Why do big commercial planes go around?

kayoh190 said:
No sweat, and it's a good question! The choice to evacuate isn't always black and white, and this topic tends to generate a good amount of discussion from the class while in the schoolhouse. :)
Click to expand...

Indeed. It occurs to me that maybe they should add to the pax briefing about flotation and oxygen and where your exits are located, that in the event of an emergency stay calm and focus on the flight attendants' instructions. But maybe they don't do that because your FA might be missing or incapacitated and you don't want people just sitting there waiting to be told what to do.
 
tawood said:
My girlfriend and I like to fly to a local casino, which takes us through a TRSA, and I get flight following (so I'm listening/talking to approach). We've gone twice in the past two months, and both times, we heard an airliner go around. I didn't exactly catch why they did it the first time (but seems as though I remember the pilot sounded hectic, like things were getting ahead of him), but I was paying attention to the second one, and it sounded like they were not vectoring him properly (Vectored too close maybe? He kept making requests to turn, they kept telling him to hold off...I was watching on the ADSB and he was flying directly at the airport). The first guy sounded relieved to go around, the second guy sounded ****ed...
But I'm definitely no ATP, so maybe I was just not understanding what I was hearing/seeing...
Click to expand...

The first time it happened earlier this year, the pilot said nothing. The second time, when that one announced we would be returning to land, he did sound rather annoyed.
 
Rushie said:
Wow! Interesting how the FA told everyone to stay in their seats instead of immediately initiating evacuation.
Click to expand...
The Captain had not ordered an evacuation and there was no immediate threat requiring an immediate evacuation.
 
SCCutler said:
Could result in the same thing, but spacing is when the second aircraft is too close to the first while still airborne, while failure to clear the runway can (and does) occur even after a properly-spaced approach.

I've had to go around a time or two because the goofball ahead of me chose to power-taxi to the turnoff most convenient to his parking rather than clear the runway at the first available (safe) place.
Click to expand...
Reminds me of a story. It was into SFO. Pilot asks the controller how far ahead of us is the plane he's following. Controllers says "3 miles." Pilot says looks a little closer than that to me. Controllers says "well push the seat back then." Controller got a couple weeks on the beach for that one.
 
Larry in TN said:
The Captain had not ordered an evacuation and there was no immediate threat requiring an immediate evacuation.
Click to expand...

Then I'm ignorant of what constitutes an immediate threat. I think if I'd been that passenger watching the engine drag along the asphalt throwing sparks I would have felt threatened.
 
Same reason any plane goes around, stuff on the runway, bad winds, viz, just doesn't look good.

They just don't do it as often
 
tawood said:
My girlfriend and I like to fly to a local casino, which takes us through a TRSA, and I get flight following (so I'm listening/talking to approach). We've gone twice in the past two months, and both times, we heard an airliner go around. I didn't exactly catch why they did it the first time (but seems as though I remember the pilot sounded hectic, like things were getting ahead of him), but I was paying attention to the second one, and it sounded like they were not vectoring him properly (Vectored too close maybe? He kept making requests to turn, they kept telling him to hold off...I was watching on the ADSB and he was flying directly at the airport). The first guy sounded relieved to go around, the second guy sounded ****ed...
But I'm definitely no ATP, so maybe I was just not understanding what I was hearing/seeing...
Click to expand...
It's interesting to be talking to approach when the aluminum tubes are doing strange things. I was talking to Denver approach on the way to FTG when they had multiple microbursts. The controller commented that he had airliners going all over. I finally got turned south and could see the effect of the microbursts on the ground and decided the airliners had the right idea. I didn't go to FTG that day. Prolly could have later in the night but nothing much changed about the radar picture for an hour so I just decided the morning would be better. The next day the Denver Post had a picture of an electrical substation damaged by a microburst...
 
I caused two 757s (I think they were) to go around.

I was flying medevac into Phoenix one night, being vectored to follow the two 757s. Then I felt a rhythmic bounce to the plane. I looked back and the medics were working feverishly on the patient doing CPR.

I called the approach controller, apologized and told him the patient just went super and we need on the ground now.

The controller did not hesitate and sent the two 757s on a go around and then gave me direct to the airport, and told me which taxiway I will exit and suggested I plan on a long landing to reduce taxi time.
 
Rushie said:
Then I'm ignorant of what constitutes an immediate threat. I think if I'd been that passenger watching the engine drag along the asphalt throwing sparks I would have felt threatened.
Click to expand...
The sparks stop when the airplane stops. The metal airplane will not burn. A fire would have to be fed by leaking fuel or hydraulics. No significant braking so wheel/tire fires aren't a concern. As long as there isn't anything leaking, a fire is unlikely.

Unless there are indications of a fire, the biggest threat of injury comes from the evacuation itself. The CFR personnel will be on scene within two minutes and can report on any leaks and have thermal imaging to locate and evaluate any hot spots that could escalate into a fire.
 
kayoh190 said:
It's not a trivial thing to evacuate an airliner, and almost always there'll be injuries during the process. So unless there's obvious smoke or fire entering the cabin, I'd imagine most crews will wait a few seconds to assess the situation before calling for the evacuation. At my company, even if we plan on evacuating after getting the plane stopped on the runway, the captain will initially tell everyone to stay seated, we'll run a short checklist, and *then* the CA will initiate the evacuation command. It's probably nice to have the engines stopped and flaps down for those passengers evacuating over the wing. Obviously nobody wants to burn up in a fire, but a moment or two to assess the situation instead of just blindly issuing the command as soon as the airplane is stopped is generally considered the prudent thing to do.
Click to expand...

NTSB report says the evac was started after visible smoke started on the left side and started entering the cabin. Evac was done out of the right side.
 
Zeldman said:
I caused two 757s (I think they were) to go around.

I was flying medevac into Phoenix one night, being vectored to follow the two 757s. Then I felt a rhythmic bounce to the plane. I looked back and the medics were working feverishly on the patient doing CPR.

I called the approach controller, apologized and told him the patient just went super and we need on the ground now.

The controller did not hesitate and sent the two 757s on a go around and then gave me direct to the airport, and told me which taxiway I will exit and suggested I plan on a long landing to reduce taxi time.
Click to expand...

That too

Haven't made anyone go around yet, but I've put a few into holds.
 
Larry in TN said:
The sparks stop when the airplane stops. The metal airplane will not burn. A fire would have to be fed by leaking fuel or hydraulics. No significant braking so wheel/tire fires aren't a concern. As long as there isn't anything leaking, a fire is unlikely.
Click to expand...
Many engine gearboxes are magnesium, containing oil, with fuel components located on the bottom of the engine.
 
Larry in TN said:
The sparks stop when the airplane stops. The metal airplane will not burn. A fire would have to be fed by leaking fuel or hydraulics. No significant braking so wheel/tire fires aren't a concern. As long as there isn't anything leaking, a fire is unlikely.
Click to expand...

I do actually know that.:D What I wouldn't know were I there, would be whether a leak existed.

Unless there are indications of a fire, the biggest threat of injury comes from the evacuation itself. The CFR personnel will be on scene within two minutes and can report on any leaks and have thermal imaging to locate and evaluate any hot spots that could escalate into a fire.
Click to expand...

I understand the threat from the evacuation itself and it's a matter of investigating the situation and calculating the risk differential if uncertain, and making the call. The real problem is: Having flown my own self in planes I find it extremely hard to sit strapped down while "others" assess and make the decisions. :p

But I've never flown anything like a commercial jet so don't know much about these matters and know I must trust those of you that do. This is very useful to learn.
 
Rushie said:
I do actually know that.:D What I wouldn't know were I there, would be whether a leak existed.
Click to expand...
No reason to suspect a leak from a nose-gear collapse on landing. The CFR personnel will be on site in a minute, or so, and will be able to advise. If you order an evacuation there will almost certainly be injuries.
 
GlennAB1 said:
Many engine gearboxes are magnesium, containing oil, with fuel components located on the bottom of the engine.
Click to expand...
There have been many gear-up, or partial gear-up, landings. How many have resulted in fires which would threaten those on board?
 
Twice I've had an airliner sent around at IAD because I was on the runway. The first was a rather nasty incident that resulted in a complaint being filed with the facility. I got a nice apology over that one.

There was another where tower had told us to go into position and hold at an intersection (Margy was flying and her instructor was in the right seat. I was in the back) and then forgot about us apparently. They sent the guy on final around when they realized we were still waiting for clearance. We told them we could get off in seconds, but they'd already canceled the guy's landing clearance.
 
GlennAB1 said:
How many get the smoking areas hosed down? All of 'em.
Click to expand...
Of course. What else would you expect?

The issue here is weighing the threat of injury through an evacuation against the unknown threats that might be faced from staying on board. Sparks, and a little smoke, from scraping metal during the landing do not present much of a threat unless there is something for them to ignite. The threat of injury in an evacuation, often including broken bones, is well known.
 
Larry in TN said:
Of course. What else would you expect?

The issue here is weighing the threat of injury through an evacuation against the unknown threats that might be faced from staying on board. Sparks, and a little smoke, from scraping metal during the landing do not present much of a threat unless there is something for them to ignite. The threat of injury in an evacuation, often including broken bones, is well known.
Click to expand...
My point is, if an engine is scraping there's almost always something to ignite.
 
LOL POA, typical thread drift. Go arounds to evacuations to scraps causing fires to.....?

BIG laugh.jpg
 
Rushie said:
Can the ATPs here tell me what the most usual reasons are? Twice this year I've been on a flight that did a go around. Both times clear conditions. I know what made me do go arounds when I was flying a C172; mostly I was screwing up the approach but sometimes there was traffic conflict or something on the runway, but I assume- maybe wrongly- you guys don't screw up approaches, and the idea that you have to do it to avoid a collision in a class B or C is disconcerting. This last time the Captain announced that we had to abort the landing and will turn around and go back shortly. No other explanation. While deplaning I noticed the co-pilot looked about twelve which got me wondering if maybe he was still practicing landings. Or do you just get told by the tower to go around without ever knowing why yourselves? Or is it because something is wrong with the checklist; naturally I'm thinking stuff like, "The gear must not have gone down, we're all gonna die."

So what are the most typical reasons you take a big plane full of passengers on what must be an expensive fuel consuming, schedule delaying go around?
Click to expand...

The two times I've been a passenger on an airliner that went around were due to the previous aircraft not clearing the runway in time. No biggie. People around me were freaking out, but it didn't worry me. Just delayed landing. They fly a big pattern getting back for another try.
 
Ghery said:
The two times I've been a passenger on an airliner that went around were due to the previous aircraft not clearing the runway in time. No biggie. People around me were freaking out, but it didn't worry me. Just delayed landing. They fly a big pattern getting back for another try.
Click to expand...
Well... that's what they told you anyway.
 
GlennAB1 said:
Are you implying that it's not an emergency situation and the fire department need not respond?
Click to expand...
No. I think I've made it quite clear that they are a valuable resource for making the evac/no-evac decision once they arrive.
 
GlennAB1 said:
Yeah. They aren't going to admit they went around because they got a gear warning horn when throttles were reduced with gear still retracted.
Click to expand...

Good Lord. Does that actually happen?
 
Rushie said:
Good Lord. Does that actually happen?
Click to expand...
It's never happened to me (not to say it never happens), but I think the point is the crew will keep most stuff from the pax if it reflects poorly on the crew. This would include small things like unstabalized approach.
 
GlennAB1 said:
November 1, 2011, LOT Polish Airlines Flight 016, a Boeing 767, Captain Tadeusz Wrona declared an emergency with a loss of landing gear en route, and made a belly landing in Warsaw with a small fire, but all passengers and crew were evacuated with no injuries.
Click to expand...
All because they couldn't find the one C.B. that was popped...

A couple of unique things about that landing.

1. They had a known hydraulic leak. The hydraulic fluid is quite flammable. That raised concern over the possibility of a post-landing fire.

2. They landed with all three gear retracted (the popped C.B. prevented the alternate gear extension system from working) so the distance to the ground was much shorter than normal making the trip down the slides shorter and slower which reduced the liklehood of injuries.

3. Even though they performed an immediate evacuation, the cabin remained habitable at all times.
 
GlennAB1 said:
Yeah. They aren't going to admit they went around because they got a gear warning horn when throttles were reduced with gear still retracted.
Click to expand...
The gear horn would have gone off much earlier than that. It goes off when landing flaps are selected, without the gear down, which would normally occur 6nm to 10nm from the runway.

With approach flaps, and the gear up, you'd be coming down final at flight-idle and 170+ KIAS wondering why you can't slow down/get down.
 
Larry in TN said:
All because they couldn't find the one C.B. that was popped...

A couple of unique things about that landing.

1. They had a known hydraulic leak. The hydraulic fluid is quite flammable. That raised concern over the possibility of a post-landing fire.

2. They landed with all three gear retracted (the popped C.B. prevented the alternate gear extension system from working) so the distance to the ground was much shorter than normal making the trip down the slides shorter and slower which reduced the liklehood of injuries.

3. Even though they performed an immediate evacuation, the cabin remained habitable at all times.
Click to expand...
I get your points 1-3, but for heavens sake, are you saying the main gear extension was on the same electric circuit the back up was??????

Never flew an airplane like that. In fact I've never flown an airplane that even needed electrical power to blow gear for the back up.
Not saying your wrong in anyway, just that I'm surprised.
 
Larry in TN said:
The gear horn would have gone off much earlier than that. It goes off when landing flaps are selected, without the gear down, which would normally occur 6nm to 10nm from the runway.

With approach flaps, and the gear up, you'd be coming down final at flight-idle and 170+ KIAS wondering why you can't slow down/get down.
Click to expand...
So, it might take two holes to line up in that Swiss cheese...
 
Kritchlow said:
I get your points 1-3, but for heavens sake, are you saying the main gear extension was on the same electric circuit the back up was??????
Click to expand...
No. The primary gear extension was lost when they lost he fluid in the center hydraulic system shortly after takeoff. The alternate extension system didn't work because of the undetected popped C.B.

GlennAB1 said:
So, it might take two holes to line up in that Swiss cheese...
Click to expand...
The point was that they'd have a lot of warnings prior to reducing the power to idle in the flare. Either the inability to slow down/get down or the gear horn when landing flaps are selected while still lmore than five miles from the runway.
 
Not trying to disregard ATC, but one needs to watch that TCAS. Depending in the type(app speed) you normally want to see a 3 mile gap in front of you, 2.5 NM minimum. Once near or inside the FAF that 2.5 miles tells you what you need to know. One needs to add a bit for slippery runways. Just saying, besides following ATC speed instructions, keep abreast yourself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top