Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
How Common Is It For A 747 To Abort Landing?  
User currently offlineCheckraiser From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (9 years 7 months 1 week ago) and read 4694 times:

I ask this because last September I was on AI 127 FRA-ORD. I'd guess that the A/C was about 50' AGL but I'm not sure, all I know is that I could see the runway directly underneath us when suddenly the crew punched it and we flew back toward downtown before trying again, I believe on a different runway.

So anyway, does this happen often? What things would cause a pilot do to this at the very last second?

8 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineN317AS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (9 years 7 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 4680 times:

Things on the runway, such as deer, cows, other aircraft.
Forgot to put the gear down.
Landing long, so they new they couldn't slow down in time.
A 747 is just as likely to go around as any other aircraft.
The only one that won't go around is one that just burned it's last drop of fuel.


User currently offlineOzLAME From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 338 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (9 years 7 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 4625 times:

At work at SYD last week I watched an Atlas Air 744F going around because the a/c that landed previously (Emirates A340) took too long to clear the runway. In this part of the world go-arounds by any aircraft are not very common, perhaps the traffic is spaced further apart than in the USA or Europe. There is no reason to think it will happen more (or less) frequently with a 747 than with other a/c.


Monty Python's Flying Circus has nothing to do with aviation, except perhaps for Management personnel.
User currently offlineBaw716 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 2028 posts, RR: 27
Reply 3, posted (9 years 7 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 4565 times:

The only time 747s become more prone to more go-arounds vs. other aircraft are when the airplane is approaching max landing weight. The speed of the approach at max landing weight is on the high side (160-165kts), so a great deal of runway is required for the landing. There can be no obstacle whatsoever on the runway or any potential for obstruction, as once the wheels are down, it is very hard to get back off the deck. Not impossible, but very hard. As a result, most pilots tend to be very conservative on the approach at high weights and speeds. In the sim, when flying the 747-400 near max landing weight, I have a lot of difficulty keeping the aircraft on the glideslope without either the autoland system, or if hand flying, a lot of throttle input...max flaps and keep the HSI just above center. Ground effect kicks in at about 500 feet and if everything is not configured properly by 200 feet (decision height), you must go around or have a very hard landing. At 200 feet, you can firewall the engines and with the flaps full down at 160 kts, you can pull up one notch to kill the sink and at 180 kts, pull back to 15 degrees, positive climb, gear up, clean up, accelerate to 250kts and 3000 feet and make a big 360 turn (however ATC turns you) back around for another approach.

Now, insofar as go arounds are concerned, they are no big deal. They just extend the flight time another 20 minutes or so for the pilots to bring the aircraft around for another approach. I have had only three of them in 30 years of flying. The closest to landing was at Denver Stapleton in a United DC10, when we got down to 50 feet and then suddenly bailed out of the landing and climbed out and circled Denver for four orbits, then landed. The crew kept us informed the entire time...the flight crew spotted something on the runway as they were making their flair and decided to go around and have the airport have a look at the runway. All it turned out to be was an exceptionally large piece of ice kicked up by another aircraft on landing, so once it had been removed the runway was fine. The piece of ice was large enough that it had the potential to seriously damage a larger aircraft; so it was a good call on the part of our captain. Either way, I don't really care if he made a mistake. As long as any action is taken in a conservative manner and as long as the action is taken in the interest of safety, I really don't care. I put my life in the flight crew's hands every time I step on board on airplane.

baw716



David L. Lamb, fmr Area Mgr Alitalia SFO 1998-2002, fmr Regional Analyst SFO-UAL 1992-1998
User currently offlineN754PR From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (9 years 7 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 4470 times:

Well, at least 747's dont land at max landing weight very often  Smile

User currently offlineCosmicCruiser From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2255 posts, RR: 15
Reply 5, posted (9 years 7 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 4392 times:

Quoting Baw716 (Reply 3):
The speed of the approach at max landing weight is on the high side (160-165kts), so a great deal of runway is required for the landing. There can be no obstacle whatsoever on the runway or any potential for obstruction, as once the wheels are down, it is very hard to get back off the deck.

That's a little dramatic, the MD-11 has a high app. speed (Vapp) and 160-165 kts. is actually quite normal and it really isn't that big a deal. Most towers never ask for anything slower than about 160 inside the marker and most int'l towers know fairly well that a plane coming from across the ocean isn't going to be light. We can land on 27L at CDG and make Y5 without much trouble unless it's wet.

Quoting Baw716 (Reply 3):
I have a lot of difficulty keeping the aircraft on the glideslope without either the autoland system, or if hand flying, a lot of throttle input...max flaps and keep the HSI just above center.

practice, practice, practice


User currently offlineBellerophon From United Kingdom, joined May 2002, 585 posts, RR: 59
Reply 6, posted (9 years 7 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 4366 times:

Checkraiser

A B747 is no more likely to abort a landing than any other type of aircraft.

The most common reason is probably that the preceding aircraft has failed to clear the runway after landing in sufficient time.

Contrary to what has been written:

    The B747 is an easier aircraft to fly on approach at max landing weight than at light weight, and is not difficult at any weight.

    The B747 will go-around quite happily, from as low as 20ft, on four or three engines, without any problem or difficulty whatsoever, and without touching the runway.

    The B747 go-around procedure bears little relationship to that described above.

    The B747 will go-around on two engines from around 500ft, the main problem being the (probable) lack of ability to retract the gear.

    On the B747, if not fully configured for landing by 200ft, it means you will have ignored the aural warning you received descending through 500ft.

    On the B747, ground effect becomes noticeable on approach at around 200ft not 500ft.

Speaking as someone with 8,000+ hrs on type, the B747 is one of the nicest and easiest handling aircraft around, a delight to fly, and the -400 version is the best of the lot.

Regards

Bellerophon


User currently offlineNASCARAirforce From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3184 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (9 years 7 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 4305 times:

i used to work at DTW and used to see a 747 do an aborted landing/go around at least once a week. At that time NW, BA, KL and LH were all flying 747s into DTW.

I also would occassionaly see Virgin 747s do go arounds at MCO when I lived by MCO.


User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (9 years 7 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 4209 times:

I have to agree with Bellerophon.

The 747 and 747-400 is an easy aircraft to fly at MLW. When it's light ( a freighter at 175 tonnes) you just can't slow down!

Just another comment on what has been written. Most airlines have as part of their SOP some requirement for a "stabilized approach". For example, here at SQ, on an instrument approach we have to be stabilized no later than 1000' for a visual it's 500'. If you aren't configured by those limits it's an overshoot, no questions asked.

Also, the go around procedure isn't at all what's described. It's very simple on the 400. You hit TOGA, follow the pitch bar, flaps to 20 and at positive confirmation of the climb call for gear retraction. Nothing more, nothing less.

Like Bellerophon between the classic and the -400, I have about 12000 hours.


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...
How Common Is It To Fly Jumpseat? posted Thu Aug 18 2005 11:21:38 by JMJAirways
How Likely Is It For A BA Financial Meltdown? posted Fri Aug 12 2005 09:15:14 by IADLHR
Bangkok Suvarnabhumi - How Is It For Spotting? posted Wed Oct 18 2006 07:49:27 by Joge
How Costly Is It To Park A Plane During Layover? posted Tue Jul 11 2006 22:14:52 by AeroWesty
How Dangerous Is It To Fly? posted Tue Apr 4 2006 11:58:42 by ESGG
How Much Is It To Replace A Slide! posted Tue Mar 28 2006 16:20:06 by Delta777jet
"How Safe Is It To Fly In Africa?" (BBC) posted Wed Dec 14 2005 00:51:46 by Varig767
How Hard Is It To Get Absolutely Free Up-grade JL? posted Tue Dec 14 2004 07:32:50 by Ktachiya
How Much Is It To Lease A Jet? posted Sat Dec 11 2004 06:46:03 by Gregviperrt
How Important Is It To Get Clearance From ATC? posted Fri Oct 29 2004 03:26:20 by Ktachiya