Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Heathrow Go- Arounds  
User currently offlineAirplanepics From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2003, 2730 posts, RR: 41
Posted (11 years 10 hours ago) and read 3599 times:

Hey,
Today I was at LHR and I saw 2 go arounds in the space of 2 hours! One was an Air Japan 744 and the other was an A321 of Aer Lingus. I have never seen a go around before, and seeing two in one day was exciting!

Airplanepics


Simon - London-Aviation.com
16 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineTekelberry From United States of America, joined May 2003, 1459 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (11 years 8 hours ago) and read 3515 times:

I'm not surprised. EGLL needs another runway or two for the amount of traffic they have.

User currently offlinePe@rson From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 19188 posts, RR: 52
Reply 2, posted (11 years 7 hours ago) and read 3493 times:

I remember being at Hatton Cross a few years ago and seeing a BA 772 abort its landing at its decision height. Thereafter, I remember the ATCO stating: 'Speedbird 164, do you have a problem?' The reply: 'Negative, we just weren't ready in the cockpit'. The aircraft rejoined the circuit and landed the next time.

[Edited 2003-07-27 01:45:46]


"Everyone writing for the Telegraph knows that the way to grab eyeballs is with Ryanair and/or sex."
User currently offlineBY188B From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 709 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (11 years 4 hours ago) and read 3440 times:

i was on BMI A321 from AMS-LHR in december and that had to abort and go-around seconds from landing because the aircraft in front hadnt cleared the runway. Pretty scary considering it was foggy and rainy and it reminded me of the near miss a few years ago when a BA 747 on approach nearly landed on top of a taxiying BM1 A320 (bound for Brussels i think) in similar conditions, apparently due to a ATC error


next flights : BD LHR-TXL J, FR SXF-STN Y, SN BRU-LHR Y, MA LHR-BUD Y, BA BUD-LHR J, BA LCY-SNN-JFK J, BA JFK-LHR J, BA
User currently offlineMarco From United Arab Emirates, joined Jul 2000, 4169 posts, RR: 12
Reply 4, posted (10 years 12 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 3366 times:

I was on a BA B777 (DXB-LHR) that had to do a go around because the plane in front of us hadn't cleared the runway in time. This was back in Nov. 2001.


Proud to be an Assyrian!
User currently offlineNed Kelly From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 407 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (10 years 12 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 3328 times:

I recall in the late 70's & early 80's when I used to go to Heathrow about twice a month, I would be lucky if I saw 2 go-aronds in a year. Last November I was at Heathrow & I saw 2 within the hour.

How times have changed.


User currently offlineArsenal@LHR From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 7792 posts, RR: 20
Reply 6, posted (10 years 12 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 3219 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Go-arounds at Heathrow are common these days, main reason for this is usually some aircraft are slow to vacate the runway. I remember seeing a JAL 744 abort it's landing for a go-around on 27L right in front of the spectators gallery last year, memorable sight!



In Arsene we trust!!
User currently offlineRick767 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2000, 2662 posts, RR: 51
Reply 7, posted (10 years 12 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 3217 times:

About 2-3 go-arounds per day are common @ LHR and also LGW.

I saw 2 in the space of 5 minutes at MAN a couple of years back, if it can happen there it can happen @ LHR!!



I used to love the smell of Jet-A in the morning...
User currently offlineAtco From Canada, joined Jul 2001, 277 posts, RR: 23
Reply 8, posted (10 years 12 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 3084 times:

I can shed some light on the situation on Saturday as I was at work in the Terminal Control ops room.

The day started on Westerlies, however as the wind changed Easterly ops became necessary.
That normally means 09L landing and 09R departing. As 09R is not used as the landing runway during normal ops it is not configured as such.

Due to the construction of T5 and the associated infrastructure, there are now large cranes under the 09L approach building the M25 link road, and this meant that 09L did not provide adequate obstacle clearance for arrivals and it was decided that 09L would be departing runway and 09R the arrival runway.

This caused numerous problems as 09R does not have lead off lights from the runway onto the taxiways, and planes simply stopped on the runway unsure of where to vacate. Compounding this probelm was that work in progress meant Block 85 could not be used to vacate the runway, which was where many aircraft were coming to a stop. Even with 6 mile spacing there were inevitably some go-arounds. Even Concorde went around, and then declared a mayday at 10dme on its second approach. Of course it landed without incident, but the delays, combined with a bit of weather avoidance created an interesting day all round.

Regards

Garry



AirTeamImages
User currently offlineAirplanepics From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2003, 2730 posts, RR: 41
Reply 9, posted (10 years 12 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 3030 times:

Why did Concorde call a Mayday?

Airplanepics



Simon - London-Aviation.com
User currently offlineGordonroxburgh From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2000, 550 posts, RR: 20
Reply 10, posted (10 years 12 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 3008 times:

It was flying in from BGI, which is right at the end of its range. Calling a Mayday on finals would ensure that the runway was clear and that it would definately get in for the 2nd time of asking and no other traffic would be in the way.

As soon as the aircraft was in the go-around they called a PAN under their SOP.

Concorde uses 2.5T of fuel for a go-around, so although there would have been enough fuel for a 3rd attempt, it is better not to push it and have to go out on a lib if some other a/c gets lost on the runway!

Concorde just got left in the hold for a little to long on Saturday night, although she does not get priority treatment on the BA272 from BGI, ATC should have understood the situation a little more and saved themselves a lot less hassle.


User currently offlineGKirk From UK - Scotland, joined Jun 2000, 24906 posts, RR: 56
Reply 11, posted (10 years 12 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 2947 times:

Seen go arounds at MAN,PMI,TFS and even NCL.
Also remember seeing Concorde do a go around watching Airport on BBC1 because an Egyptian A340 was still on the runway.



When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
User currently offlineAtco From Canada, joined Jul 2001, 277 posts, RR: 23
Reply 12, posted (10 years 12 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 2840 times:

Gordon,

"Concorde just got left in the hold for a little to long on Saturday night, although she does not get priority treatment on the BA272 from BGI, ATC should have understood the situation a little more and saved themselves a lot less hassle."

What utter tosh. Pilots are given their EAT on first contact with TMA, this gives the crew their expected approach time, at least 15 minutes before it would have entered the OCK hold. On Saturday delays were running about 25 minutes, so the crew would have been aware of the time they could expect to leave OCK to commence approach 40 minutes before that time.

How exactly are ATC meant to understand the aircraft's fuel situation if the crew do not tell us?
Do you seriously expect us to know how much fuel every plane has that enters TMA airspace?
We rely on the crew of the aircraft..........ie: the ONLY people who know to give us the information, if they do not tell us they cannot expect to be treated differently.
An aircraft experiencing a fuel shortage gets no priority unless it declares an emergency (Pan or mayday) due to a number of airlines who basically took the piss by getting priority using the fuel shortage excuse only to be found to be landing well above minimum fuel.

Please if you are going to criticsise, understand the situation first.



AirTeamImages
User currently offlineGordonroxburgh From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2000, 550 posts, RR: 20
Reply 13, posted (10 years 12 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2757 times:

Atco

I was not listening on that night; I did think that ATC were aware that the BGI arrival was right at the end of Concorde's range and altough it would not be given priority it would be looked after, but I was obviously wrong, sorry.


User currently offlineAtco From Canada, joined Jul 2001, 277 posts, RR: 23
Reply 14, posted (10 years 12 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2681 times:

Gordon we are well aware that BGI is on the limits of Conc's range, but at the end of the day we don't know how much fuel has been uplifted, what the burn was during the flight etc. Conc arriving back from BGI has accepted delays of up to 40 minutes on occassions and on some other occassions it can't take any delay and BA will swap it's place with company traffic.

We can only rely on the information given to us by the crew, if they decide not to tell us we can't read minds !

We can't provide special treatment to any individual aircraft, service is provided on a first come first served basis, not on how big, fast or special your aircraft is. I love Concorde but at the end of the day it's not fair to penalise someone else to accomodate one aircraft, even if it is special. For example how would you feel if you were on say your BA A320 holding at LAM for 30 mins, which was right on your crews limits for accepting LHR, then Concorde comes in, takes your place, and you have to divert to Stansted as a result of your EAT slipping?
This is often the dilemma crews have, in that the EAT given to them is exact to the minute, and even a 2 minute slip can cause a crew to have to divert if that extra hold causes them to drop below min diversion fuel. It happens so often that crews tell us they can take their EAT, but if it slips any further they will have to divert.

On Saturday, I think the mayday declaration was aimed at breaking off the traffic in front to achieve a "gauranteed" landing so that another go-around would not happen, as if it had the situation would have become life threatening.

A go-around does not really create much hassle from an ATC point of view, as they are well practiced, and it's just a matter of finding a place back in the sequence, for example a left or right hand circuit.

With more and more aircraft being squeezed into the system and the necissarily tight spacing multiple go arounds are only likely to become more frequent, especially in the marginal weather conditions we often get in the UK.



AirTeamImages
User currently offlineBoeing727 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 952 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (10 years 12 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2667 times:

@ SDF I saw three in about 90 minutes one night; UPS DC8, UPS 757 and a SW 737. Controller in training, I thought; pretty expensive training.

Boeing727


User currently offlineMASkargo From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2003, 181 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (10 years 12 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 2591 times:

I didn't actually see a go-around yesterday at LHR but while waiting at terminal 1 for a connecting flight to EDI, I saw an Egyptair B777-200ER (SU-GBX) abort take off and re-join the departure queue on 27R... when it did take off the undercarriage failed to retract...i think i saw it turn off to make an emergency landing!

and i was on that damn jet when it did Luxor (LXR) - Heathrow (LHR) earlier on in the morning!!!


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
CLT Close-Calls/Go-Arounds On 36R Sunday May 28 posted Mon May 29 2006 19:16:27 by United777ORD
Exciting Go Arounds? posted Wed Apr 26 2006 19:07:05 by Flylku
Go Arounds posted Sun Mar 19 2006 21:27:21 by ATCme
Aborted Final Approaches/Go-Arounds At MDW posted Sun Dec 11 2005 15:17:59 by Leelaw
Consecutive Go-arounds At LHR posted Mon Nov 21 2005 16:40:58 by Kaneporta1
LH 456, Causes Several Go-arounds At FRA posted Sun Jul 24 2005 14:32:33 by A346
Turbulence SIGMET/AIRMET And Go Arounds posted Wed Feb 2 2005 02:55:30 by Havaloc
"Go Arounds" posted Thu Apr 1 2004 18:45:58 by 7E72004
Go-arounds: How Often? posted Fri Dec 5 2003 21:30:50 by Venuscat2
Go-arounds: posted Mon Jun 16 2003 17:52:29 by JohnJ