Jiml1126 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (12 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 2934 times:
KLM Asia and Taiwan's CAA are arguing for the ACTUAL reason why a KLM ASIA B747-400Combi make go-around process when trying to land at Taipei on June 17.
Both the passenger on board KLM Asia (KL877) and the pilot said that they saw a plane on runway 05, the runway which this flight is going to land. But CAA said that KLM Asia's 744 did not receive ILS signals.
Passengers on-baord KL877 told the newspaper that the 744 raised its altitude sharply when the plane was trying to land. During the confusion, the pilot made an announcement in English, then an announcement made by the translator, saying there's another plane still on Runway 05, so the plane has to go-around.
Passengers on-board were scared, and blaming the ATC for making such mistake, especially after CI611 crash.
However, CAA said that the tape of the conversation between the 744 and ATC shows that the pilot apparently did not receive any ILS Signals, which the plane has to go-around and receive the signal.
The weather at TPE on the 17th was poor, there were several reports saying the plane was facing turbulant, and missed the path.
KLM has contacted the flight crew/translator, and confirms that the pilot said there was a plane on Runway 05. But these crews are in Bangkok right now, so there was no further contact.
CAA responded that they will investigate on this case to determine who is telling the lie.
According to international rule, if similar incident happens, the pilot will report to its own country's (country A) authority about the case. Then country A will file a warning letter to country B (the country where the incident happens). Taiwan had received several warnings from other countries before the pilot actually filed the incident report to Taiwan.
PW100 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2002, 2799 posts, RR: 17
Reply 1, posted (12 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 2906 times:
So just how would a passenger be able to see an aircraft on a runway on which the plane he is sitting in is about to land...? Don't think that even the front pax windows on a 744 allow front viewing opportunities?
Just wondered if a highly paid and well respected captain would misinform 400 pax or so to make up for [maybe] his own mistake, or not to let his airline look bad, and put the blame on someone else. A go-around isn't really very unusual.
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
ETA Unknown From Comoros, joined Jun 2001, 2115 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (12 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2831 times:
Think about it... during the go-around, it's quite possible one side of the aircraft flew directly over the runway, therefore, pax sitting on that side could see if there was another aircraft on the runway.
I'm inclined to believe the pilot in this case, as if there wasn't another aircraft involved, a pilot would tell pax the go-around had to be done by either poor weather or ATC's request.
Chiawei From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 959 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (12 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 2790 times:
Not true. 3 years ago this happened to me on TWA MD-80 into St. Louis.
The weather was a bit windy but no mean rough. The pilot in command pulled up suddently just after he glided past the threshold and still could not land the plane. Flare too early. And he has to stick the landing, which he don't want to do. So he pulled up as we are about halfway down the runway. And give us a BS story that there was another aircraft on the runway.
2nd approach. We were flying side by side with another MD-80 to land. The pilot of our MD-80 was basically whoppling down the glide path. I thought it was the wind, but the MD-80 to our right was coming down very smoothly. So it appears that our pilot simply can't fly to plane. So the 2nd approach went worse than the 1st one. I could see the other MD-80 touched down well before threshold and had a perfect landing. While our beloved idiot pilot glided past the threshold again, again flared too early. Instead of having another go around and give us another BS reason. He decided to stick the landing instead, by touching down hard on the right wheel. I was shocked that we did not crash at that time.
So not to defend anyone in the CAA vs KLM. It's highly possible for a pilot to BS as well.
Spitfire From France, joined Feb 2001, 801 posts, RR: 6
Reply 7, posted (12 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2748 times:
Anyway it's far better to make a go-around for ANY reasons the Cpt. find important than to make a crash landing....HE IS THE MAN CONTROLLING IS A/C AND THE LIFE OF THE PEOPLE ON BOARD. Stop arguing stupidly on case like this one...You have absolutely no first hand information.
Sabena ... Never to be forgotten (12 years already , what a shame !! )
Cx flyboy From Hong Kong, joined Dec 1999, 6694 posts, RR: 55
Reply 8, posted (12 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2697 times:
If you do a go-around, you obviously should say something to the passengers. What you tell them will either alarm them, or put them at ease. If you tell them your gear is not coming down then they get scared. If you tell them that there was an aircraft blocking the runway, they would be at relative ease.
This has happened to me before. We had a malfunction on finals that resulted in a go-around. Rather than tell passengers what the malfunction was, we told them there was an aircraft on the runway. We weren't completely wrong, becasue the aircraft ahead vacated very late, but still, no point in alarming passengers.
Bobcat From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (12 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2673 times:
...saying there's another plane on the runway you're about to land on isn't exactly a very comforting thought to the passengers...
I remember a BA flight from LHR to IAD I took about two years ago. The pilot said there was a squirrel on the runway and we had to go around. A lot of the passengers were laughing as the 747-400 started to pull up again. (some said we should just run down the squirrel) Of course, I knew the real reason was that the previous plane that had landed did not exit to the taxiway as early as the tower had instructed. I learned this from my friend who was picking me up. He was sitting in his car watching the plane land and listening to his scanner...
Tsentsan From Singapore, joined Jan 2002, 2016 posts, RR: 15
Reply 10, posted (12 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 2659 times:
Remember my first go-around in Perth, was about 100-200 feet before the A340 powered up and climbed out. Pilot came on and said it was windshear and strong winds. Winds were in fact sort of like 280 at 25 gusting 45 and landing runway was 21. So sometimes they DO tell the truth.
Jwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 17
Reply 11, posted (12 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2615 times:
The story that there was no ILS signal is highly unlikely.
If the aircraft had no ILS lock it would have been cleared for a visual approach instead or aborted the approach a lot earlier to try again.
So there was something wrong with the runway that made a landing impossible (or highly dangerous), OR at the last moment the pilot noticed something wrong with the aircraft (which he would have reported to the tower controller, KLM pilots are professsionals...).
An aircraft on the runway would be a good reason to abort your landing...
JAT From Canada, joined Feb 2000, 1101 posts, RR: 9
Reply 13, posted (12 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2472 times:
Actually, the passenger can see the runway in certain circumstances. This happened to me once. I was in a JAT 737 and we were landing at BEG, we flew a circuit over the runway and as we were flying the base leg I could clearly see the runway and the airport. It was quite a nice site... I wish I had taken a picture....
CPH-R From Denmark, joined May 2001, 6221 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (12 years 11 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 2353 times:
ATC: KLM877 the reason for go around.
KLM877: We are not established KLM877. (no ILS signals received, according to CAA)
ATC: KLM877 do you mean unstable approach.
KLM877: Too high and too fast KLM877, to make a safe landing so we want a go around.
Well, the pilot didn't say anything about a plane on the runway. The problem here, is that it was the passengers that told a newspaper that the plane was forced to go-around, NOT the pilot, NOT the CAA.