HQ_BRU_Lover,HQ_BRU_Lover wrote:Go around for BA388 LHR-BRU (G-EUPY)?
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 ....
Moderator: Latest news team
HQ_BRU_Lover,HQ_BRU_Lover wrote:Go around for BA388 LHR-BRU (G-EUPY)?
No need to edit: this is a forum with freedom of speech. And I agree with you.HQ_BRU_Lover wrote: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.
Agree - a go-around is an "abnormality". Sometimes for a technical problem, but in this case the reason was "unstable on final".HQ_BRU_Lover wrote:Is a go around normal behaviour? No. So I personally call it an abnormality.
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.Atco EBBR wrote:I've just checked it: 254 so far this year...
Make it easy: not a single go-around is abnormal. Whatever the reason is, it is always a good reason.sn26567 wrote: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.Atco EBBR wrote:I've just checked it: 254 so far this year...
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.JAF737 wrote:not a single go-around is 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.JAF737 wrote: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...
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 seePassenger wrote: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.
Too pity that your professionals colluegues from LaMia Bolivia haven't followed all normal and standard procedures.sean1982 wrote: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 seePassenger wrote: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.
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)Passenger wrote:Too pity that your professionals colluegues from LaMia Bolivia haven't followed all normal and standard procedures.sean1982 wrote: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 seePassenger wrote: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.
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)
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 thatsn26567 wrote:Therefore, I think that a serious incident leading to a go-around is worth mentioning here!
Indeed, it's not even an incident. Let alone 'serious'.sean1982 wrote:You can't call a go around from 2200ft because of an unstable approach ... ... a serious incident
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.sean1982 wrote:because of an unstable approach due to short vectoring
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 thatsean1982 wrote:Passengers wouldn't have even felt that