Go-arounds

In article
,
"Capt.Doug" wrote:

"Ramapriya" wrote in message do airliners view go-arounds unfavorably
against pilots in, say, their appraisals or performance reports?

It depends on the reason for the go-around. Some go-arounds are because
controllers get the spacing too tight as we come down the pipeline. Some
go-arounds are because the plane in front of us didn't expedite off the
runway as the controller requested. Some go-arounds are because an
inattentive pilot or truck driver committed a runway incursion in front of a
landing plane. Even for those go-arounds were the pilot is at blame, a
go-around displays better judgement than continuing a landing and making a
bad situation worse.

e.g.:

http://www.airdisaster.com/cgi_bin/v...052000&reg=N66
8SW&airline=Southwest+Airlines

rg

In article ,
Ron Garret wrote:

It depends on the reason for the go-around. Some go-arounds are because
controllers get the spacing too tight as we come down the pipeline. Some
go-arounds are because the plane in front of us didn't expedite off the
runway as the controller requested. Some go-arounds are because an
inattentive pilot or truck driver committed a runway incursion in front of a
landing plane. Even for those go-arounds were the pilot is at blame, a
go-around displays better judgement than continuing a landing and making a
bad situation worse.

I was a passenger some years ago on a United something coming up the Bay
into SFO, probably 28L or 28R, that did a go-around for one of these
reasons. I realized what was happening, but was still slightly
white-knuckled over how long it seemed to take for the engines to get
spooled back up and the aircraft to stop descending, level off, and
start climbing out. Not at all like the feeling of climbing up off the
runway following rotation on takeoff.

AES/newspost wrote:
In article ,
Ron Garret wrote:


It depends on the reason for the go-around. Some go-arounds are because
controllers get the spacing too tight as we come down the pipeline. Some
go-arounds are because the plane in front of us didn't expedite off the
runway as the controller requested. Some go-arounds are because an
inattentive pilot or truck driver committed a runway incursion in front of a
landing plane. Even for those go-arounds were the pilot is at blame, a
go-around displays better judgement than continuing a landing and making a
bad situation worse.


I was a passenger some years ago on a United something coming up the Bay
into SFO, probably 28L or 28R, that did a go-around for one of these
reasons. I realized what was happening, but was still slightly
white-knuckled over how long it seemed to take for the engines to get
spooled back up and the aircraft to stop descending, level off, and
start climbing out. Not at all like the feeling of climbing up off the
runway following rotation on takeoff.
I don't understand the issue. A "go around" is a standard proceedure
which as a pilot, I have executed a number of times. If things aren't
"right", you go around.

I have been on several commercial flights (major airlines) where the
pilot has made the same decision. The major problem there is the wasted
fuel and lowered profits.

When in doubt, go 'round.

"Ron Garret" wrote

Even for those go-arounds were the pilot is at blame, a
go-around displays better judgement than continuing a landing and making
a
bad situation worse.

So is a screw up like that a career ender for both the pilots? Opinions?
Doug? Others?
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.797 / Virus Database: 541 - Release Date: 11/15/2004

"Morgans" wrote in message So is a screw up
like that a career ender for both the pilots? Opinions? Doug? Others?

The usual way it works is for the airline to terminate the pilots and let
the union try to get them reinstated. Every case is different from that
point. I've seen cases that involved remedial training and I've seen cases
that involved certificate revocation.

If the termination is upheld, the pilot likely won't be working at another
airline for quite some time. The Pilot Records Improvement Act of 1996 was
enacted for this reason. The Act covers a pilot's previous 5 years of
commercial flying.

Additionally, commercial aviation is a small community. I don't hire charter
pilots if I can't call a contact in the business and get a good
recommendation on them.

D.

Recently, Capt.Doug posted:

"Morgans" wrote in message So is a
screw up
like that a career ender for both the pilots? Opinions? Doug?
Others?

The usual way it works is for the airline to terminate the pilots and
let the union try to get them reinstated. Every case is different
from that point. I've seen cases that involved remedial training and
I've seen cases that involved certificate revocation.

If the termination is upheld, the pilot likely won't be working at
another airline for quite some time. The Pilot Records Improvement
Act of 1996 was enacted for this reason. The Act covers a pilot's
previous 5 years of commercial flying.

Additionally, commercial aviation is a small community. I don't hire
charter pilots if I can't call a contact in the business and get a
good recommendation on them.

So... are you saying that a go-around is considered a "screw-up" in the
business? Or, is the pilot "to blame" if there isn't some other obvious
(and documentable) reason for a go-around, such as a runway incursion? It
seems to me that such practices would encourage poor judgement, if
judgement is considered a blame-able offense.

Neil

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 11:36:39 GMT, "Neil Gould"
wrote:

Recently, Capt.Doug posted:

"Morgans" wrote in message So is a
screw up
like that a career ender for both the pilots? Opinions? Doug?
Others?

The usual way it works is for the airline to terminate the pilots and
let the union try to get them reinstated. Every case is different
from that point. I've seen cases that involved remedial training and
I've seen cases that involved certificate revocation.

If the termination is upheld, the pilot likely won't be working at
another airline for quite some time. The Pilot Records Improvement
Act of 1996 was enacted for this reason. The Act covers a pilot's
previous 5 years of commercial flying.

Additionally, commercial aviation is a small community. I don't hire
charter pilots if I can't call a contact in the business and get a
good recommendation on them.

So... are you saying that a go-around is considered a "screw-up" in the
business? Or, is the pilot "to blame" if there isn't some other obvious
(and documentable) reason for a go-around, such as a runway incursion? It
seems to me that such practices would encourage poor judgement, if
judgement is considered a blame-able offense.

I believe Capt.Doug's message was answering the question posed in
Morgan's post enquiring about the aftermath of (in Morgan's example
the Southwest accident where they overran the runway and ended up
almost in a gas station) incidents caused by not going around, what
happens to the crews after those kinds of accident.

Recently, Peter Clark posted:

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 11:36:39 GMT, "Neil Gould"
wrote:
(largely snipped for brevity)
Recently, Capt.Doug posted:

The usual way it works is for the airline to terminate the pilots
and let the union try to get them reinstated. Every case is
different from that point. I've seen cases that involved remedial
training and I've seen cases that involved certificate revocation.

[...]

So... are you saying that a go-around is considered a "screw-up" in
the business?
[...]

I believe Capt.Doug's message was answering the question posed in
Morgan's post enquiring about the aftermath of (in Morgan's example
the Southwest accident where they overran the runway and ended up
almost in a gas station) incidents caused by not going around, what
happens to the crews after those kinds of accident.

Thanks for the clarification, Peter. The post example that you refer to
isn't on this server, only Morgan's largely snipped question. That
completely changes the context of Capt. Doug's response!

Neil

"Peter Clark" wrote in message I believe Capt.Doug's message was
answering the question posed in
Morgan's post enquiring about the aftermath of (in Morgan's example
the Southwest accident where they overran the runway and ended up
almost in a gas station) incidents caused by not going around, what
happens to the crews after those kinds of accident.

Your beliefs are held true. I see that the final report of the Fed-Ex B-727
crash at Tallahassee has been released. It's yet another example where a
go-around would have been prudent.

D.

"Neil Gould" wrote in message ...
Recently, Capt.Doug posted:

"Morgans" wrote in message So is a
screw up
like that a career ender for both the pilots? Opinions? Doug?
Others?

The usual way it works is for the airline to terminate the pilots and
let the union try to get them reinstated. Every case is different
from that point. I've seen cases that involved remedial training and
I've seen cases that involved certificate revocation.

If the termination is upheld, the pilot likely won't be working at
another airline for quite some time. The Pilot Records Improvement
Act of 1996 was enacted for this reason. The Act covers a pilot's
previous 5 years of commercial flying.

Additionally, commercial aviation is a small community. I don't hire
charter pilots if I can't call a contact in the business and get a
good recommendation on them.

So... are you saying that a go-around is considered a "screw-up" in the
business? Or, is the pilot "to blame" if there isn't some other obvious
(and documentable) reason for a go-around, such as a runway incursion? It
seems to me that such practices would encourage poor judgement, if
judgement is considered a blame-able offense.


A 'go around' is a sign that the pilot isn't happy with the current
situation and has the ability to obey the ancient law of "What ever
happens, fly the aeroplane"
This reminds me of the 'fuel management' nonsense of some years back.