Would you consider a go-around as an abnormality?

[luchtzak]

Go around for BA388 LHR-BRU (G-EUPY)?

HQ_BRU_Lover,

I don't see this as an abnormality.

Better being a little more safe, than creating dangerous situations.

At the end the aircraft landed safe, and on-time ....

[Passenger]

Probably a non-event indeed.

If you re-play the flight on FR24, see https://www.flightradar24.com/data/airc ... py#bc23861, you will see that they aborted approach at 2.475ft. During the second approach, they were already at 1.700ft at that same mark. Thus a simple go-around indeed.

[HQ_BRU_Lover]

Is a go around normal behaviour? No.

So I personally call it an abnormality. Feel free to edit or move my post as moderators often do.

[sn26567]

Is a go around normal behaviour? No.

So I personally call it an abnormality. Feel free to edit or move my post as moderators often do.

No need to edit: this is a forum with freedom of speech. And I agree with you.

[Passenger]

Is a go around normal behaviour? No. So I personally call it an abnormality.

Agree - a go-around is an "abnormality". Sometimes for a technical problem, but in this case the reason was "unstable on final".

Here is the relevant audio, offered with compliments from LiveATC.net:
http://archive-server.liveatc.net/ebbr/ ... -0730Z.mp3
1) at 17min35sec Speedbird-388 tells tower they have established ILS for 25L
2) at 18min30sec Speedbird-388 tells tower "we are unstable and we will be going around for 25L"
3) Tower then gives them standard missed approach vectors

edited: Strange. I opened the above link in another audio player, and the 30 minutes from the original audio on LiveATC.net becomes 41 minutes. Relevant call in that 41 minutes is at 23min42sec.

[jan_olieslagers]

Is a go-around normal? At least it is a standard procedure.
How common is it, in fact? I should think EBBR sees them not every day - how many would there be per annum? But if they're not counted/registered (as I suppose) that makes them a "normal" occurrence indeed.

[Atco EBBR]

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

[jan_olieslagers]

Hehe, that's the kind of answer I was hoping to get... Thanks!

Now how normal or abnormal do we consider a standard procedure that is applied at least once every other day, statistically?

It is a poor comparison to a big airport like EBBR, but at my homefield we share the runway with the gliders, and they have priority - "right of way" so to speak - which is only normal, as they do not have the option to go around. To make matters more complicated, they also operate a smaller circuit than us motor flyers; so that they can well overtake us. On final and again on short final a shortish look inside the circuit is mandatory, accompanied with a readiness to go around. Nothing wrong, or special, there, even if it is a bit annoying. I suppose the airliner pilots are trained to always be mentally prepared to go around, too.

[sn26567]

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.

[JAF737]

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.

Make it easy: not a single go-around is abnormal. Whatever the reason is, it is always a good reason.

Not a single professional would consider a go-around abnormal...

[DIBO]

not a single go-around is abnormal

I beg to differ, depends on the point of view and on the circumstances. For the crew it's a perfectly trained manoeuvre and should be a total non-event (but let's not forget the go-arounds that went tragically wrong in the past). But the cause for the go-around, can make a difference. Weather related, better to go-around than to bust the minima's. G/A from an unstabilized approach, sign of professional behavior, unless half of your approaches end-up unstabilized . Slow vacating a runway (with high speed exists), frustration above the ground (=in the tower & landing plane), but nothing really abnormal. G/A's caused by runway incursions, airprox, aircrew being 'lasered', etc.: reports will be filed all around, so can't really be called normal.
And with ATC often inquiring for the reason of the go-around, one can wonder if they keep statistics on G/A causes (and a classification on normal/abnormal).

And surely one example of abnormal G/A's, a couple of years ago, the dog running abound EBBR's rwy's, chased by airport officials and causing a couple of go-arounds and about 5 last-moment runway changes in 15 minutes or so, can't be called really normal. At least one BRU based capt. seemed to agree and started a (too) long and agitated discussion with the ARR ATCO, asking if they still knew what they were doing...

Regarding the non-professionals: for every passenger and most of the spotters (next to the rwy or on FR24) is a G/A something out of the ordinary or even considered abnormal ...and sometimes considered worth mentioning here...

[sn26567]

Make it easy: not a single go-around is abnormal. Whatever the reason is, it is always a good reason.

Not a single professional would consider a go-around abnormal...

I would consider it very abnormal (but it is a personal opinion) if an ATCO allows an aircraft to cross a runway where a plane is landing or taking off, for example.

[Passenger]

It's not because there is a standard procedure for go-arounds, that a go-around is normal. If so, we also can classify a flapless landing as normal because there is a standard procedure what to do next.

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

[sean1982]

It's not because there is a standard procedure for go-arounds, that a go-around is normal. If so, we also can classify a flapless landing as normal because there is a standard procedure what to do next.

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

The professionals say .. no, it's not abnormal (myself having sat through countless of go arounds for mostly trivial reasons) ... yet you in your eternal wisdom decided all by yourself "it's all on topic" ... nothing has changed I see

[Passenger]

It's not because there is a standard procedure for go-arounds, that a go-around is normal. If so, we also can classify a flapless landing as normal because there is a standard procedure what to do next.

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

The professionals say .. no, it's not abnormal (myself having sat through countless of go arounds for mostly trivial reasons) ... yet you in your eternal wisdom decided all by yourself "it's all on topic" ... nothing has changed I see

Too pity that your professionals colluegues from LaMia Bolivia haven't followed all normal and standard procedures.

Normal flight = push back, taxi, wait, take off, approach, land, taxi, park.
Abnormal flight = everything else in between. Even when professionals like you don't like it that abnormalities are reported on forums.

(edited: typo)

[sn26567]

I would tend to agree with Passenger: if an aircraft makes a go-around, it means that something has gone wrong. It can be trivial, but it can also be very serious. Therefore, I think that a serious incident leading to a go-around is worth mentioning here!

[DeltaWiskey]

It wouldn't say a go-around is abnormal, rather uncommon, or unusual. You don't do a go around because something is wrong, most of the time it is a precautionary action (an action before things can escalate and go wrong).

For example, when there is fog, it is normal to see go arounds. Also in this case, a go-around is not done because something is wrong. Well, unless you argue that clouds are "wrong".

[sean1982]

It's not because there is a standard procedure for go-arounds, that a go-around is normal. If so, we also can classify a flapless landing as normal because there is a standard procedure what to do next.

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

The professionals say .. no, it's not abnormal (myself having sat through countless of go arounds for mostly trivial reasons) ... yet you in your eternal wisdom decided all by yourself "it's all on topic" ... nothing has changed I see

Too pity that your professionals colluegues from LaMia Bolivia haven't followed all normal and standard procedures.

Normal flight = push back, taxi, wait, take off, approach, land, taxi, park.
Abnormal flight = everything else in between. Even when professionals like you don't like it that abnormalities are reported on forums.

(edited: typo)

haha, I don't mind abnormalities being reported, I DO mind scaremongering, something you just LOVE to do (unless it's about SN off course)

Lamia Bolivia weren't professional to start with. I wouldnt fly with them. Its not because an airline exists that it is professional. Leaving with a flightplan with a flighttime of 04hrs22 and endurance of 04h22 would result in any professional pilot saying ... thanks, but no thanks

Therefore, I think that a serious incident leading to a go-around is worth mentioning here!

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

[galaxy]

An abnormality is a situation who can be considered as a non-conventional procedure . It don't has to be an incident . You don't do a go-around as a standard procedure , therefore it is an abnormality,just like an aborted takeoff can have a lot of reasons.

[DIBO]

Indeed, better to rephrase "something has gone wrong" into "something was not going as planned". Going around due to bad weather, an unstabelized approach or because the previous aircraft did not vacate the rwy in time, that's more 'not going as planned', as everything is still 100% safe, standard procedures apply, all in a days work, no need to make a fuss about. Last moment runway incursions, near miss with a drone on short final, dogs running around on the rwy, etc. can't be called normal, even if normal GA procedures are applied

From a passengers point of view, whatever the reason, they'll rather be inclined to call it something out of the ordinary, abnormal so to speak.

You can't call a go around from 2200ft because of an unstable approach ... ... a serious incident

Indeed, it's not even an incident. Let alone 'serious'.

because of an unstable approach due to short vectoring

being vectored in a large righthand pattern, till 4NM SW of BRUNO, arriving at 8.5 miles from touchdown dead centerline at 2900ft, and you call that "due to short vectoring" !!?? BRU ATCO's will be pleased to hear that! But for whatever reason they decided to go around, they were right, as it is their call.

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