Would you consider a go-around as an abnormality?

[Bracebrace]

This topic is about "Abnormalities", which is more open then incidents/accidents/crashes. Hence every go-around is on topic here.

If you expect pilots to be perfect who work and live in a perfect world, every go-around is indeed abnormal.

If you expect pilots to be imperfect who work and live in an imperfect world, every go-around is indeed normal, as it is part of the daily job. Which it is. A go-around is a perfectly normal reaction in the imperfect/changing world. The reason why is not important, it could be anything. The fact that the decision is taken, is very normal in modern aviation.

If a go-around would be abnormal, so would many other things in aviation. You could consider CRM to be abnormal as many still consider it abnormal when a ab-initio F/O corrects a +10000hrs captain. Which isn't, it is the core of what we do.

[sean1982]

Passengers wouldn't have even felt that

from approach thrust to go-around thrust, from descend into a (moderate) climb, retracting flaps a notch or 2, retracting the gear which you can even feel by the seat of the pants if's you're sitting in the middle...and they wouldn't even have felt that

They only had one notch of flaps out and climbed 800ft. No they wouldnt have felt that and "short vectoring" doesn't just mean lateral

[Passenger]

You can't call a go around from 2200ft because of an unstable approach due to short vectoring a serious incident?! Passengers wouldn't have even felt that

They only had one notch of flaps out and climbed 800ft. No they wouldnt have felt that and "short vectoring" doesn't just mean lateral

Speed from 159 to 242 in 3 minutes (07.49 -> 07.52)
Climb from 2.475 to 3.450 in 2 minutes (07.48 -> 07.50)
Sharp turn 180 left when you are supposed to touch the ground.

Maybe a few passengers did feel they were going around.

[sean1982]

You can't call a go around from 2200ft because of an unstable approach due to short vectoring a serious incident?! Passengers wouldn't have even felt that

They only had one notch of flaps out and climbed 800ft. No they wouldnt have felt that and "short vectoring" doesn't just mean lateral

Speed from 159 to 242 in 3 minutes (07.49 -> 07.52)
Climb from 2.475 to 3.450 in 2 minutes (07.48 -> 07.50)
Sharp turn 180 left when you are supposed to touch the ground.

Maybe a few passengers did feel they were going around.

That's a very slow accelaration and a very slow climb for a jet
Normally 0-220/50 in 3 minutes
and 0 to 3000 in 2 minutes
But what do I know right, I only worked on them the last 14 years ... how many did you do?

[Pocahontas]

Man I love this discussion. Please don't stop this

[JAF737]

Man I love this discussion. Please don't stop this

I tend to agree

[Atco EBBR]

I've just checked it: 254 so far this year...

Do your statistics also include the reasons for the go-arounds? That would help define which are more or less normal and those which are very abnormal and worth mentioning here.

The reason for the go-around is always asked (imo usually at the wrong moment, i.e. half a minute after initiating) and entered in the watch book. But that's not linked to the statistics, to the best of my knowledge.

For me as a controller, there are good go-arounds and bad go-around. A good go-around, you don't have to do anything, just let them fly the standard missed and put them with approach.

With a bad go-around, things get a bit more complicated. About a month ago there was an incident with an Air Ukraine flight that failed to stop when so instructed (also reported in the abnormalities-section). That caused a KLM to have to go around at 300 ft AGL with an immediate turn. That would count as a bad one for me...

[teddybAIR]

Well, there's no abnormal checklist for the go-around. It's just a standard procedure that is applied if you're not satisfied with the approach (avoiding runway conflicts, weather below minima, unstable approach, etc.). It is obviously not the purpose to fly a go-around, but you should always be go-around minded and it is briefed on every single final approach. So as far as I am concerned: normal procedure indeed.

[Pocahontas]

Wel I did about 2800 landings as PF and about the same amount as PNF. Which makes roughly 5600 approaches. I can count the go-arounds we made on 2 hands. Just to put some perspective here... I would never call a go-around a normal procedure. It is a procedure well trained in sim, but if everything goes normal, you land. No discussion there

[jan_olieslagers]

Management survey:
Aviators: "every procedure documented and trained and mastered is normal"
Non-aviators: "anything not happening very often is an abnormality"

[Bracebrace]

Wel I did about 2800 landings as PF and about the same amount as PNF. Which makes roughly 5600 approaches. I can count the go-arounds we made on 2 hands. Just to put some perspective here... I would never call a go-around a normal procedure.

The majority of the airports I've operated from don't require de-icing. The last 5 years I did 2 de-icings. Does that make de-icing an abnormal procedure in my case (which many pilots are)? Do all of a sudden I/they need to clarify why the de-icing needed to happen in those 2 cases?

You are talking about frequency of occurence, which is not related to normal/non-normal/abnormal.

[Passenger]

Aviators: "every procedure documented and trained and mastered is normal"

If true, even bird strikes, loss of hydraulics, engine failures, hot brakes after landing, fuel emergencies, ... must be classified as "normal" because there is a well documented procedure what to do next if such events happen.

Non-aviators: "anything not happening very often is an abnormality"

Being one of the non-aviators here, I disagree. For me, an abnormality is when something happens that is not what the passengers expect as normal flight operation = boarding, pushback, taxi, take off, approach, land, taxi, park, deboard. And, jan, I have spent enough time as non-aviator on jump seats to know a lot can happen.

And as important as the above, is the gravity -the scale- of the abnormality: from minor (example: a go-around because the runway wasn't vacated) to an event that makes it into AvHerald, Jacdec or Aviation-Safety.net.

Me thinks that the moderators have created a topic "Abnormalities" exactly for stories like the one discussed here = the BA go-around. Someone posted it, I've looked for the relevant audio and I posted it: "we are unstable and we will be going around for 25L". The abnormality here was a normal go-around.

[Pocahontas]

Do you need to file a ASR (MOR) in case of a go-around below 500'? We have to.
Do you write a ASR for a de-icing? Guess not. Except if it was not done correctly.

[JAF737]

@Passenger...

Regarding the BA go-around; If the pilots had continued the approach, nobody would have know about their unstable approach (except themselves and the safety department), and you would consider this normal because the flight would have been... well... normal, according to your vision of a flight (i.e. nothing unusual for a non-aviator).

The thing is; not going around in this case would have been abnormal. And that's why airlines are not considering a go-around as a non-normal procedure! Simply because a go-around should be performed when it is safer to go-around than to continue the approach.

I think we all agree with the fact that it's not a STANDARD procedure, of course. But there is a difference between standard/non-standard and normal/abnormal...

[Bracebrace]

Do you need to file a ASR (MOR) in case of a go-around below 500'? We have to.

No. I just checked the complete list of MOR situations in our manuals. A go-around is never mentioned. Even in case of unstable approach below 500ft, an ASR is not required if pilots continued with a go-around. NOT going around would result in a required ASR. So what is normal? I agree with JAF737 here.

Some other reasons for go-arounds below 500ft I've had:
*) traffic at the holding point is cleared to line-up on the active runway while we are on approach, ATC noticed in time there was not enough room for us to land, traffic on the runway never got takeoff clearance, ATC called us to go-around well ahead. No runway incursion, separation maintained, no ASR required. (that's at least how we interpreted the situation...)
*) technical problem on approach: TFIR because of the technical problem, the go-around is not the reason of the report.

[convair]

Management survey:
Aviators: "every procedure documented and trained and mastered is normal"
Non-aviators: "anything not happening very often is an abnormality"

Good point!

As a non-aviator, I experienced only a few "go-arounds". Although I knew the pilots were following a standard procedure, I didn't consider these "events" as totally "normal". Abnormal might seem a bit strong; I'd say they were a least "unusual" (to me anyway).

If aviators don't consider them abnormal, there certainly are cases in which the cause of the go-around is an abnormality.

Finally, I'd say it's all a matter of definition and perception.