Go-around below minimums
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: wherever
Age: 55
Posts: 1,616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would have thought terrain in the missed is probably the deciding factor.
If your minimum is predicated on achieving a specific approach climb gradient and you mooch on through it waiting for landing clearance then you've put yourself in a position where you will be unable to guarantee terrain clearance in the case of going around with an engine out.
If terrain isn't a issue then it's useful to know the height loss during a go around which is in your AFM.
If your minimum is predicated on achieving a specific approach climb gradient and you mooch on through it waiting for landing clearance then you've put yourself in a position where you will be unable to guarantee terrain clearance in the case of going around with an engine out.
If terrain isn't a issue then it's useful to know the height loss during a go around which is in your AFM.
Minimum height? So long as there's air under the wheels. After that, it becomes a rejected landing - provided reverse hasn't been selected. Then you are committed to stopping.
Only half a speed-brake
I’ll admit I’m biased because my airline uses the “landing” callout, but let’s play devil’s advocate here.
You get to DA, and call “landing”. At 100ft, an aircraft down the runway starts to cross. Are you going to land the airplane because you said “landing” and are thus mentally prepared to land? As somebody said, I’d like to see some actual evidence to support that claim. If that’s indeed true, we’re in big trouble.
You get to DA, and call “landing”. At 100ft, an aircraft down the runway starts to cross. Are you going to land the airplane because you said “landing” and are thus mentally prepared to land? As somebody said, I’d like to see some actual evidence to support that claim. If that’s indeed true, we’re in big trouble.
It's great your airline has such a good and deep understanding of the real meaning behind a "landing" call and wealth of shared experience you did not need to adopt the change.
Pardon me, the idea of ramming someone else on the runway because "landing" was said is a strawman argument. In reality (as I see it) "continue" does
1) support the go-around mindedness below DA/H (remove any obstacles against)
2) call spade a spade, because to continue towards landing is what you decide at minima (semantics is not all just water under the bridge)
3) in the particular case of FBW Airbus remove the sound-alike calls "LAND - green" vs. "Landing". (no matter Land / vs. Landing of latter years)
Pardon me, the idea of ramming someone else on the runway because "landing" was said is a strawman argument. In reality (as I see it) "continue" does
1) support the go-around mindedness below DA/H (remove any obstacles against)
2) call spade a spade, because to continue towards landing is what you decide at minima (semantics is not all just water under the bridge)
3) in the particular case of FBW Airbus remove the sound-alike calls "LAND - green" vs. "Landing". (no matter Land / vs. Landing of latter years)
ad 1) runway overruns are one of the big three of our era. Each of them is a G/A not executed- Even the north-western hemisphere does not have a record as stellar as it should. Why does Little Rock keep repeating? Now being a D.A. against myself: since the adoption of "Continue" not much has changed, hah?!
ad 2) If you tried to explain the concept of "landing" meaning "we will continue towards the touchdown zone in an attempt for one, ever aware that a g/a is an option and by the way the only right one for many things that might still happen" to a 7 year old you would not get the message across. A 17 year old programmer would raise a finger most likely.
It does matter. There are different cultures where formal compliance is seen a high virtue, which is where actually the whole thread stems form. If we agree there's nothing wrong with being formally correct in aviation, see the 767 pilot from 17 SEP. He came to ask about how far you can go without ATC clearance, because announcing "landing" without the approval from tower felt unauthorized to him. That's not a type of thinking you wish to have at minima on a checkride day to a foreing hub with tropical weather all around.
ad 3) for the record, when adopted by Airbus they only followed what was done on your pond side already, so this triple win is none of their creation.
I get it "don't fix what ain't broken" prevailed where you are, but mostly for anybody else there are reasons to activate the change. And K.I.S.S. is what we got.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are a great many things that we do (and don't do) at my airline that are against industry norms. Presumably because we know what we're doing, and the rest of you have it wrong (sarcasm, for those who missed it).
I do think that landing vs continuing is overthinking it a bit though. We say "9000 for 8000" knowing that if ATC gives us another altitude before getting to 8000, we'll have to abandon the original plan.
You do raise a very good point on the FMA. Ironically, your example is one of the only 2 times we read the FMA aloud. (Only 2 US airlines read FMAs)
Regarding "formal compliance", I realise that in Europe, Asia and Australia, it's quite highly regarded, but here, when forced to choose between the letter of the law, vs the spirit of the law, we go with the spirit. That reminds me of a clip I saw on YouTube only last night.
I do think that landing vs continuing is overthinking it a bit though. We say "9000 for 8000" knowing that if ATC gives us another altitude before getting to 8000, we'll have to abandon the original plan.
You do raise a very good point on the FMA. Ironically, your example is one of the only 2 times we read the FMA aloud. (Only 2 US airlines read FMAs)
Regarding "formal compliance", I realise that in Europe, Asia and Australia, it's quite highly regarded, but here, when forced to choose between the letter of the law, vs the spirit of the law, we go with the spirit. That reminds me of a clip I saw on YouTube only last night.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are a great many things that we do (and don't do) at my airline that are against industry norms. Presumably because we know what we're doing, and the rest of you have it wrong (sarcasm, for those who missed it).
I do think that landing vs continuing is overthinking it a bit though. We say "9000 for 8000" knowing that if ATC gives us another altitude before getting to 8000, we'll have to abandon the original plan.
You do raise a very good point on the FMA. Ironically, your example is one of the only 2 times we read the FMA aloud. (Only 2 US airlines read FMAs)
Regarding "formal compliance", I realise that in Europe, Asia and Australia, it's quite highly regarded, but here, when forced to choose between the letter of the law, vs the spirit of the law, we go with the spirit. That reminds me of a clip I saw on YouTube only last night.
https://youtu.be/yP1ebLK3b9M
I do think that landing vs continuing is overthinking it a bit though. We say "9000 for 8000" knowing that if ATC gives us another altitude before getting to 8000, we'll have to abandon the original plan.
You do raise a very good point on the FMA. Ironically, your example is one of the only 2 times we read the FMA aloud. (Only 2 US airlines read FMAs)
Regarding "formal compliance", I realise that in Europe, Asia and Australia, it's quite highly regarded, but here, when forced to choose between the letter of the law, vs the spirit of the law, we go with the spirit. That reminds me of a clip I saw on YouTube only last night.
https://youtu.be/yP1ebLK3b9M
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, but just saying that most people here don't even think about stuff like that. For example, I was in the jumpseat one evening going into ORD. The crew couldn't get a word in on the tower frequency because it was so busy. Landing was judged safer than going missed. They didn't even bother to file any paperwork.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Way north
Age: 47
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here comes the "fun" part.
The missed approach procedure starts at the missed approach point.... so what to do if going around after the missed approach point? The procedure is only protected if you follow it as defined from the missed approach point.
I'd always expect an IFR flight to follow the missed approach procedure, even when going around after the MaPt.... is there anything arguing against that?
The missed approach procedure starts at the missed approach point.... so what to do if going around after the missed approach point? The procedure is only protected if you follow it as defined from the missed approach point.
I'd always expect an IFR flight to follow the missed approach procedure, even when going around after the MaPt.... is there anything arguing against that?
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here comes the "fun" part.
The missed approach procedure starts at the missed approach point.... so what to do if going around after the missed approach point? The procedure is only protected if you follow it as defined from the missed approach point.
I'd always expect an IFR flight to follow the missed approach procedure, even when going around after the MaPt.... is there anything arguing against that?
The missed approach procedure starts at the missed approach point.... so what to do if going around after the missed approach point? The procedure is only protected if you follow it as defined from the missed approach point.
I'd always expect an IFR flight to follow the missed approach procedure, even when going around after the MaPt.... is there anything arguing against that?
It’s a bit like a missed approach while circling. There’s no one answer that suits all circumstances. The best thing is to have a plan and if it’s something different than what ATC might expect, make sure you communicate it with them. As long as you don’t hit the ground, another aeroplane, or run out of fuel, you’ve done ok.
