And just like that, a career is over. I honestly hope this wasn't this guys dream job, because He just ended it. Sorry, joke, no joke, conversation beforehand, He played it wrong. There is a difference between good fun and banter back and forth when time allows, and just plain stupidity.

 

Agree 100%. Unfortunately the standard of RT in the US is not actually quite "standard"....if you hear a scanner you will hear lots of stuff that would simply get you in trouble in lots of other countries. I have worked with former US controllers and they did struggle to stop adding personal comments and thoughts to their ATC transmissions, becuase they are used to it. And I daresay this controller thought he could just take that relaxed approach a step further.

 

Whatever his reasons, it was wrong. Full stop. You never ever do or say anything that will place an aircraft in your service in an unnecesary situation, whichever it may be.

 

 

A go around isn't dangerous

 

Trent, you are kidding us, right? Do you speak with some authority on the subject? Anytime you alter the inertia of a mass the size of 777 or 747 in a high volume airspace, there are inherent dangers involved. How can you say it isn't dangerous? As I have said, I have been involved in two. The one on ANA into YSSY WAS dangerous. I was on the plane and I can speak with certainty. Have you ever been in one?

Trent, you are kidding us, right? Do you speak with some authority on the subject? Anytime you alter the inertia of a mass the size of 777 or 747 in a high volume airspace, there are inherent dangers involved. How can you say it isn't dangerous? As I have said, I have been involved in two. The one on ANA into YSSY WAS dangerous. I was on the plane and I can speak with certainty. Have you ever been in one?

 

In 2013 I have been on board 5 separate flights (A320 and 737) which went around.

This does not include GA aircraft where I have been on board (in one of the seats less than 1 metre from the front windscreen) during Circuit practice which included several intentional go arounds for practice purposes - here is a video of such an event. (That's me in the right hand seat)

 

 

 

In most cases it's much safer to do a go around than actually land (on top of other aircraft that are still on the runway).

 

Some of the Commercial operations go arounds that I have been on board for have had the following explanations offered by flight deck crew over the PA. I also had a friend who was spotting when I was arriving in Sydney and actually observe the cause (ATC clearing an aircraft for takeoff while the aircraft I was on was fairly close, and the aircraft with the takeoff clearance being a little too slow to get rolling).

 

• Jetstar A320 into Gold Coast YBCG - no explanation offered, the aircraft simply didn't descend below 1500ft, then did a left hand circuit (full 360 degree left turn) and then landed after completing the once-around. delay of around 4 minutes.
• Tiger Airways A320 - Sydney Airport YSSY, aircraft sill on runway. Aircraft was late departing Melbourne by over 2 hours, so by that stage I wasn't even looking at how late we were. I distinctly remember saying "the f word" as soon as I heard the engines increase thrust, not because OMG WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE, but because of thinking "omg even MORE delays! we're already so so late!"
• Tiger Airways A320 - Melbourne Airport YMML, "warning of a gust of wind as we were approaching" (head-translation: Windshear) I actually recorded this one on film and put it up on youtube here. a good 20 minute delay in landing due to vectoring (probably resequencing into a busy arrival flow).
• Virgin Australia 737-800 at Canberra - Something vaguely weather related. Landing was delayed by about 10 minutes. Drizzle and low cloud noted at destination (including getting wet when disembarking)
• Virgin Australia 737-800 at Sydney - Traffic related go around, about a 15 minute delay arriving.

In all of these situations, a go around is a safer alternitave than continuing to land (in windshear, into passing low cloud below minimums, into other aircraft that are on the runway etc).

 

It's a busy time (reconfiguring flaps, gear etc), but so is takeoff. In fact it's very similar to a takeoff. Certainly no media circus needed for standard go arounds.

 

Of course you don't want to be doing them because some clown idiot decided he didn't want to have an ATC job anymore, but not an OMG they nearly died!

 

more a "man that ATC guy is an idiot that has no place in the industry what a moron."

 

 

(Why did I cite 5 go arounds but only have video of one?

Sometimes I records stuff and put it up on youtube.

Sometimes I record stuff and get too lazy to put it up on youtube I have about 1TB of unused video from real flights I haven't done anything with yet.

Sometimes I record stuff and find the film quality/sound ambience is bad or a conversation is in the audio that I don't want to be heard on youtube;

and sometimes I don't bother packing my cameras or audio equipment if I'm trying to get on an airliner with no bags because I don't want to pay the extra $15)

 

In 2013 I have been on board 5 separate flights (A320 and 737) which went around.

This does not include GA aircraft where I have been on board (in one of the seats less than 1 metre from the front windscreen) during Circuit practice which included several intentional go arounds for practice purposes - here is a video of such an event. (That's me in the right hand seat)

 

 

 

In most cases it's much safer to do a go around than actually land (on top of other aircraft that are still on the runway).

 

Some of the Commercial operations go arounds that I have been on board for have had the following explanations offered by flight deck crew over the PA. I also had a friend who was spotting when I was arriving in Sydney and actually observe the cause (ATC clearing an aircraft for takeoff while the aircraft I was on was fairly close, and the aircraft with the takeoff clearance being a little too slow to get rolling).

 

• Jetstar A320 into Gold Coast YBCG - no explanation offered, the aircraft simply didn't descend below 1500ft, then did a left hand circuit (full 360 degree left turn) and then landed after completing the once-around. delay of around 4 minutes.
• Tiger Airways A320 - Sydney Airport YSSY, aircraft sill on runway
• Tiger Airways A320 - Melbourne Airport YMML, "warning of a gust of wind as we were approaching" (head-translation: Windshear) I actually recorded this one on film and put it up on youtube here. a good 20 minute delay in landing due to vectoring (probably resequencing into a busy arrival flow).
• Virgin Australia 737-800 at Canberra - Something vaguely weather related. Landing was delayed by about 10 minutes.
• Virgin Australia 737-800 at Sydney - Traffic related go around.

 

I think you are missing the point...none of the stuff you wrote here means the maneuvre itself is not dangerous.

 

If it wasn't, it would not be practiced ad-nauseum from Ab Initio to regular sim progression training.

 

A go-around is a maneuvre executed to abort a landing, it is not part of the landing preparation per-se, and it is, like it or not, a rather violent maneuvre, where a large commercial aircraft (in this case) is configured for a landing phase and has max thrust applied, you can easily go over the flaps and slats retraction speed. The inherent dangers of loss of control, engine surge, engine failure, bird strike, etc. etc. are very real, and not very pleasant, neither for the pilots nor the cabin crew/passengers.

 

I have been involved in 3 Go-Arounds where I was sitting in the jump Seat...all 3 on approach to YMML and we landed on the 4th, and the PIC, Capt Leigh Wake, now retired, told me he aged 10 years on the first maneuvre, I know I didnt sleep all that well that night.

 

I was also involved in a G/A when I was doing famil SMC at YBBN Tower (not Vatsim, the real thing)...and we had an A300 go-around due to a Thai A330 who did not obey the rolling takeoff clearance....as soon as the QFA A300 started the go-around, the Thai heavy decided it was a good time to take off, and had to be ordered to stop IMMEDIATELY...he came to a screeching halt on the runway, smoke billowing everywhere, and the QFA A300 pilot, after he landed, wanted to have a serious chat to the ADC who cleared the Thai bird for takeoff when he was on finals.

 

Every Go-Around is documented and logged with the Air Safety Authority and investigated.

I think you are missing the point...none of the stuff you wrote here means the maneuvre itself is not dangerous.

 

 

A go-around is a maneuvre (sic) executed to abort a landing, it is not part of the landing preparation per-se, and it is, like it or not, a rather violent maneuvre, where a large commercial aircraft (in this case) is configured for a landing phase and has max thrust applied, you can easily go over the flaps and slats retraction speed. The inherent dangers of loss of control, engine surge, engine failure, bird strike, etc. etc. are very real, and not very pleasant, neither for the pilots nor the cabin crew/passengers.

 

A Takeoff is a manoeuvre executed to start a flight. It is not part of the climb portion of flight per-se, and it is, like it or not, a rather violent manoeuvre, where a large commercial aircraft (in this case) is configured for a taxi phase and has max thrust applied, you can easily go over the landing gear and flaps retraction speed. The inherent dangers of loss of control, engine surge, engine failure, bird strike etc. etc. are very real, and not very pleasant, neither for the pilots nor the cabin crew/passengers.

 

I agree, a Go around (for non-training purposes) is not a good outcome for anyone, and making a joke that causes one is irresponsible. It obviously reduces safety (a plane that is on the ground and parked is safer than one that is flying. 1 approach and landing is safer than 2, An aircraft going around is in a lower energy state than one taking off, and has a higher cockpit workload resulting in a reduced safety margin due to this from a human factors standpoint.

A Takeoff is a manoeuvre executed to start a flight. It is not part of the climb portion of flight per-se, and it is, like it or not, a rather violent manoeuvre, where a large commercial aircraft (in this case) is configured for a taxi phase and has max thrust applied, you can easily go over the landing gear and flaps retraction speed. The inherent dangers of loss of control, engine surge, engine failure, bird strike etc. etc. are very real, and not very pleasant, neither for the pilots nor the cabin crew/passengers.

 

To quote a famous phrase..."I keep pitching it and you keep missing it"...

 

I have been involved in 3 Go-Arounds where I was sitting in the jump Seat...all 3 on approach to YMML and we landed on the 4th, and the PIC, Capt Leigh Wake, now retired, told me he aged 10 years on the first maneuvre, I know I didnt sleep all that well that night.

 

 

Were the go-arounds dangerous? or were the go-arounds the safe solution to something that would have been dangerous?

 

We all already know the answer to this.

 

What stopped a normal landing on the first 3 approaches? Aircraft on runway? Windshear? Low visibility?

What would have happened if the captain had avoided the dangerous go-around manoeuvre and just landed on the first one?

 

Challenging, high-workload and difficult procedures with properly working aircraft are difficult things requiring high concentration. Incorrect actions have more immediate effects that close to the ground, with speed tolerances so tight (stall and max speed are pretty close together with landing flap).

 

Yet they are a common event.

 

Yes they less safe compared to being at FL350 on autopilot. They might even be less safe than being at 50ft just about to start the flare (arguably... although a go around is a bit like a flare at full thrust with the intention of climbing)

 

Outright dangerous though?

 

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority of Australia disagrees.

http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_91481

 

 

A go-around is a procedure that is performed if a pilot is not completely satisfied that the requirements are in place for a safe landing.

A go-around is a safe, standard aircraft manoeuvre which simply discontinues an approach to landing. Go-arounds ensure passengers and aircraft are not placed in potentially dangerous situations.

Go-arounds are a commonly taught manoeuvre and are routinely practiced by all pilots, all around the world. This includes students who are yet to fly their first solo flight right through to airline pilots with many thousands of hours of flying experience.

Go-arounds are part of normal aviation practice and are a basic tool for pilots to ensure safety is not compromised during approach and landing.

Pilots will perform a go-around if they are not perfectly satisfied with any aspect of an approach and landing.

 

Direct copy-paste from the CASA website, no edits.

Here is a video of a heavy category aircraft doing a go around (100ft):

 

 

Not much drama in the cockpit. Passengers on the other hand might be scared for their lives.

I think you are missing the point...none of the stuff you wrote here means the maneuvre itself is not dangerous.

 

If it wasn't, it would not be practiced ad-nauseum from Ab Initio to regular sim progression training.

 

 

By this logic, Landing an aircraft is dangerous.

 

Better not land ever. Planes should just takeoff, and then stay in the sky forever.

 

 

Were the go-arounds dangerous? or were the go-arounds the safe solution to something that would have been dangerous?

 

You are parsing and obfuscating. A go around is dangerous, no matter the reason. 

Ah, well I still thought it would be strange for them to use a 777 on such a short route.

This particular 777-200LR, more often than not, flies into Detroit each day as Delta 19, inbound from London Heathrow, and arriving at about 12:30 PM. After a quick turnaround, it then flies the short repositioning leg from Detroit to Atlanta as Delta 630, leaving Detroit at 3:00 PM

 

Finally, (depending on the logistics in play on a given day) it either returns to London as Delta 38, leaving Atlanta at 6:35PM, or as Delta 200 to Johannesburg, leaving at 7:35 PM, or as Delta 8 to Dubai, leaving Atlanta at 10:00 PM

 

Occasionally, the DTW-ATL 77L flight originates as DAL482, arriving earlier in the day at Detroit from Shanghai.

 

So even though the majority of daily Delta flights between DTW and ATL are flown using MD88s or 737s or 717s, at least once each day

the airline will have a need to reposition a 77L from DTW back to ATL for its next long-haul, which is why this particular short flight uses the 777.

 

I became interested in the logistics of Delta's 777-200LR fleet after I purchased the PMDG 777, which lead me to the above info - gained mainly by tracking the movements of specific DAL 77Ls in Flightaware by tail number, rather than by call sign. That way you can see every place each specific aircraft travels over the course of many days.

Wow !!!!!!!!!!!  Two different sources of the same story and the only thing that has changed is "air traffic controller" to "air traffic controller(s)". Everything else is in the article is word for word.

 

And the lynch mob still come out in force? Let's just wait until some REAL news and FACTS to come out before we send the poor bar steward to the gallows?

 

As to a go around? If the conditions warrant it - yes not particularly comfortable. But as every seasoned traveller knows, it is better to do it than not.

 

I'm looking forward to the facts and I do hope that the facts will show that many have jumped up and down based on premature judgements. Why? The reason must be obvious.

This particular 777-200LR, more often than not, flies into Detroit each day as Delta 19, inbound from London Heathrow, and arriving at about 12:30 PM. After a quick turnaround, it then flies the short repositioning leg from Detroit to Atlanta as Delta 630, leaving Detroit at 3:00 PM

 

Finally, (depending on the logistics in play on a given day) it either returns to London as Delta 38, leaving Atlanta at 6:35PM, or as Delta 200 to Johannesburg, leaving at 7:35 PM, or as Delta 8 to Dubai, leaving Atlanta at 10:00 PM

 

Occasionally, the DTW-ATL 77L flight originates as DAL482, arriving earlier in the day at Detroit from Shanghai.

 

So even though the majority of daily Delta flights between DTW and ATL are flown using MD88s or 737-800/900, or 717s, at least once each day

the airline will have a need to reposition a 77L from DTW back to ATL for its next long-haul, which is why this particular short flight uses the 777.

 

One of my favourite Sydney to Melbourne flights is Jetstar flight JQ35 (JST35 to ICAO/ATC system).

 

The flight is a repositioning flight from Sydney YSSY to Melbourne YMML which then operates JQ35 to Den Pasar/Bali WADD

 

In the past this was operated by their A330. But recently this has been changed to Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner. I have already once deliberately gone to the inconvenience of travelling through the International terminal (and all the extra time, security, customs, etc) deliberately to book this flight just to get on a 787 (being an Australian airline, the cabotage is the same as domestic, even though the security and customs clearance isn't).

 

Down sides are:

• No ability to check in online and just show up at the gate lounge with the mms message barcode on your smartphone which is your boarding pass. (Really! actually a thing! still awesome).
• Have to check in between 3 and 1 hour before the flight
• Need to present a photographic ID
• Cannot carry a drink or food through the security check
• Absolutely no radio equipment for carryon, and cameras/audio stuff is usually scrutinized lots.
• Having to walk through Sydney's International terminal, which is basically a giant shopping mall where you have to walk through every single shop directly because there are no hallways anymore
• You can't get duty free stuff, because you are flying domestically.

Up sides are

• You get to fly on a 787.
• You get to fly on a 787
• You get to fly on a 787

and

• You get to fly on a 787 for about $85! Not kidding. $85 to fly on a 787 for around 1 hour.

totally worth it.

This particular 777-200LR, more often than not, flies into Detroit each day as Delta 19, inbound from London Heathrow, and arriving at about 12:30 PM. After a quick turnaround, it then flies the short repositioning leg from Detroit to Atlanta as Delta 630, leaving Detroit at 3:00 PM

 

Finally, (depending on the logistics in play on a given day) it either returns to London as Delta 38, leaving Atlanta at 6:35PM, or as Delta 200 to Johannesburg, leaving at 7:35 PM, or as Delta 8 to Dubai, leaving Atlanta at 10:00 PM

 

Occasionally, the DTW-ATL 77L flight originates as DAL482, arriving earlier in the day at Detroit from Shanghai.

 

So even though the majority of daily Delta flights between DTW and ATL are flown using MD88s or 737s or 717s, at least once each day

the airline will have a need to reposition a 77L from DTW back to ATL for its next long-haul, which is why this particular short flight uses the 777.

 

I became interested in the logistics of Delta's 777-200LR fleet after I purchased the PMDG 777, which lead me to the above info - gained mainly by tracking the movements of specific DAL 77Ls in Flightaware by tail number, rather than by call sign. That way you can see every place each specific aircraft travels over the course of many days.

Ahh okay, thanks for the information. I never knew they flew it around so closely with other flight times.

 

As to a go around? If the conditions warrant it - yes not particularly comfortable. But as every seasoned traveller knows, it is better to do it than not.

 

 

There are plenty of actual crashes that could have been avoided by going around.

Going around is less dangerous than crashing.

 

(however, landing is safer than going around when the controller was joking when he told you to go around... until the throttle is advanced to TOGA, then it's not safe to land anymore!)