Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Go-Arounds...  
User currently offlineTupolevTu154 From Germany, joined Aug 2004, 2176 posts, RR: 28
Posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 2769 times:

Hi

Today I went to LGW, surprisingly to me, I saw my first go arounds... Well, actually, three of them. Three aircraft in the space of three hours at Gatwick went around, the first being a Ryanair 737-200, the second I didn't see, but I could tell by the noise it was an A32X. The third one was a TAP Air Portugal A319.
Anyway, the A32X and 319 both took the same go-around path, that being a right turn away from the airport itself heading south. The Ryanair 732 on the other hand, just ascended and flew straight over the runway with an awaiting 777 still on the runway, the ryanair continued straight over the runway, then turned right once it had left the other side of the airport. All of the go-arounds were caused by aircraft waiting on the end of the runway for departure.

My question is, why didn't the Airbus's take the same route as the 737, or why didn't the 737 take the route of the Airbus's?

Just wondering, and decided to start a topic lol, sorry it's a bit long  Silly

Thanks for your help in advance.

Tom Big grin


Atheists - Winning since 33 A.D.
14 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineSlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 68
Reply 1, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 2711 times:

Perhaps a controller from LGW or a pilot more familiar than I am will jump in and give you a more specific answer. When a go around is necessary for traffic on the runway, they usually want to spot you in as soon as practical for your landing. (If you caused the go around they might not be so helpful.) Sometimes, however, like at the start of a bunch of arrivals, they may have to "build a hole" to slot you into.

So with arrivals at LGW mostly from the south and southeast, they may have needed them to proceed farther east than the usual. The proximity of LHR and other airports only complicates it further.



Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
User currently offlineGlom From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2809 posts, RR: 10
Reply 2, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2647 times:

You say the 732 took the different route? I wouldn't be surprised to hear noise abatement had a strong part in that. Those buggers are loud.

User currently offlineN243NW From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1609 posts, RR: 20
Reply 3, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 2540 times:

Glom-

You have a good point there. It's very possible that the controllers wanted the 732 at as high an altitude as possible before it left the airport property. My guess is that either that or the also aformentioned traffic issues, such as an incoming aircraft abeam to the active runway, resulted in the 732 going around the way it did.

-N243NW  

[Edited 2005-06-19 06:45:37]


B-52s don't take off. They scare the ground away.
User currently offlineJetlagged From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 2535 posts, RR: 24
Reply 4, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2430 times:

Just speculation but the 732 has no FMC so might have followed a simpler go-around procedure (maintain runway heading until reaching hold altitude). The A320 and A319 would have the go-around procedure for the runway programmed into the FMC. Sounds like they all headed south eventually to a common hold point.


The glass isn't half empty, or half full, it's twice as big as it needs to be.
User currently offlineBond007 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 5350 posts, RR: 8
Reply 5, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2418 times:

Probably just different routes because of traffic.


rgds,

Jimbo



I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
User currently offlineAtco2b From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 1114 posts, RR: 7
Reply 6, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2286 times:

I used to get LGW go-arounds over my house!

What i am guessing from your post Tom is that 08R was in operation. If this is the case, the A32x's would have headed towards Mayfield VOR before running parallel with 26L, then beginning the approach to 08R.

What im guessing with the FR B737-200 is that it was arriving from Dublin! The previous sector it would have been with would be Gatwick Final Approach, and previous to that it would have been with a Sector Northwest to Gatwick, before being handed to Gatwick Final Approach. Im guessing that Gatwick Final Approach was very busy and therefore the FR was being handed to the sector PREVIOUS to Finals, so that it could then be vectored with current arrival traffic.

Hope this helps Big grin lol

Tom



Hey, you want to go out for pizza and some sex? What, you don't like pizza?
User currently offlineBongo From Colombia, joined Oct 2003, 1863 posts, RR: 5
Reply 7, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2161 times:

Quoting TupolevTu154 (Thread starter):
My question is, why didn't the Airbus's take the same route as the 737, or why didn't the 737 take the route of the Airbus's?

My question is why three go-arounds in the same airport and in just a short three hours term?



MDE: First airport in the Americas visited by the A380!
User currently offlinePilotpip From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3139 posts, RR: 11
Reply 8, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 2135 times:

Because they could have been busy. All it takes to throw everything off is one aircraft not exiting the runway fast enough or taking it's time lining up for takeoff. Approach sequences aircraft so that there is the minimum time needed to safely operate the airplane when it gets busy to minimize delays. If something goes amiss, it's just like driving on the interstate. All of a sudden, everybody bunches up and a traffic jam starts. The only difference, aircraft can't just stop of course. They reject the landing, go around, and line up for it one more time.

Go-arounds aren't really that rare. Even at a field that is less busy, like STL, it isn't unusual to see two or three in my eight hour shift. If one runway is closed or it's abnormally busy you'll see more. One of the things we are taught as pilots is to reject the landing and go around if there is something we don't like down there.



DMI
User currently offlineGlom From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2809 posts, RR: 10
Reply 9, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 2131 times:

Quoting Pilotpip (Reply 8):
One of the things we are taught as pilots is to reject the landing and go around if there is something we don't like down there.

And to fly the approach expecting to go-around.


User currently offlineG-CIVP From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 1288 posts, RR: 10
Reply 10, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 2127 times:

Piotpip - It's to do with some taxi-way, runway exits re-surfacing. When using 08's, the heavies have to taxi to virtually the end of the runway to vacate, well further than usual. Although ATC have increased the spacing between landing aircraft, I would imagine some of the heavies are taking longer than expected on the runway, hence the higher number than usual go-arounds. Hope this helps.

User currently offlineBongo From Colombia, joined Oct 2003, 1863 posts, RR: 5
Reply 11, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2093 times:

Quoting Pilotpip (Reply 8):
Go-arounds aren't really that rare

I know that they aren't rare...but, three in in three hours? I may think that something on ground is happening, isn't it?  Confused



MDE: First airport in the Americas visited by the A380!
User currently offlinePilotpip From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3139 posts, RR: 11
Reply 12, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2062 times:

G-CIVP explained it. Construction causing a turnoff or two midfield to be closed would definitely be cause for extra time spent on the runway. Guess they need to space the traffic a little more until the work is done.  Smile


DMI
User currently offlineAtco2b From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 1114 posts, RR: 7
Reply 13, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2001 times:

But then again, this is air traffic. Air Traffic that is supposed to double over the next 10 years!


Hey, you want to go out for pizza and some sex? What, you don't like pizza?
User currently offlineBond007 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 5350 posts, RR: 8
Reply 14, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1949 times:

Well, air traffic cannot double without changes in the system can it?
Probably none of the busy airports could possible cope TODAY with double the traffic ... and they don't have to right now.

The simple anwer to the multiple go-arounds question, is that the aircraft on final were spaced according to best case scenario (i.e fast turnoff and clearing active runways) ... if there was construction that prevented fast exiting on the runway, and ATC didn't plan for this, then this is what happened when an aircraft didn't exit as expected.

No doubt they learned to not space them so close after a few go-arounds.

Jimbo



I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Go-Arounds...
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Go Arounds posted Sun Aug 13 2006 17:59:15 by TinPusher007
Landing Aborts/go-arounds posted Wed Jul 5 2006 21:37:40 by CBERFlyer
Practice Go Arounds - Training posted Sun May 21 2006 20:13:29 by JulianUK
How Often Do " Go Arounds" Happen posted Thu May 18 2006 03:24:52 by Fiaz
Go-Arounds... posted Sat Jun 18 2005 20:48:39 by TupolevTu154
31R Go Arounds At JFK posted Fri Jan 7 2005 14:43:57 by Robcol99
Airliner Go-Arounds - How Often? posted Thu Apr 15 2004 00:53:05 by Mr Spaceman
Go Arounds posted Mon Aug 26 2002 08:28:58 by BigPhilNYC
Flap Retract Schedule On Go Around posted Sun Oct 29 2006 10:17:30 by Speedracer1407
Airbus Go Around ... Myths And Reality? posted Wed Sep 27 2006 23:46:46 by Kaitak

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format