The ATC controller thought funny - did stupid. No wiggle room on this one, there is no excuse.

 

Humor is should be like; Ground "Flight blah blah hold short for the Smurf Jet.", Flight blah blah pilot "I don't see any blue airplane!".

 

Regards,

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

Crashing is dangerous.

 

A Go around is meant to have 1 purpose. To avoid a crash. (and not to be a joke).

 

By this logic, avoiding a crash is dangerous.

This is obviously absurd.

 

Obviously "training" and "practice" is another purpose for a go around. Training has the purpose of learning how to do something. In the case of go around practice, the pilot is training how to avoid crashing into aircraft that are on the runway when landing.

 

 

By this logic, avoiding a crash is dangerous.

 

You are again obfuscating... You said a go around is not dangerous. I said it was. Avoiding a crash has nothing to do with the statement that a go around is dangerous. Of course a crash is dangerous. 

You are again obfuscating... You said a go around is not dangerous. I said it was. Avoiding a crash has nothing to do with the statement that a go around is dangerous. Of course a crash is dangerous. 

 

Apart from this stilly little incident where it was "A joke"

 

Can you tell me where going around is done for any reason other than training or avoiding a crash (or hard landing, which can be called a crash, because it causes damage).

 

I can't think of any.

 

Go arounds are done to avoid damage to the aircraft.

Sometimes going around will avoid damaging an aircraft

 

sometimes not going around will damage an aircraft

 

 

Here are some crashes that happened because the pilots did not go around when they should have gone around.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_1420

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_331

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_358

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_India_Express_Flight_812

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion_Air_Flight_538

 

according to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority of Australia, over 800 standard go arounds are performed in a typical year (average)

This figure does NOT include training.

800 actual go arounds that are not related to training per year in Australia.

Not worldwide. Not even just the USA. Just Australia

http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD:1001:pc=PC_91481

 

Not something to joke about. But not weird abnormal dangerous death hair on fire stuff.

hopskip/Trent...

 

Sorry, I think you've completely missed the whole point of this thread.

 

You point out....  "Apart from this stilly (sic) little incident where it was "A joke"

 

It appals me that you see that placing an aircraft and pax in a potentially (note.. potentially) dangerous situation is no more than a "silly little incident"

 

FYI, real world go-rounds are considerably more involved than flying from your desk with a few mouse clicks.
Moreover, to compare a PA28 go round with that of a 777 is nonsense, and not helped by your egoistic "selfie " video....

 

As a 35+ year ATC, I can't  believe a controller could be that stupid and irresponsible.

 

There are more facts in Real Life than you can find on Google.....

 

chris from oz

Replace Go-around by Rejected takeoff (high speed regime at least) - you'll see immediately what Tom's/Chris' point is.

If the controller were working for NATS in the UK he would have been instantly sacked!

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

Tom, a go around is not dangerous. It is a normal maneuver. The proper attitude of a pilot is that each landing approach WILL end in a go around unless certain criteria are met. The go around is one maneuver where you definately would rather perform unnecessarily than not perform and end up wishing you did.

 

None of the airlines I have ever flown for require any sort of 'investigation' for go arounds. That is because they encourage us to perform them rather then press a bad approach and ball up an airplane.

 

Like the other poster pointed out, it is not the go around that adds gray to our hair, it is what we see before we hit the togas that causes them.

 

The issue with the jokester is that he just caused thousands of dollars in extra fuel burn, crew pay and possibly missed connections and reaccommodations for the passengers. The only 'danger' would be associated with any danger from being in a flying airplane for several more minutes versus being firmly planted on the ground already.

A Go Around is not initiated to prevent a crash, it's initiated to prevent a higher risk of a crash. This is a crucial point--if you're coming in too high and decide to go around it's not because you are going to crash it's because there is higher chance of something going wrong. Going around itself is risky but-and this is the point-not as risky as what made you go around in the first place. 

 

@Hopkins, the error of your logic is that you're assuming a go around is to prevent a crash. If this were the case then yes, a go around couldn't be called risky. However, a go around is to prevent the risk of a crash, and therefore the risk of a potential crash has to be weighed against the risk of doing a go around.

 

Edit: of course a go around is dangerous. When you should be rolling out after landing you're instead at full power at low altitude with maximum workload in the cockpit. This is when mistakes happen and an engine or system failure could be catastrophic. A go around is probably the most dangerous of all flight phases by a wide margin whether or not you're trained for it or expecting it and regardless of what the company policy is. 

Had this been at a small local airport, then I could almost say haha but having occurred in KATL airspace, it's not funny in the least.

 

If you've never flown into KATL, then you have no concept of how busy that airspace is most of the time. The potential for disaster in this situation is real.

 

As I said before, when one is in the tower, there is no acceptable excuse for joking around.

 

Had I been the AC on the Delta flight, after landing I would have gone straight to the FAA office at the airport and filed a report on the incident.

A Go Around is not initiated to prevent a crash, it's initiated to prevent a higher risk of a crash. This is a crucial point--if you're coming in too high and decide to go around it's not because you are going to crash it's because there is higher chance of something going wrong. Going around itself is risky but-and this is the point-not as risky as what made you go around in the first place.

 

@Hopkins, the error of your logic is that you're assuming a go around is to prevent a crash. If this were the case then yes, a go around couldn't be called risky. However, a go around is to prevent the risk of a crash, and therefore the risk of a potential crash has to be weighed against the risk of doing a go around.

 

Edit: of course a go around is dangerous. When you should be rolling out after landing you're instead at full power at low altitude with maximum workload in the cockpit. This is when mistakes happen and an engine or system failure could be catastrophic. A go around is probably the most dangerous of all flight phases by a wide margin whether or not you're trained for it or expecting it and regardless of what the company policy is.

No, the landing touchdown is by far the most dangerous. The meeting of the aircraft and Earth is what causes bent metal and torn flesh if it is not done right. The go around trades that risk for the risks of being in an airborne aircraft several more minutes longer.

Replace Go-around by Rejected takeoff (high speed regime at least) - you'll see immediately what Tom's/Chris' point is.

That really misses the point. All the risks of a rejected takeoff are the same as continuing a landing that should have been aborted.

(...)

That really misses the point. All the risks of a rejected takeoff are the same as continuing a landing that should have been aborted.

 

Nope - you're still weighing risks against risks. Both decisions/manoeuvres are about minimizing risks. The controller's "joke" turned a (largely) riskless landing into a (potentially) risky go-around. He severely impaired safety standards by creating a risk that was not(!) justified/outweighed by an even greater risk of continuing the landing.

 

Just like you would NOT abort a takeoff in the high-speed regime for some minor caution message on your EICAS.   B)

 

(...) However, a go around is to prevent the risk of a crash, and therefore the risk of a potential crash has to be weighed against the risk of doing a go around. (...)

Had this been at a small local airport, then I could almost say haha but having occurred in KATL airspace, it's not funny in the least.

 

If you've never flown into KATL, then you have no concept of how busy that airspace is most of the time. The potential for disaster in this situation is real.

 

As I said before, when one is in the tower, there is no acceptable excuse for joking around.

 

Had I been the AC on the Delta flight, after landing I would have gone straight to the FAA office at the airport and filed a report on the incident.

I've driven planes in and out of the ATL a few times. And other, I guess, potentially disastrously busy places as well. Unless the controllers have completely screwed the pooch, the events at these places are choreographed to take place so that an aircraft taking off is not going to run into an aircraft landing or going around. The design of Hartsfield, with only parallel runways, is actually meant to mitigate your notions of disaster of planes colliding. It is the airports with the crossing runway operations that you need to be deathly afraid of.

Nope - you're still weighing risks against risks. Both decisions/manoeuvres are about minimizing risks. The controller's "joke" turned a (largely) riskless landing into a (potentially) risky go-around. He severely impaired safety standards by creating a risk that was not(!) justified/outweighed by an even greater risk of continuing the landing.

 

Just like you would NOT abort a takeoff in the high-speed regime for some minor caution message on your EICAS. B)

Like I said, the risk was from needlessly prolonging a flight. The go-around maneuver is normal and not a death defying feat. There is ALWAYS risks with a landing. There is no such thing as a riskless landing.

 

That's right, we don't. And that is why a rejected takeoff is the same as a long landing that should have been aborted.

 

I actually understand the point you are driven at. Which is continuing whatever it is you are doing is safer than changing a course of action. And I agree to a certain extent. However the go-around is not the death defying maneuver that you and Tom et al, seem to think it is, either. It is a normal maneuver akin to flying an ILS or a 30 degree banked turn to a heading. The only risk with a go-around is the risks associated with being airborne longer versus being on the ground. Of course that is riskier. But in most cases, doing a go around and being in an aircraft 15 extra minutes is less risky than touching down outside the TDZ and praying to God that the plane stops before running out of runway. Assuming these guys were stablelized and on glideslope, the go around would be considered an added risk to their flight since it exposed them to an extra 15 minutes worth of whatever risks they were already under for the last 10 hours. But it certainly isn't the most dangerous maneuver known to mankind.

That guy should've gone to the "Boston John School of ATC".

 

 

Jetbluuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuue