js From Malta, joined Aug 2001, 107 posts, RR: 0 Posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 10627 times:
Landing this morning at SFO, AA 1077 was given go-around orders by the Tower, presumably due to runway interference. Ten minutes later on re-approach the same flight was directed by the Tower to go-around a second time, again presumably due to runway interference. On the second order the AA pilot was decidedly frustrated and shared that in his radio communications.
Anyone have any more specific information on what was going on? Was this just a "one-in-a-million" type chance event?
tower From United States of America, joined Feb 2011, 107 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 10048 times:
A "Double Go-Around" happens rarely, but does happen. I can imagine the frustration on the pilots end.
flyby519 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 851 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 9870 times:
Wow, I can imagine they were close to saying "Clear the freakin taxiways, we are landing!"
BoeingGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 2300 posts, RR: 7 Reply 3, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 9839 times:
Quoting flyby519 (Reply 2): Wow, I can imagine they were close to saying "Clear the freakin taxiways, we are landing!"
It doesn't happen often, but as said it happens. The go around itself is no the biggest problem itself, but the fuel situation. Usually you don't have that much fuel onboard... So I guess the 3rd attempt better be a landing
And the passengers wouldn't be happy as well if they have connecting flights. It takes a while to get back in sequence and then land...
stevemchey From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 338 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 9679 times:
Quoting wilco737 (Reply 4): It takes a while to get back in sequence and then land...
In this case pretty much 10 minutes for each go-around. You can hear the frustration here at the 9:58 mark. The actual landing is around the 20:00 minute mark and the first go-around happened just seconds before that recording started (you can listen to it at the end of this recording).
wilco737 From Greenland, joined Jun 2004, 8473 posts, RR: 78 Reply 7, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 9640 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD MODERATOR
Quoting stevemchey (Reply 6): In this case pretty much 10 minutes for each go-around.
Yeah, that is quite some time. Low altitude, slow speed, you use quite some fuel. And the most you use for the go around itself: full power for a while.
Quoting LGWflyer (Reply 5): Haha me and all of us aviation fans on this site love a go around
True, the anutters would love that... I did many go arounds as a pilot and it is nice with all the power, but the fuel and the passengers etc... But if it had to be done...
N62NA From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3674 posts, RR: 4 Reply 8, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 9396 times:
Quoting stevemchey (Reply 6): In this case pretty much 10 minutes for each go-around. You can hear the frustration here at the 9:58 mark. The actual landing is around the 20:00 minute mark and the first go-around happened just seconds before that recording started (you can listen to it at the end of this recording).
Was that actually breaking any rules when the pilot of AA 1077 broke in with "Are you guys serious?" several times?
as739x From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 5819 posts, RR: 23 Reply 9, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 8859 times:
Working in the ramp tower, I have also seen the controllers be very accommodating the second time around. There was a Republic E190 who had gone around once, and the the second time was close again and the controller said " Continental XXXX, I need you off the runway, the guy behind you has gone around once already" But as we all know SFO is a challenging airport not only with the close approaches, but not a lot of room to clear the runway while switching to ground control, which is busy themselves.
"Some pilots avoid storm cells and some play connect the dots!"
downtown273 From Spain, joined Aug 2005, 263 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 8438 times:
Quoting wilco737 (Reply 4): It takes a while to get back in sequence and then land...
I once had a double go-around on LH A321 FRA-BIO, the elapsed time between our first attempt and second attempt was around 20 minutes, and the time between the second attempt and the final landing around 30 minutes IIRC. First go-around was due to aircraft on runway, second due to heavy crosswinds.
SeeTheWorld From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 1275 posts, RR: 4 Reply 11, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 8360 times:
I was in a double go around in a UA 744 from IAD to DEN ... delayed out of IAD due to thunderstorms at IAD .. delayed into DEN due to thunderstorms and tornadic activity ... flew over Pueblo to Gunnison and headed back to DEN .. on approach to the north directed to go around at the last second due to aircraft having not cleared the runway ... realigned on same approach, go around due to tornadic activity ... At this point, we were low on fuel and COS was our only alternative, but the storms had moved south into COS ... turned west, made a U-turn and he put it down heading east on the E-W ... I was on the plane for seven hours and there wasn't an empty seat ... Needless to say, when we got down, everyone was relieved ...
IAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4719 posts, RR: 25 Reply 13, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 8197 times:
Quoting brilondon (Reply 12): Yes they do. They should have enough fuel to be able to divert to another airport as well as a couple attempts to land.
Did you really just quote wilco737 and then produce the reply above? Are you kidding me? WOW
Do you have any idea how much fuel the aircraft had on it? Do you know how much fuel the aircraft burns on a go-around and subsequent approach only to have to do this all over again? Do you know how much fuel is required to be on the aircraft upon landing at the divert location? Do you know where their divert airport was located?
Quoting N62NA (Reply 8): Was that actually breaking any rules when the pilot of AA 1077 broke in with "Are you guys serious?" several times?
Nope, just pure frustration and certainly well deserved.
Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
IAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4719 posts, RR: 25 Reply 14, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 8108 times:
Quoting flyby519 (Reply 2): Wow, I can imagine they were close to saying "Clear the freakin taxiways, we are landing!"
I don't think that was the issue. The local controller is appears to be a bit in the weeds.
You NEVER (unless you want a go-around) put an aircraft on the runway "line up and wait" when you are running a squeeze play with traffic on final to the same runway, and then cross two aircraft that have landed on 28R all the while this airplane is still waiting for clearance to depart on 28L........"AAL1077 go-around".
Quoting N62NA (Reply 8): "Are you guys serious?" several times?
You can bet AAL1077 is watching this entire thing evolve and knowing the go-around is coming.
[Edited 2011-09-27 06:52:10]
Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 19697 posts, RR: 56 Reply 15, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 8027 times:
Quoting brilondon (Reply 12): Quoting wilco737 (Reply 4):
Usually you don't have that much fuel onboard...
Yes they do. They should have enough fuel to be able to divert to another airport as well as a couple attempts to land.
If the weather is good (which it apparently was), that diversion airport is probably going to be SJC or OAK, so not much extra there. Reserves aren't what they used to be, and if you do a couple of go-arounds, you're really starting to dip into them.
-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
notaxonrotax From Netherlands, joined Mar 2011, 371 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 7989 times:
Quoting brilondon (Reply 12):
Yes they do. They should have enough fuel to be able to divert to another airport as well as a couple attempts to land.
And they did have that reserve, for they made it allright without sucking fumes.
However going around a few times consumes the fuel you had for a diversion (plus go around), so if any genuine emergency arises at this particular airfield after the 2nd go around, this would leave you with very little to play with.
Better to not dig into any emergency spares in my opinion; unless you really have to!
No Tax On Rotax
Als vader voorlicht, kan je merken dat hij achter ligt.
SandroZRH From Switzerland, joined Feb 2007, 3382 posts, RR: 51 Reply 17, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 7980 times:
Quoting brilondon (Reply 12): Yes they do. They should have enough fuel to be able to divert to another airport as well as a couple attempts to land.
If the weather is good and you're not expecting any disruptions at your destination, you're not going to have the fuel for "a couple of attempts to land" AND a diversion.
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10557 posts, RR: 53 Reply 18, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 7941 times:
Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 14): You can bet AAL1077 is watching this entire thing evolve and knowing the go-around is coming.
Am I correct that the first "are you guys serious" exclamation came before the go-around?
Wilco, after the second go-around, why not declare a fuel emergency? What would be the implications of doing so?
jlbmedia From United States of America, joined Jun 2002, 604 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 7885 times:
Who generally initiates the go around, the cocpit or the tower?
IAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4719 posts, RR: 25 Reply 21, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 7826 times:
Quoting D L X (Reply 18): Am I correct that the first "are you guys serious" exclamation came before the go-around?
That is how I heard it.....they had a nice 3 D HD picture of it all.
Quoting jlbmedia (Reply 20): Who generally initiates the go around, the cocpit or the tower?
Generally the tower does however, there are situations where the crew doesn't like how things are looking and will initiate the go-around.
Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 19697 posts, RR: 56 Reply 22, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 7789 times:
Quoting D L X (Reply 18): Wilco, after the second go-around, why not declare a fuel emergency? What would be the implications of doing so?
They probably weren't at the level to justify a fuel emergency. Declaring an emergency at that point would have resulted in a lot of paperwork and probably a lot of justification to the FAA and the airline. If my impression of what their fuel situation was is correct, after the second go-around I would probably have been declaring minimum fuel, which tells ATC "we're not an emergency yet, but if there are any more delays we will be".
-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
propilotjw From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 585 posts, RR: 7 Reply 23, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 7778 times:
Quoting D L X (Reply 18): Am I correct that the first "are you guys serious" exclamation came before the go-around?
Yes. You can imagine the looks that the Capt and F/O gave each other as they saw the other aircraft on the runway. I would have said the same thing... if not more!
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10557 posts, RR: 53 Reply 24, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 6711 times:
Quoting propilotjw (Reply 23): Yes. You can imagine the looks that the Capt and F/O gave each other as they saw the other aircraft on the runway. I would have said the same thing... if not more!
It sure sounded like they wanted to say more, but it was a busy channel. The point where they slipped in "what are you guys doing down there" seemed like the only opportunity they had to yell at the tower. I think they should have been more direct: "do NOT make us go around again."
25 RoseFlyer: You can tell the controller was struggling with traffic. The Skywest airplane after the American plane made the Go Around asked for landing clearance
26 IAHFLYR: In the weeds as I mentioned earlier however, in his defense right after the go-around the was probably some coordination that had to take place with
28 wilco737: Apparently they did... But nowadays you have usually not so much fuel on board. When I think of all my 744 flights so far: 2 go around would've meant
29 N243NW: True, but I wouldn't call it good radio etiquette, since the pilot could already tell the controller was struggling with traffic. He ended up blockin
30 cyeg66: Re: fuel, it can happen, for a multitude of reasons, that the plane may not have a lot of time to 'bingo'. If a destination airport has no NOTAMs rega
31 BoeingGuy: I don't know the circumstances of this event, but the AA crew had the good fortune of having two suitable alternates within minutes flying time away
32 tower: As a tower controller, i've never heard this. Ever. Don't get me wrong, if I send the pilot around and he feels that it is in their best interest to
33 dinker225: As another tower controller, I would have to agree with the above. As for the remarks made on the frequency, clearly this was a busy time. The pilot
34 BoeingGuy: This particular pilot is very brilliant but has VERY strong opinions about a lot of stuff. Maybe what he was telling me was his opinion, but not fact
35 LONGisland89: Very true, but I'm sure the sight of the UA A320 rolling over the hold bars in front of them was the primary motivator for their go around. The contr
36 StarAC17: Don't you mean clear the freaking runway .
37 Pe@rson: Years ago, at LGW, I remember a BA 734 going around 3 or 4 times due to fog. The pilot communicating with ATC was increasingly irritated, and said, on
38 IAHFLYR: I know of a Boeing test pilot that certainly would fit your description!!! I will agree that the pilot is the final authority while driving their air
40 BoeingGuy: The DL crew didn't see the A320. That was the point. They were flaring and didn't see him. From what I understand, the controller saved the day. The
Sponsor Message: 
From Malta, joined Aug 2001, 107 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Feb 2011, 107 posts, 
From Greenland, joined Jun 2004, 8473 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2011, 2348 posts, 
From Spain, joined Aug 2005, 263 posts, 
From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 3169 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Mar 2011, 371 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Feb 2007, 3382 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
