phunc From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2011, 63 posts, RR: 0 Posted (2 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1046 times:
Was sat in traffic on the I95 this afternoon and I watched this flight go-around at about 30 feet from KFLL. Fantastic. Does anyone know the reason?
Bit late for a config warning. It looked stable from where I was - there wasn't much of a wind and I couldn't see anything down the runway. But that's all speculation. I'd like to know the reason if anyone has the info.
mesaflyguy From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 708 posts, RR: 1 Reply 1, posted (2 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 788 times:
Could have been a sudden crosswind or possibly something on the runway that just was out of your view? This is really something that is hard to speculate.
NWADC9 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 4857 posts, RR: 10 Reply 3, posted (2 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 602 times:
Go-arounds aren't exactly newsworthy. It's like asking why Delta 1492 was delayed 25 minutes pushing back from the gate (made it up, don't go off looking it up). Abnormal, yes, but not a rarity.
Flying an aeroplane with only a single propeller to keep you in the air. Can you imagine that? -Capt. Picard
jetblueguy22 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 2021 posts, RR: 1 Reply 5, posted (2 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 528 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW FORUM MODERATOR
I just pulled up LiveATC and listened to the feed. It was an aircraft on the runway that didn't get off in time. The feed is actually pretty funny. ATC advised him to go around. He acknowledged and went around. He waited a few seconds after finishing the transmission and said "Rookie!" Gave me a good chuckle.
Pat
Professor Foltz: You push down on that yolk, the houses get bigger, you pull back on the yolk, the houses get bigger.
These go arounds are the most annoying ones as a go around is expensive and can cause delays and doesn't make passengers happy. Most passengers don't like go arounds and it scares them.
For me as a pilot it is quite fun, all the power in the go around. I like them - if they weren't that expensive...
phunc From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2011, 63 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (2 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 475 times:
Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 5):
I just pulled up LiveATC and listened to the feed. It was an aircraft on the runway that didn't get off in time. The feed is actually pretty funny. ATC advised him to go around. He acknowledged and went around. He waited a few seconds after finishing the transmission and said "Rookie!" Gave me a good chuckle.
Cheers, Pat.
Hadn't thought to check live ATC but I just did and heard it myself!
Yes indeed, this topic was not about the safety of go-arounds blah blah but more to find the reason for this one as I had a spectacular view of it and that is was only from about 30ft. Those smokey engines didn't half make my car rumble!
IAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4718 posts, RR: 26 Reply 8, posted (2 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 461 times:
Quoting wilco737 (Reply 6): These go arounds are the most annoying ones as a go around is expensive and can cause delays
Agreed, and most of the time it's much safer to just let the airplane land rather than put them back into the sequence. If this happened during the front of an arrival bank the go around and coming delay might be quite excessive getting them back in the conga line.
I've issued go arounds because the ASDE-X in the tower issued the alert and it's mandatory, even if the plane not clear of the runway was on the high speed just not across the hold line. Completely safe to let the second land, but oh no someone in their infinite wisdom determined it was unsafe for the second to land rather than let the controller use their good judgment.
Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
wilco737 From Greenland, joined Jun 2004, 8473 posts, RR: 78 Reply 9, posted (2 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 460 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD MODERATOR
Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 8): Agreed, and most of the time it's much safer to just let the airplane land rather than put them back into the sequence. If this happened during the front of an arrival bank the go around and coming delay might be quite excessive getting them back in the conga line.
Well, yeah. I had it twice in FRA. Airplane was basically off the runway, but the tail looked a little too far behind the line. Sure there are rules at what time a landing is allowed and when not. But it is really annoying. But you have to draw a line at what point the landing can be made and at what point it isn't.
Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 8): I've issued go arounds because the ASDE-X in the tower issued the alert and it's mandatory, even if the plane not clear of the runway was on the high speed just not across the hold line. Completely safe to let the second land, but oh no someone in their infinite wisdom determined it was unsafe for the second to land rather than let the controller use their good judgment.
It is interesting for me in the US that you get a landing clearance as #4 or so. In Germany they are only allowed to issue the landing clearance when the runway is actually free of any other traffic.
IAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4718 posts, RR: 26 Reply 11, posted (2 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 438 times:
Quoting wilco737 (Reply 9): Sure there are rules at what time a landing is allowed and when not. But it is really annoying. But you have to draw a line at what point the landing can be made and at what point it isn't.
Indeed, that line should be drawn IMHO when similar aircraft types/category 6,000' down the runway and exiting the runway is plenty of room for a safe operation, even less when smaller aircraft type/category are involved.
Quoting wilco737 (Reply 9): It is interesting for me in the US that you get a landing clearance as #4 or so.
I never issued a landing clearance beyond number three, couldn't count any higher without taking my calculator out!
Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2011, 63 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 708 posts, 
From Greenland, joined Jun 2004, 8473 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
