new generation of pilots but why can't a little common sense enter into how you handle a situation?

Too many SOP's so the new guys can do it too take away from the experienced guys who have to downgrade their skills to follow SOP.

[sevenstrokeroll]

thank you claybird.

I had the great fortune to fly the DC9. I think it was better built than the 737 and with less automation. Why Boeing ever came up with CWS is just nuts ...we had a little knob to turn the plane, called< wait for it: the turn knob.

the douglas boys built the plane stronger so the roof would never come off...take a look at the roof of a DC9 and see the ''fingers"on the metal that spred the load out and would break before the main part of the roof so you could see a problem develop before the roof came off.

I think they are called lap joints but can't remember right now.

anyway, the DC9...you became part of it the flight controls and throttles were just extensions of your human hands and feet and because automation was minimal, you never became dependent on it.

Its like working in a tall buidling with an escalator to get you to the office. one day, when the power is out, you won't be able to climb stairs!

[Don Gato]

you became part of it the flight controls and throttles were just extensions of your human hands and feet and because automation was minimal, you never became dependent on it.

I agree. An airline pilot should be able/required to be able to hand fly the airplane to a high standard. As he should be able to understand and make proper use of automation.

In my opinion, the automatic system of the NG to get out of the approach mode without using TOGA is not user friendly. As De Facto pointed out, it can be done by either changing the LOC frequency or by turning off –both- the FD and AP.

Sometimes this procedure will have pilots struggling with selecting/deselecting FD modes to be able to follow FD bars. In the meantime there is confusion. In this case, it would probably be better to just hand fly the aircraft (pitch and power) without FD bars in sight and then have them on when one is comfortable.

[bubbers44]

DG, I agree shutting all the automation down makes some situations much easier. I guess some people can't do that because of their experience and training. We got B737 300 automated aircraft at our airline and to do the SJC departure on automation made you look like a student pilot so always hand flew it.

Automation knew climb power and altitude capture, no smooth pilot planning type flying. I would be embarassed to use it as captain. SOP's probably require it for most airlines today. Just hang on people, we are going for a wild ride.

[aterpster]

bubbers44:

We got B737 300 automated aircraft at our airline and to do the SJC departure on automation made you look like a student pilot so always hand flew it.

That brings up all the various FMS vendors trying to turn ground-based procedures into RNAV procedures.

And, even with RNAV SIDs there are still too many problems because of various OEM and avionic vendor applications.

[de facto]

The issue for the OP was a go-around well above DA/MDA. That certainly does not constitute "all the time" and may very well occur less frequently than a missed approach at, or near, DA/MDA.

I was answering this quote:

bubbers44 I have done many missed approaches because of no ground reference and have never used TOGA because of passenger concern.

I believe that some standardization is required in GA but obviously when necessary,a manual maneuver should be no sweat for a captain.
If one cant manage pitch and thrust,it is indeed worrying.

About the Candy Dandy, thanks ill remember that

I think we all agree that manula skills are paramount at least for the captain,the first officer will over the years hopefully get to practice and should not be upgraded if unable to revert to manual with a certain ease in normal conditions.

If the apparent lack of skills in some airlines is a concern,maybe those airlines in question should review their training and check their crew manual skills more thoroughly.

Concerning the GA above the minima,there are many ways to skin the cat as long as both pilots are in the loop.
Proper SOPs and adherence to those is paramount to reduce mistakes,crew coordination and manual skills are essential too.

[bubbers44]

Most of our 737 cat 1 approaches were hand flown because we didn't trust the auto systems. One MD80 approach the auto systems all failed at 300 ft with a 200 ft DH. I leveled the wings, reintercepted the approach and set approach power and broke out at minimums. It wasn't hard to salvage the approach if you could hand fly. I am an average pilot so all of my pilot friends could have done the same thing. I worry about what automation is doing to the new guys.

[galaxy flyer]

Bubbers44, aterpster

Reading this and other similar threads, it strikes me that an entire generation is here that NEVER just flew an airplane around, without reference to a book of SOPs. If there isn't a formula as to how to fly the plane--lost. Even in the world of USAF UPT, there were sorties where students just flew around, doing acro, touch and goes, go arounds from wherever the RSU said. It developed flying skils, flexibility and judgement. I wonder how many airline pilots could just fly VFR without a canned scenario.

[bubbers44]

GF, most of our friends could do just fine with no reference to SOP's. I agree that the future is not what we did. SOP's were made for mediocre pilots to not kill anybody. The good pilots already knew what to do. Flame away.

[sevenstrokeroll]

imagine everything craps out...your left with the airspeed indicator, whiskey compass and altimeter.

you find a break in the undercast...you have two hours of gas.

what do you do?

I know what I would do, and I'm saying you are somewhere over the 48 states

[bubbers44]

I did it once with a break in the clouds going to Aspen. We descended and followed the highway to the airport. We were flying a Lear Jet that day. Sometimes you did what you had to do. We couldn't do that flying airliners however.

[bubbers44]

SSR, As I have said before I practiced using only emergency standby instruments so I would trust them on the 757. They always worked fine so I trusted them. You have to use them occasionally to have confidence in them.

[A4]

Some interesting posts and very valid points on here. As an Airbus driver it has been enlightening reading some of the techniques required to achieve particular outcomes on the NG. I don't want to ignite (another) A v B debate but, to me, it does seem things are "easier" on the 'bus - provided you understand your aircraft and how it works!

This is one of the problems with automation. We use it, safely, day in day out for normal ops but when a fast ball arrives people suddenly become overwhelmed. One of two things then happen. They either continue to try to rescue the situation by pushing buttons which may/may not be successful or accurate. Alternatively, they disconnect everything and fly manually which immediately increases their (and the PNF's) workload and again is likely to be "not pretty" due to lack of practice.

There is nothing wrong with automation provided you know how to use it properly! Think ahead - "What if?" The actions should be second nature and if you're going around from 2000' there is significantly less urgency than a GA from 100' RA so DON'T PANIC!

Bottom line is know your machine and know the correct technique. Life will be a lot less stressful

[LeadSled]

-----workload and again is likely to be "not pretty" due to lack of practice.

A4,
With respect, professional pilot at this level should never be out of practice.
At least one enlightened US airline suggests, and I agree, that going back to "full hands on manual mode" can decrease the workload in odd-ball situations ---- mode confusion is a prolific source of mistakes.
This is why I always liked the Boeing control wheel steering mode on early B757/767 --- I missed it when it was discontinued.