Go-around - my first sighting

[Ramapriya]

I was admiring an Emirates A330 on finals earlier today. It appeared to
be on the proper glide path (guaging from the earlier string of
aircraft). A mile out or so, for some reason, TOGA! and the aircraft
went into quite a nose-up attitude and climbed away, aborting the
landing.

This go-around happened on a clear wintry morning with little or no
wind. Hope the Cap'n doesn't lose his job, unless there was some other
reason like runway incursion :o)

Have you guys ever missed an approach and had to hit TOGA? And does a
go-around make its way as a pilot's log book entry?

Ramapriya

[Flyingmonk]

I'm no airline pilot, but I'd guess that that thing has a FADEC system
that records EVERYTHING that happens for maintenance sake.

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Ramapriya wrote:
> Have you guys ever missed an approach and had to hit TOGA? And does a
> go-around make its way as a pilot's log book entry?



I've missed approaches a number of times over the years and had to go around.
The usual cause is a nonprecision approach coupled with weather that didn't
allow me to break out. Once or twice it may have been because a runway hadn't
cleared yet.

I never bothered writing any of them in the logbook. I just consider that a
part of flying.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Scott Draper]

<<Hope the Cap'n doesn't lose his job,>>

He's not going to lose his job over a go-around.

[Jim Macklin]

It may have been a test flight, checking avionics,
auto-pilot, etc. The crew may also have been in training.
Maybe they just needed a few more minutes to complete some
flight time experience requirement and a go-around was
better than and would use less time than another flight
cycle.

It may have been because of something you didn't see, like
another airplane or vehicle on the runway and ATC may have
issued the go-around.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Ramapriya" > wrote in message
oups.com...
|I was admiring an Emirates A330 on finals earlier today. It
appeared to
| be on the proper glide path (guaging from the earlier
string of
| aircraft). A mile out or so, for some reason, TOGA! and
the aircraft
| went into quite a nose-up attitude and climbed away,
aborting the
| landing.
|
| This go-around happened on a clear wintry morning with
little or no
| wind. Hope the Cap'n doesn't lose his job, unless there
was some other
| reason like runway incursion :o)
|
| Have you guys ever missed an approach and had to hit TOGA?
And does a
| go-around make its way as a pilot's log book entry?
|
| Ramapriya
|

[Stubby]

Scott Draper wrote:
> <<Hope the Cap'n doesn't lose his job,>>
>
> He's not going to lose his job over a go-around.
>
>
But it might strain things. I've heard that on go-around can eat up the
profit from a flight.

[M]

His landing and/or approach clearance might have been canceled for
numerous reasons, say, another aircraft can't get off the runway, or
another aircraft reporting foreign object on the runway and the tower
is sending a vehicle to pick it up, etc, etc.

Things like this are not very common, but not rare either. No captain
will lose his job because of a go around.

Ramapriya wrote:
> I was admiring an Emirates A330 on finals earlier today. It appeared to
> be on the proper glide path (guaging from the earlier string of
> aircraft). A mile out or so, for some reason, TOGA! and the aircraft
> went into quite a nose-up attitude and climbed away, aborting the
> landing.
>
> This go-around happened on a clear wintry morning with little or no
> wind. Hope the Cap'n doesn't lose his job, unless there was some other
> reason like runway incursion :o)
>
> Have you guys ever missed an approach and had to hit TOGA? And does a
> go-around make its way as a pilot's log book entry?
>
> Ramapriya

[lynn]

Several of reason to go-around:

=>Ordered to by ATC

=>Unsafe landing configuration

=>Airport landing conditions out of limits


$$$ NEVER is consideration in the Go-ARound equation. Any Captain that
uses the $$ as criteria for a Go-Around should not be flying/



Stubby wrote:
> Scott Draper wrote:
> > <<Hope the Cap'n doesn't lose his job,>>
> >
> > He's not going to lose his job over a go-around.
> >
> >
> But it might strain things. I've heard that on go-around can eat up the
> profit from a flight.

[GS]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> It may have been a test flight, checking avionics,
> auto-pilot, etc. The crew may also have been in training.
> Maybe they just needed a few more minutes to complete some
> flight time experience requirement and a go-around was
> better than and would use less time than another flight
> cycle.

I've heard of 737's 'in the pattern' at Castle AFB.
On that runway, they can probably do a couple of Touch
and goes on each pass. :)

gerald

[Capt.Doug]

>"Ramapriya" wrote in message
> Have you guys ever missed an approach and had to hit TOGA? And does a
> go-around make its way as a pilot's log book entry?

Go-arounds, otherwise called balked landings, are standard training
curriculum. Once or twice a year we may have to perform one. We fill out a
captain's report for the chief pilot, but that's so the safety department
can identify trends. The pilots are not disciplined. The last one I peformed
was at DCA with it's funky restrictions because a departing CRJ aborted
their take-off for engine malfunctions.

In the Airbus, if the pilots leave the power levers in cruise and do a 360
degree turn, the flight data recorder won't show it as a go-around. Less
paperwork that way.

D.

[Jim Macklin]

A lot of operators do not allow touch and goes, due the
perceived risks. But they could do a stop and go.


--
Merry Christmas
Have a Safe and Happy New Year
Live Long and Prosper
Jim Macklin
"GS" > wrote in message
...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| > It may have been a test flight, checking avionics,
| > auto-pilot, etc. The crew may also have been in
training.
| > Maybe they just needed a few more minutes to complete
some
| > flight time experience requirement and a go-around was
| > better than and would use less time than another flight
| > cycle.
|
| I've heard of 737's 'in the pattern' at Castle AFB.
| On that runway, they can probably do a couple of Touch
| and goes on each pass. :)
|
| gerald

[Capt.Doug]

>"lynn" wrote in message
> $$$ NEVER is consideration in the Go-ARound equation. Any Captain that
> uses the $$ as criteria for a Go-Around should not be flying/

Safety is first, BUT, if a captain does not consider efficiency, he won't
have a paycheck for very long. The smart captain spaces himself
appropriately so as to avoid go-arounds without upsetting ATC.

D.

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Capt.Doug > wrote:
>>"lynn" wrote in message
>> $$$ NEVER is consideration in the Go-ARound equation. Any Captain that
>> uses the $$ as criteria for a Go-Around should not be flying/
>
> Safety is first, BUT, if a captain does not consider efficiency, he won't
> have a paycheck for very long. The smart captain spaces himself
> appropriately so as to avoid go-arounds without upsetting ATC.
>
> D.

It may not even be a spacing problem. Consider parallel
approaches to intersecting runways. If someone ends up with a long roll
out on the intersecting runway, the pilot will have to go around
altogether, even if he is #1 for the runway, without any traffc
previously landing in front of him. LAHSO might not be in effect. How
is this field in particular laid out?

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFDsJ7gyBkZmuMZ8L8RAub/AKDo78XjH1hzmiVjQ7AhAqOY15Ik3wCbB6S4
nXOIh5b4Ki/gmMpt56CS7UU=
=Srg+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[GS]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> A lot of operators do not allow touch and goes, due the
> perceived risks. But they could do a stop and go.

I can't imagine a jet doing this even at castle. I've
heard these were non-commercial 737's (private or other)

Gerald

[Jim Macklin]

A big issue is brake heat, you do need to give the binders
time to cool and the air flow while the gear is down and
locked after take-off and on final helps a lot.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"GS" > wrote in message
et...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| > A lot of operators do not allow touch and goes, due the
| > perceived risks. But they could do a stop and go.
|
| I can't imagine a jet doing this even at castle. I've
| heard these were non-commercial 737's (private or other)
|
| Gerald

[Ramapriya]

Capt.Doug wrote:
>
> Go-arounds, otherwise called balked landings, are standard training
> curriculum. Once or twice a year we may have to perform one.


but surely not real-time in an aircraft, Doug? The twice-yearly routine
is in a simulator, I'm sure! And that's what simulators are there for
anyway, isn't it - to hone your aviation knowledge and skills in upset
and abnormal situations?

Ramapriya

[Happy Dog]

"Ramapriya" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>I was admiring an Emirates A330 on finals earlier today. It appeared to
> be on the proper glide path (guaging from the earlier string of
> aircraft). A mile out or so, for some reason, TOGA! and the aircraft
> went into quite a nose-up attitude and climbed away, aborting the
> landing.
>
> This go-around happened on a clear wintry morning with little or no
> wind. Hope the Cap'n doesn't lose his job, unless there was some other
> reason like runway incursion :o)
>
> Have you guys ever missed an approach and had to hit TOGA? And does a
> go-around make its way as a pilot's log book entry?

Probably directed to pull up and go around by ATC. I've seen it happen once
or twice when there was a problem on the ground or an aircraft approaching
with an emergency.

moo

[GS]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> A big issue is brake heat, you do need to give the binders
> time to cool and the air flow while the gear is down and
> locked after take-off and on final helps a lot.

you mean stopping a few hundred thousand pounds going 140 knots
in 6000 feet generates heat???? ;-)

Speaking of which, just read on the NTSB website that there
was yet another Cirrus that burned up from the brakes during
an extended taxi. There have been many of these. One of
these was in my flying club. The plane was squawked for
a dragging brake apparently MANY times and was signed off
every time. And they supposedly rebuilt it "good as new."
Hmmmm.....

Gerald

[GS]

Ramapriya wrote:
> but surely not real-time in an aircraft, Doug? The twice-yearly routine
> is in a simulator, I'm sure! And that's what simulators are there for
> anyway, isn't it - to hone your aviation knowledge and skills in upset
> and abnormal situations?

The simulators are for dealing with the rapid decompression at FL410,
fire in the cargo hold, one engine out on a twin, flying an ILS
down to minimums. A go around is no big deal. Just make sure you
don't gain too much speed before the flaps are retracted.

I asked a friend who flies for UA about this while I was doing
my IFR. During IFR training, you often do multiple missed approaches.
Part 121 carriers (If I know correctly) aren't allowed to do
approaches unless the minimums are met so rarely do they go
missed due to the weather. But my friend said it isn't uncommon
to have go missed because of another a/c on the runway or
say at LAX when the radios for ATC failed. I think this was Socal
approach. For the a/c on the approach but not switched over
to tower, very well probably went missed due to waiting for
socal and then switching to tower too late. Man, I'd hate to
be flying around that basin IFR with the lost comms on Socal.
That must have been fun.

Gerald

[Scott Draper]

<<But it might strain things. >>

Not unless it happens with an unusual frequency. Pride, more than
profit, will tend to minimize go-arounds.

[Montblack]

("GS" wrote)
> Speaking of which, just read on the NTSB website that there
> was yet another Cirrus that burned up from the brakes during
> an extended taxi. There have been many of these. One of
> these was in my flying club. The plane was squawked for
> a dragging brake apparently MANY times and was signed off
> every time. And they supposedly rebuilt it "good as new."
> Hmmmm.....


<http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/540-full.html#191252>
Cirrus To Issue SB On Brake Overheating, Fires
AvWeb 12-25-05

"The SB will call for the installation of color-changing temperature sensors
on the brake components so that pilots can tell -- during the preflight --
if the brakes have been previously overheated. Cirrus spokesman Ian Bentley
said overheating can cause failure of an O-ring. Failure of the O-ring
allows flammable brake fluid to leak onto potentially hot parts. If they're
hot enough, the brake fluid ignites and causes a stubborn fire that can
really make a mess of a low-wing plastic airplane."


Montblack

[NW_PILOT]

Go to Grant County Airport in Washington you will see 747's doing touch &
goes that'a a trip to watch.



"GS" > wrote in message
et...
> Jim Macklin wrote:
> > A lot of operators do not allow touch and goes, due the
> > perceived risks. But they could do a stop and go.
>
> I can't imagine a jet doing this even at castle. I've
> heard these were non-commercial 737's (private or other)
>
> Gerald

[Jim Macklin]

Sometimes things are done in the aircraft, you can't check
the aircraft systems in a simulator. Sometimes they even
use the FDR data to get new parameters for the simulator
software.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Ramapriya" > wrote in message
oups.com...
| Capt.Doug wrote:
| >
| > Go-arounds, otherwise called balked landings, are
standard training
| > curriculum. Once or twice a year we may have to perform
one.
|
|
| but surely not real-time in an aircraft, Doug? The
twice-yearly routine
| is in a simulator, I'm sure! And that's what simulators
are there for
| anyway, isn't it - to hone your aviation knowledge and
skills in upset
| and abnormal situations?
|
| Ramapriya
|

[Jim Macklin]

War stories after a lesson...if I remember the specs, the
Beechjet 400 brakes are rated for 7,000,000 foot pounds of
heat dissipation, which is more than one max weight landing
will generate. But [war story]; a number of years ago I was
flying a King Air 300 for a guy who just bought the airplane
and had hired a pilot who was not rated to fly the big King
Air. He was based out of Addison at Ft. Worth and I flew
down on the airlines to take them to Palm Springs to play
golf. While I was at Ft. Worth one of the mechanics, who
was doing a brake job on a Beechjet asked me if I was rated
in the Beechjet [he had heard so from somebody]. I said yes
and asked what he wanted to now.
He said he was doing the brake job and wanted to know about
breaking in the brakes. I told him that the procedure was
covered in the service manual and involved making several
medium speed runs on the runway and making firm brake
application. I said it was three runs at 30 kts to heat the
metallic linings and get them "cooked." I also said to be
sure and check the manual and be sure the pilot or mechanic
doing the runs be properly briefed, since the brake job [at
that time] was $16,000 in parts.
I got back two days later and taxied the King Air up to the
hanger and saw the Beechjet sitting on the ramp just back
from the break-in runs. But they had just winged it, 3 runs
at 80-90 knots. The right strut had already collapsed, the
tire blew out the fuse plugs and the brakes had caught on
fire. While I was just there, the left strut and fuse plug
blew and the left side caught fire. That brake job may have
cost a 1/4 million because they didn't bother to read the
manual RTFM.

Another time I was at OKC and taxied past an OK ANG C130
with a good size fire in the right mains. They had been
working in the pattern. I advised the tower and they told
the ANG crew which stopped and got out their fire equipment
while waiting for the airport fire dept. to arrive.

FAR 91 allows pilots do some brake work, be sure to do it by
the manual, a dragging brake can put you in the grass or
burn up the airplane.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P



"GS" > wrote in message
...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| > A big issue is brake heat, you do need to give the
binders
| > time to cool and the air flow while the gear is down and
| > locked after take-off and on final helps a lot.
|
| you mean stopping a few hundred thousand pounds going 140
knots
| in 6000 feet generates heat???? ;-)
|
| Speaking of which, just read on the NTSB website that
there
| was yet another Cirrus that burned up from the brakes
during
| an extended taxi. There have been many of these. One of
| these was in my flying club. The plane was squawked for
| a dragging brake apparently MANY times and was signed off
| every time. And they supposedly rebuilt it "good as new."
| Hmmmm.....
|
| Gerald
|
|
|

[Jim Macklin]

Back in 1968 (about) there was an AD on the Beech Musketeer
because the parking brake would vibrate and engage during
flight, the system worked by locking the pressure from
applied normal brakes in the master cylinders. When you
landed, you could have one or both main wheels locked or
just dragging, depending on whether you had applied pressure
to the brakes in flight. This happened to me at SPI in the
winter, landing on Rwy 22 which was partially snow and ice
packed. I touched down on the ice and everything was fine
until I hit a dry area. The airplane yawed about 20 degrees
to the right in just a second or two. Full left rudder and
power straightened it out. When I got to the ramp and we
examined the airplane, 4 of the six plies in the new tire
had been cut through and flat spotted. This may have one of
the incidents that prompted the AD note.

Cirrus could have a similar problem.



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
|
| "GS" > wrote
|
| > Speaking of which, just read on the NTSB website that
there
| > was yet another Cirrus that burned up from the brakes
during
| > an extended taxi. There have been many of these. One
of
| > these was in my flying club.
|
| Nah, nothing wrong with the brakes! It is all pilot
error, according to
| Cirrus.
|
| It was interesting to note that they are offering a
retrofit of a larger
| brake package. They also said it will not even be an
option on new planes.
| With thinking like that, how long will it be until they
start to go the way
| of Cessna, and Piper?
|
| In most industries that are healthy, the customer is
always right. Give
| them what they want. My prediction is that before '06 is
out, it will be an
| option. Any takers?
| --
| Jim in NC
|

[Peter Duniho]

"GS" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> Speaking of which, just read on the NTSB website that there
> was yet another Cirrus that burned up from the brakes during
> an extended taxi.

By a pilot misusing the brakes.

The Cirrus isn't the only airplane out there with a free-castering
nosewheel. My airplane is one, and there are a number of other makes and
models with a similar design.

When I first learned to taxi without nosewheel steering, I did get the
brakes really hot. Smokin' hot. Literally. Obviously, not good for the
brakes. Thankfully, I learned the proper taxi technique without having to
go through that mistake twice.

But when I got the brakes that hot, it wasn't an issue of an "extended
taxi". It's that the brakes really don't need to be used that much, no
matter how far you're taxiing. Slight, infrequent adjustments are all that
are necessary. Someone using the brakes so much that they heat up enough to
cause damage to the airplane is taxiing VERY clumsily.

I suppose the issue might be of some interest to people who argue that the
Cirrus is being sold to lower-experience pilots, resulting in a
higher-than-normal rate of problems. The brakes would be just one more
example of that; same design in other airplanes doesn't cause nearly the
same number of issues (just because an airplane isn't make of fiberglass,
that doesn't mean it can handle having the brakes overheat regularly). It's
not clear why, otherwise, Cirrus would need this Service Bulletin that
Montblack mentioned, when none of the other types have needed one.

Pete

[Jim Macklin]

Sounds like fun. A number of years ago, several operators
were doing aircraft certification, crew training and such at
Salina, Kansas because it little traffic and runways
designed for the B36. You could see 747, DC10 and L-1011 in
the pattern, acting like C150 going around and around. The
girls at Flower were well tipped and gave out a lot of
chocolate chip cookies. [Really, free cookies]


"NW_PILOT" > wrote in
message ...
| Go to Grant County Airport in Washington you will see
747's doing touch &
| goes that'a a trip to watch.
|
|
|
| "GS" > wrote in message
| et...
| > Jim Macklin wrote:
| > > A lot of operators do not allow touch and goes, due
the
| > > perceived risks. But they could do a stop and go.
| >
| > I can't imagine a jet doing this even at castle. I've
| > heard these were non-commercial 737's (private or other)
| >
| > Gerald
|
|

[Morgans]

"GS" > wrote

> Speaking of which, just read on the NTSB website that there
> was yet another Cirrus that burned up from the brakes during
> an extended taxi. There have been many of these. One of
> these was in my flying club.

Nah, nothing wrong with the brakes! It is all pilot error, according to
Cirrus.

It was interesting to note that they are offering a retrofit of a larger
brake package. They also said it will not even be an option on new planes.
With thinking like that, how long will it be until they start to go the way
of Cessna, and Piper?

In most industries that are healthy, the customer is always right. Give
them what they want. My prediction is that before '06 is out, it will be an
option. Any takers?
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans]

"Ramapriya" > wrote

> but surely not real-time in an aircraft, Doug? The twice-yearly routine
> is in a simulator, I'm sure!

I *think* that what he was saying is that there are occasions, that come up
a time or two per year, that makes a go around necessary - in real life.
--
Jim in NC

[Marty Shapiro]

"Ramapriya" > wrote in
oups.com:

> Capt.Doug wrote:
>>
>> Go-arounds, otherwise called balked landings, are standard training
>> curriculum. Once or twice a year we may have to perform one.
>
>
> but surely not real-time in an aircraft, Doug? The twice-yearly routine
> is in a simulator, I'm sure! And that's what simulators are there for
> anyway, isn't it - to hone your aviation knowledge and skills in upset
> and abnormal situations?
>
> Ramapriya
>

About 5 1/2 years ago I was in Las Vegas with some visiting friends. While
my friends kids went on the rides on top of the Stratosphere Tower, I was
watching the airlines land on 19 L&R at McCarran. It was a brilliantly
clear hot August day. Way in the distance what looked like a black screen
could be seen. One could see blue sky both in front of and behind this
black screen. It was moving towards us. As it reached the far end of RWY
19, one could see that is was a rain shower maybe 1/3 of a mile deep. We
could see the water spattering off the runway surface. We observed an
American MD80, Air West 737, and Delta MD80 execute go rounds and could see
them bounce around as they penetrated the shower. Then, with the storm
about in the middle of the runway, a Soutwest 737 decided to land and
almost fishtailed off when it hit the storm. At least two more flights
follwing the Southwest flight went around. That was all we could observe
as the outside observation deck was evacuated when the storm reached the
numbers on the runway (about 7 miles from the Stratosphere Tower).

At FAA safety seminars, they have shown a video called "The Day All Hell
Broke Loose" showing what happened at the old Stapleton Airport in Denver
one day when the wind shear topped 100 knots! Many airliners (I seem to
remember the video showing 8) went around rather than try to handle this
severe wind shear. I don't know if this video is available on the web, but
if you get a chance to see it, it is an eye opener.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[GS]

Marty Shapiro wrote:
> About 5 1/2 years ago I was in Las Vegas with some visiting friends. While
> my friends kids went on the rides on top of the Stratosphere Tower, I was
> watching the airlines land on 19 L&R at McCarran. It was a brilliantly
> clear hot August day.

2 years ago I saw a jet Blue A320 doing S-turns on a 3-4 mile final
(IIRC). At the time I knew S-turns were normal in light aircraft but
not transport jets. Turns out it is legal. It isn't normal but
occasionally it gets the job done.

gerald

[GS]

NW_PILOT wrote:

> Go to Grant County Airport in Washington you will see 747's doing touch &
> goes that'a a trip to watch.

is this controlled or uncontrolled? I can already hear on CTAF
"Grant traffic, Boeing 1X32L turning base. following the <laugh> Boeing
(Stearman) turning final. Grant."

:) :)

Gerald

[Jim Macklin]

Boeing Heavy 1234BB


"GS" > wrote in message
...
| NW_PILOT wrote:
|
| > Go to Grant County Airport in Washington you will see
747's doing touch &
| > goes that'a a trip to watch.
|
| is this controlled or uncontrolled? I can already hear on
CTAF
| "Grant traffic, Boeing 1X32L turning base. following the
<laugh> Boeing
| (Stearman) turning final. Grant."
|
| :) :)
|
| Gerald

[Marty Shapiro]

GS > wrote in
:

> Marty Shapiro wrote:
>> About 5 1/2 years ago I was in Las Vegas with some visiting friends.
>> While my friends kids went on the rides on top of the Stratosphere
>> Tower, I was watching the airlines land on 19 L&R at McCarran. It
>> was a brilliantly clear hot August day.
>
> 2 years ago I saw a jet Blue A320 doing S-turns on a 3-4 mile final
> (IIRC). At the time I knew S-turns were normal in light aircraft but
> not transport jets. Turns out it is legal. It isn't normal but
> occasionally it gets the job done.
>
> gerald

SJC did that several years ago. Tower cleared a B-17 and a P-51 to do a low
pass. They had about 4 airliners strung out all the way to GILRO (the IAF,
about 30 miles out) doings S-turns. They were all able to land in
sequence.

Once near Manteca VOR, I hear on Stockon Approach (now Norcal Approach)
"November xxx (I forgot the number) Uniform Alpha Heavy requests Stockton
ADF practice approach". When I spotted the traffic below me, it was 747.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[Ron Natalie]

GS wrote:
> Jim Macklin wrote:
>> A lot of operators do not allow touch and goes, due the perceived
>> risks. But they could do a stop and go.
>
> I can't imagine a jet doing this even at castle. I've
> heard these were non-commercial 737's (private or other)

AF-1 (well not AF-1, but one of the planes used for AF-1) comes
over to Dulles occasionally and shoots touch and goes.

[Morgans]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:KU9sf.37945$QW2.707@dukeread08...
> Boeing Heavy 1234BB

Nah, they were light. No people or luggage onboard; just practicing! <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Peter Duniho]

"GS" > wrote in message
...
> NW_PILOT wrote:
>
>> Go to Grant County Airport in Washington you will see 747's doing touch &
>> goes that'a a trip to watch.
>
> is this controlled or uncontrolled?

http://www.airnav.com/airport/KMWH
HVY JET TRNG SFC TO 5000 FT WI 25 MI OF ARPT; PSBL WAKE
TURBC FM LARGER ACFT USING RY 14L/32R

> I can already hear on CTAF
> "Grant traffic, Boeing 1X32L turning base. following the <laugh> Boeing
> (Stearman) turning final. Grant."

I dount the 747 training goes on when the tower is closed. But watch out
for the military at night.

RY 09/27 USED AS ASSAULT STRIP BY C-17 ACFT.
EXTENSIVE HVY MIL JET ACFT NIGHT TRAINING 1000PM-0300AM
LCL MAR-OCT. ANNOUNCE LANDING INTENTIONS ON CTAF AFTER
ATCT CLSD.

Of course, they may or may not have their lights on. :)

Pete

[Morgans]

"AES" > wrote

> Suppose a commercial airliner is in the late stages of an approach, and
> an sudden hard go-around decision is made. Assuming everything is done
> right, how much additional altitude is lost before the airplane levels
> off and starts climbing?

That is an excellent question! Let's hope Capt Doug, or one of the other
current heavy metal pilots chime in here. You might have to wait a while,
as they might be on a flight, right now.
--
Jim in NC

[GS]

Sounds like a perfect place to build some condominiums so
the residents can complain. <grin>

Gerald



Peter Duniho wrote:
> "GS" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>NW_PILOT wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Go to Grant County Airport in Washington you will see 747's doing touch &
>>>goes that'a a trip to watch.
>>
>>is this controlled or uncontrolled?
>
>
> http://www.airnav.com/airport/KMWH
> HVY JET TRNG SFC TO 5000 FT WI 25 MI OF ARPT; PSBL WAKE
> TURBC FM LARGER ACFT USING RY 14L/32R
>
>
>>I can already hear on CTAF
>>"Grant traffic, Boeing 1X32L turning base. following the <laugh> Boeing
>>(Stearman) turning final. Grant."
>
>
> I dount the 747 training goes on when the tower is closed. But watch out
> for the military at night.
>
> RY 09/27 USED AS ASSAULT STRIP BY C-17 ACFT.
> EXTENSIVE HVY MIL JET ACFT NIGHT TRAINING 1000PM-0300AM
> LCL MAR-OCT. ANNOUNCE LANDING INTENTIONS ON CTAF AFTER
> ATCT CLSD.
>
> Of course, they may or may not have their lights on. :)
>
> Pete
>
>

[GS]

Marty Shapiro wrote:
> Once near Manteca VOR, I hear on Stockon Approach (now Norcal Approach)
> "November xxx (I forgot the number) Uniform Alpha Heavy requests Stockton
> ADF practice approach". When I spotted the traffic below me, it was 747.

That must have been me. Not too many private 747's in this area.
I was working on my IFR ticket at the time. ;-)

Gerald

[Bob Moore]

AES >wrote
> Hard to judge from a passenger seat, but it seemed to take
> forever to get the engines spooled back up to full power, and
> for the plane to stop descending and start actually climbing.

Yep! If it's not IMC at minimums, we tried to give the PAX as
smooth a ride as possible.

> Suppose a commercial airliner is in the late stages of an
> approach, and an sudden hard go-around decision is made.
> Assuming everything is done right, how much additional altitude
> is lost before the airplane levels off and starts climbing?

Under those conditions, very little...perhaps 50' at most.

Bob Moore
ATP B-707 B-727
PanAm (retired)

[lynn]

Capt Doug,

I never in my 17,000 hours with a very profitable Part 121 carrier, had
to explain why I executed a go-around. And yes I did my share of
go-arounds.

You see time off for not executing an ATC direct go-around is just not
worth the "efficiency consideration".

Time off for landing with an unsafe landing configuration is just not
worth the "efficiency consideration".

Time off for landing at an airport in which conditions are out of
limits is just not worth the "efficiency consideration".

"The smart captain spaces himself..."


I bet ATC just loves having you in their traffic pattern.

[lynn]

Back when the air carriers first got TCAS, I recall a infamous S.E. US
part 121 carrier going around over the threshold at Hobby 13R because
he got a TCAS WARNING. He explained that it was his company policy to
go-around anytime TCAS alerted. Of course it was clear and a million,
no vehicles or aircraft on the runway. Hobby Tower nor the other pilot
on frequency were NOT impressed with that decision. The TCAS Warning
orginated from a transponder being benched tested in a hangar.

One visual peeky-boo and common sense is worth $$$$.

[Jose]

> I recall a infamous S.E. US
> part 121 carrier going around over the threshold at Hobby 13R because
> he got a TCAS WARNING. He explained that it was his company policy to
> go-around anytime TCAS alerted. [...]
>
> One visual peeky-boo and common sense is worth $$$$.

I don't worry about the traffic I see, just the traffic I don't. One
visual peeky-boo won't guarantee that I see the traffic.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[GS]

lynn wrote:

> Back when the air carriers first got TCAS, I recall a infamous S.E. US
> part 121 carrier going around over the threshold at Hobby 13R because
> he got a TCAS WARNING. He explained that it was his company policy to
> go-around anytime TCAS alerted. Of course it was clear and a million,
> no vehicles or aircraft on the runway. Hobby Tower nor the other pilot
> on frequency were NOT impressed with that decision. The TCAS Warning
> orginated from a transponder being benched tested in a hangar.

I would have gone around too. The problem is not with the pilot
but the procedure. I bet after the many thousand dollar mistake
the airline changed its procedure. In general, procedures are
there for a reason. I fly light a/c. You're probably flying
heavies for a part 121. I'm sure you have one, two or maybe
even three procedures to worry about. I bet I'm preaching
to the choir. ;-) ;-)

Gerald

[lynn]

At 50 feet over the threshold, the runway is clear, and "Cleared to
land" by tower and NO traffic, I would land.

I was the next aircraft to land behind the go-around. I saw the false
TCAS signal to the right of 13R at Hobby approximately where the
hangars were located. Again one peeky-boo confirmed no aircraft
traffic.

Jim Macklin,

It was a three-holer on a revenue flight. This legacy carrier did/does
not fly 1000 miles to Hobby to train crewmembers.

I asked Hobby Tower about the go-around and they said it was a TCAS
alert. I asked about the traffic and Hobby said there was NO TRAFFIC.

Lynn,
ATP, B.S., M. A., PQRSTUX...w..x..y..z

[Capt.Doug]

>"lynn" wrote in message > Capt Doug,
> I never in my 17,000 hours with a very profitable Part 121 carrier, had
> to explain why I executed a go-around. And yes I did my share of
> go-arounds.
> You see time off for not executing an ATC direct go-around is just not
> worth the "efficiency consideration".
> Time off for landing with an unsafe landing configuration is just not
> worth the "efficiency consideration".
> Time off for landing at an airport in which conditions are out of
> limits is just not worth the "efficiency consideration".
> "The smart captain spaces himself..."
> I bet ATC just loves having you in their traffic pattern.

Your writing is hard to follow. Are you being condescending or encouraging?

D.

[Capt.Doug]

>"Ramapriya" wrote in message
> but surely not real-time in an aircraft, Doug? The twice-yearly routine
> is in a simulator, I'm sure! And that's what simulators are there for
> anyway, isn't it - to hone your aviation knowledge and skills in upset
> and abnormal situations?

Yup, in real time. Once in a while, we have to do a real go-around. I
watched my co-pilot do one for real yesterday. ATC hung us up at FL220 until
about 40 DME from the airport. After finally getting a descent clearance, we
dove for the runway but it was just too tight. A 360 turn wasn't allowed
because of traffic behind us.

D.

[Capt.Doug]

>"AES" wrote in message
> Suppose a commercial airliner is in the late stages of an approach, and
> an sudden hard go-around decision is made. Assuming everything is done
> right, how much additional altitude is lost before the airplane levels
> off and starts climbing?

Every situation is different. A max effort in the a heavy MD-80 took only
about 40'. Usually, we don't need max effort and focus on passenger comfort.
I've talked to pilots who fly heavies in Alaska who say that it's not
unusual for the wheels to briefly touch the runway during a Cat 2 or 3a ILS
missed approach.

D.

[Jim Macklin]

Don't know why my name is in this, I didn't write ANY of
what is on this page.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"lynn" > wrote in message
oups.com...
| At 50 feet over the threshold, the runway is clear, and
"Cleared to
| land" by tower and NO traffic, I would land.
|
| I was the next aircraft to land behind the go-around. I
saw the false
| TCAS signal to the right of 13R at Hobby approximately
where the
| hangars were located. Again one peeky-boo confirmed no
aircraft
| traffic.
|
| Jim Macklin,
|
| It was a three-holer on a revenue flight. This legacy
carrier did/does
| not fly 1000 miles to Hobby to train crewmembers.
|
| I asked Hobby Tower about the go-around and they said it
was a TCAS
| alert. I asked about the traffic and Hobby said there was
NO TRAFFIC.
|
| Lynn,
| ATP, B.S., M. A., PQRSTUX...w..x..y..z
|

[Newps]

Capt.Doug wrote:
>>"AES" wrote in message
>>Suppose a commercial airliner is in the late stages of an approach, and
>>an sudden hard go-around decision is made.

A hard go around? They're all the same. Once the decision is made it's
all elbows and assholes flying around the cockpit.

[Bob Moore]

Newps >wrote

> A hard go around? They're all the same. Once the decision is
> made it's all elbows and assholes flying around the cockpit.

Not a chance.

Bob Moore

[Morgans]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:Hditf.38312$QW2.24415@dukeread08...
> Don't know why my name is in this, I didn't write ANY of
> what is on this page.

Because Lynne is a stupid troll, who can't even grasp the correct procedure
to snip and post correctly.
--
Jim in NC

[Jack]

Newps wrote:

> A hard go around? They're all the same. Once the decision is made it's
> all elbows and assholes flying around the cockpit.

For you, maybe, but it's just a takeoff, Newps. The psychological track
switching is something some folks don't handle as well as others do.

There is no particular reason to rush.

Forethought, and a little practice, helps a lot. Consequently,
reluctance to do them when they are called for is a double error.


Jack

[Jim Macklin]

No reason to rush, but a take-off has the airplane in
take-off trim and configuration. A go-around has perhaps
full flaps and the engines at reduced power and the trim
will make a handful for a while.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Jack" > wrote in message
. net...
| Newps wrote:
|
| > A hard go around? They're all the same. Once the
decision is made it's
| > all elbows and assholes flying around the cockpit.
|
| For you, maybe, but it's just a takeoff, Newps. The
psychological track
| switching is something some folks don't handle as well as
others do.
|
| There is no particular reason to rush.
|
| Forethought, and a little practice, helps a lot.
Consequently,
| reluctance to do them when they are called for is a double
error.
|
|
| Jack

[Jack]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> No reason to rush, but a take-off has the airplane in
> take-off trim and configuration. A go-around has perhaps
> full flaps and the engines at reduced power and the trim
> will make a handful for a while.


Practice, practice, practice. Push the throttle up; adjust the trim;
improve the configuration; fly the track, etc., etc.

Yes, it is a little different from a regular takeoff, but that's mostly
psychological, and the overcoming of mental barriers to the transition
from "approach and landing" to "go-around" brain-mode seems to be the
biggest part of the problem I've seen for most people.

It's not an emergency, after all, and Lord knows, too many people get
all in a hurry when the red lights start flashing to do as good a job
there, too, as they should.


Jack

[Jim Macklin]

Yes, people, hurry and make mistakes. But some aircraft
will require a very strong shove on the elevator during a
go-around when trimmed for a full flap landing. A jet is a
little easier because there is no prop wash over the
elevator, but some aircraft are a handful.
So, the drill is power up, push and hold the elevator, trim,
flaps, fly, trim.



--
Merry Christmas
Have a Safe and Happy New Year
Live Long and Prosper
Jim Macklin
"Jack" > wrote in message
. net...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| > No reason to rush, but a take-off has the airplane in
| > take-off trim and configuration. A go-around has
perhaps
| > full flaps and the engines at reduced power and the trim
| > will make a handful for a while.
|
|
| Practice, practice, practice. Push the throttle up; adjust
the trim;
| improve the configuration; fly the track, etc., etc.
|
| Yes, it is a little different from a regular takeoff, but
that's mostly
| psychological, and the overcoming of mental barriers to
the transition
| from "approach and landing" to "go-around" brain-mode
seems to be the
| biggest part of the problem I've seen for most people.
|
| It's not an emergency, after all, and Lord knows, too many
people get
| all in a hurry when the red lights start flashing to do as
good a job
| there, too, as they should.
|
|
| Jack

[Jack]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> Yes, people, hurry and make mistakes. But some aircraft
> will require a very strong shove on the elevator during a
> go-around when trimmed for a full flap landing.


Really? I had no idea.

Still, it shouldn't be "...all elbows and assholes flying around the
cockpit," as was claimed earlier in the thread, and that's the important
point.

Not that there's anything wrong with "...all elbows and assholes flying
around the cockpit" -- if that's your thing.


Jack

[John Gaquin]

"Capt.Doug" > wrote in message news:VIhtf.382169

> >".....how much additional altitude is lost before the airplane levels
>> off and starts climbing?
>
> I've talked to pilots who fly heavies in Alaska who say that it's not
> unusual for the wheels to briefly touch the runway during a Cat 2 or 3a
> ILS
> missed approach.

IIRC, we used to presume in the 747 that any balked landing from lower than
about 150' would result in a touch, variable, of course, with several
factors. From 100' or less it was a virtual certainty. Very careful to not
rotate past 12 degrees (I think, close to that) to preclude a tailstrike
instead of a touchdown.

[Ray]

Ramapriya wrote:
> I was admiring an Emirates A330 on finals earlier today. It appeared to
> be on the proper glide path (guaging from the earlier string of
> aircraft). A mile out or so, for some reason, TOGA! and the aircraft
> went into quite a nose-up attitude and climbed away, aborting the
> landing.

I witnessed my first airliner go-around today at San Francisco
International - and it was one of the more exciting things I've seen
while plane-watching. I was waiting to pick up some friends - their
flight was delayed so I was hanging out in a nearby gas station parking
lot with my handheld. Winds were about 20 knots gusting to 30 coming
more or less down the runway - but incoming aircraft were reporting
windshear of both plus and minus 20 knots over the numbers.

My friends' plane finally checks in with tower (about an hour and a half
delayed) on a 7 mile final. At what I'm guessing was well under 1000 ft
(the plane had already disappeared out of my sight below some nearby low
buildings), one of the pilots comes on the radio and rather tersely says
that they've had a wind shear alert and are going around. 5 seconds
later the MD-80 comes screaming back into my view looking like a bat out
of hell. I'm guessing that the flaps were still set for landing during
the initial part of the go-around giving a really steep best rate climb.

As interesting as it was to watch from the ground it was a lot more
interesting for my friends on the plane who said that the whole ordeal
was pretty nauseating. The captain may have been little shaken up too
because he decided to divert to Oakland instead of try again (even
though all the planes both before and after didn't have as severe wind
shear and landed without incident).

- Ray


***************************
Raymond Woo
e-mail: raywoo|at|gmail.com
http://gromit.stanford.edu/ray

[lynn]

"... grasp the correct procedure to snip and post correctly. "

Checked the Google Groups Correct Procedure. There are NONE Morgans.
I do not need your endorsement or permission to post in any manner I
choose. Real smart with the name calling!

[Jim Logajan]

"lynn" > wrote:
> "... grasp the correct procedure to snip and post correctly. "
>
> Checked the Google Groups Correct Procedure. There are NONE Morgans.
> I do not need your endorsement or permission to post in any manner I
> choose. Real smart with the name calling!
>

The following is just a sincere attempt to be helpful, not critical, nor
directed at lynn - this just seems an appropriate point to interject this.
Many of the participants in this thread generally post on topic and
interesting messages to this and other aviation groups. With that hopefully
in mind, the following Google groups link may prove a useful reminder:

"What's good 'netiquette' when posting to Usenet?"
http://groups.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=12348&topic=250

Some highlights:
"You read these posts; so do millions of other people."

"Most people on Usenet will know you only by what you say and how well you
say it."

"On Usenet, you are your words. Choose them carefully."

Have a happy new year!