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

 

I'm sorry, this is not good at all. The "go around" guy made a stupid mistake, and this "Boston" guy is making "jokes" constantly and intentionally, but somehow, his behavior is approved by everyone  :blink: . I wouldn't like that John at ATC when flying: Using non-English words; distorting English words; fabricating his own words... I wonder how he still works as ATC, he should be banned .

I find it amazing that the controller would have said such a thing. If you are told to go around by the controller, you have to initiate the go-around as the controller must be trying to avoid a dangerous situation on the runway.

 

I don't really understand why a go-around is dangerous. A late go-around is certainly dangerous, but a go-around initiated early in the approach shouldn't stretch the crew or the aircraft's abilities.

 

 

I don't really understand why a go-around is dangerous. A late go-around is certainly dangerous, but a go-around initiated early in the approach shouldn't stretch the crew or the aircraft's abilities.

Well, there have been a number of accidents and indeed fatalities at smaller airports when an a/c in rthe process of a go around has a collision with another in the circuit because the circuit a/c hasn't set their QNH correctly

The issue is NOT whether a go around is dangerous. The real issue is whether it's dangerous to issue "incorrect" procedures to pilots on final with hundreds of passengers on-board just because they think it is funny.

 

 

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.

 

Exactly...

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'd say the Evergreen pilot should have had a bit of a kicking for dawdling down the runway: comm from the controller at 0.32...   1.03...   1.18...   and the go-around ordered at 1.24.

 

I made it 20 seconds after that for the Finnair crew to clean up before acknowledging, a little more expeditious than the chap on the ground. They were still busy at the second 'direct to...' from the controller at 2.12. I suspect from his tone that he was pretty annoyed by the slow taxi, and pretty harrassed by having at least one more in the nearby air, also wanting his immediate attention.

 

Like you say, both Finnair pilots were pretty cool about the whole thing. Did anyone here do anything wrong?

 

At least there was no ill-timed joking but in any case this arm-chair pilot recommends John 8:7...

 

Regards,

D

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

Tom I don't see a go around as being dangerous, I've done plenty of them during my real world flying, inconvenient yes dangerous no.

The controller messed up bad and it wasn't even funny, he needs some time off without pay.

Of course it is dangerous. I was on one go-around on a T7 at EGLL and I am sure it was below minimum. It is really scary when you are waiting for the usual sound of a touchdown and instead you hear the full power of the engines. The first thought is we are gonna crash then after you realized it is a go-around, you start to think that there is something wrong with the plane. Then the pilot gave us the reason for the go-around "the wind pushed the plane off the runway course". I got even more scared It was so quite in the cabin until the plane cleared the runway and the clapping started.

 

 

Tom I don't see a go around as being dangerous, I've done plenty of them during my real world flying

 

Any time you take an aircraft out of stable flight attitude (in this case short final, low altitude approach) and transition to another, you are adding "risk/threat/danger" during that transition. You choose the word that works for you.

Of course it is dangerous. I was on one go-around on a T7 at EGLL and I am sure it was below minimum. It is really scary when you are waiting for the usual sound of a touchdown and instead you hear the full power of the engines. The first thought is we are gonna crash then after you realized it is a go-around, you start to think that there is something wrong with the plane. Then the pilot gave us the reason for the go-around "the wind pushed the plane off the runway course". I got even more scared It was so quite in the cabin until the plane cleared the runway and the clapping started.

Which is more dangerous? Continuing the approach after being 'pushed off the runway course' or going around and getting the heck away from the solid obstacles off the 'runway course' that yoi were headed towards?

Exactly...

I'll tell you what's dangerous. Water. Any body of water is dangerous and holds potential for death and disaster at all times.

Any time you take an aircraft out of stable flight attitude (in this case short final, low altitude approach) and transition to another, you are adding "risk/threat/danger" during that transition. You choose the word that works for you.

That is nothing but pure ignorance.

 

 

Which is more dangerous?

 

This  discussion started out when someone made the statement "Go arounds are not dangerous"... It was not originally a discussion of the merits of a go around. It was a discussion about whether the go around itself had inherent dangers. Of course a go around is more favorable than impaling your a/c on a shed sitting off to the side of the runway or a light pole on an adjacent taxiway... But that is not what this discussion is (or was) about.

This discussion started out when someone made the statement "Go arounds are not dangerous"... It was not originally a discussion of the merits of a go around. It was a discussion about whether the go around itself had inherent dangers. Of course a go around is more favorable than impaling your a/c on a shed sitting off to the side of the runway or a light pole on an adjacent taxiway... But that is not what this discussion is (or was) about.

And I will tell you that they are not any more dangerous than anything else we are expected to do as pilots. If it is so dangerous to add power and suck up the gear, then we better not perform a takeoff to begin with. The inherent danger of the go around is not the maneuver itself, but rather the risk inherent with time. The usage of fuel. The extra time spent airborne exposed to any of the risks inherent with being airborne.

Go arounds in themselves are not dangerous as the pilots should be prepared and expect the unexpected.

What is dangerous and stupid is a controller sending somebody around for fun.

That controller would no longer have a job in European airspace.

I'm sorry, this is not good at all. The "go around" guy made a stupid mistake, and this "Boston" guy is making "jokes" constantly and intentionally, but somehow, his behavior is approved by everyone  :blink: . I wouldn't like that John at ATC when flying: Using non-English words; distorting English words; fabricating his own words... I wonder how he still works as ATC, he should be banned .

 

He's "San Juan John" now. His fan group on Facebook counts nearly 1000 members and I bet that at least 33% of them are pilots having flown in and out of BOS. Does that look like a bad ATC controller to you?

I don't think anyone's suggesting that the controller's actions were anything but stupid, resulting in needless delay, costs and yes even risks.  Let's not lose sight of that.

 

That said, I have to weigh in with Kevin.  A go-around is simply not inherently dangerous, nor even that uncommon of an event.  Certainly you can imagine many scenarios in which a go-around is initiated which are dangerous, but the manuever is not in and of itself.  Anyone who's flown for any length of time has performed many of them, in both practice and real-world scenarios.

 

BTW, I would say that the pilot in this situation is to be commended.  He heard "go around" and he immediately initiated a go-around, no ifs ands or buts, just as he should have.  The question of why is secondary.  The fact that this was the only proper response makes the controller's actions that much more difficult to understand.  I can't imagine a controller not understanding that this was the only possible outcome for his "joke" given a competent pilot at the receiving end of the communication.  It was a brain cramp of the first order.

 

Scott