Go-arounds

[Ramapriya]

Just curious... do airliners view go-arounds unfavorably against
pilots in, say, their appraisals or performance reports?

Ramapriya

[Bob Gardner]

I have never been associated with an airline, but having been in the
aviation education business for over 40 years I can tell you that going
around from a questionable approach is a sign of good judgment...crashing to
avoid going around is to be avoided.

Bob Gardner

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

[Capt.Doug]

>"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.

D.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

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

I don't know, but I'd wager they view bending an airplane unfavorably.

[Judah]

Just yesterday, I witnessed a Go-Around by an airliner when another
airliner on the ground that was cleared to cross the runway didn't get
across in time.

The controller yelled at the guy on the ground for not getting across quick
enough. (Actually, she had been yelling at him for at least 10 or 20
seconds to pick it up because there was a Dash-8 on final.) No complaint
was made to the guy in the air who went around, though. He did what he was
supposed to.

(Ramapriya) wrote in
om:

> Just curious... do airliners view go-arounds unfavorably against
> pilots in, say, their appraisals or performance reports?
>
> Ramapriya
>

[Scott Skylane]

Ramapriya wrote:

> Just curious... do airliners view go-arounds unfavorably against
> pilots in, say, their appraisals or performance reports?
>
> Ramapriya
>
No, just the opposite.

Happy Flying!
Scott Skylane

[Ron Garret]

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/view_details.cgi?date=03052000&reg=N66
8SW&airline=Southwest+Airlines

rg

[AES/newspost]

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.

[William W. Plummer]

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.

[Morgans]

"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

[Capt.Doug]

>"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.

[Neil Gould]

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

[Peter Clark]

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.

[Newps]

Morgans wrote:
> "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?

If go arounds were career enders there would be no RJ pilots left
anymore. I have seen some of the most pathetic descent planning by the
pilots of Skywest(Delta and United) and Air Shuttle(America West). They
have been given visual approach and landing clearances 40 miles out and
cannot get down. Nobody to follow just fly to the airport and land.
Can't do it. God forbid he's number three, he'll end up on a ten mile
final at 7000 AGL asking for 360's.

[George]

"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.

[Neil Gould]

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

[Capt.Doug]

>"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.