canopus27

That's a pretty reasonable and balanced article, IMHO. (It's actually more of an opinion piece than a news article, but still reasonable). It's authored by Simon Hradecky, who is the main guy behind the Aviation Herald.

Two more excerpts:
And:
I think I agree with everything he's written in the article.

WildcatYXU

I don't think the fuel load would be a problem in this case. The distance from ADD to NBO is 625nm. That's a tad over a sixth of the 7M8's range. Also, the 737 can't dump fuel (neither does the A32X).

ridefar

Interesting, thank you. So, as an aside, can a 7M8 land on a full load of fuel? Or is the only solution to burn it off?

PLeblond

Indeed, Mr. Hradecky breaks away from his usual strictly factual reporting to provide his opinion. However, one needs to separate the portion where he is reporting facts, from the portion where his opinion enters into (agreed that it is well balanced) after the following text, which are the parts of the article that you quote:

"Given the current partly heated discussions in aviation communities, all of which I feel do not take the human factors as well as cockpit resource management into account, I am about to provide my current understanding of the situation and my assessment based on the preliminary report as well as the additional documentation (relaxing my own editorial principles for a moment, that my personal opinion should not become visible in or influence my coverages):"

The part that describes the outdated manual at ET was in the factual portion of the publication.

I agree with Mr. Hradecky for the most part, the only caveat I would add is that the issues he raises about corporate culture at Boeing and the FAA are not limited to Boeing & the FAA as they apply to all major airplane manufacturers and regulating bodies. One must remember that TC & EASA, as well as all other governing bodies approved this system on this aircraft. Ever since the 777, It has been impossible for a regulating body to adequately understand what they are regulating, and this is the new reality. We need to trust the manufacturers, and people are not good at trusting corporations.

WildcatYXU

AFAIK an overweight landing checkup has to be conducted if it lands over MLW (69.3t), but the 7M8 certified to land up to it's MTOW (82.2t). And I'm pretty certain many larger aircraft can as well.

The Lev

Thanks for sharing - interesting article.

Assuming it is correct, looks like the EAD was not included in the manual but seems training of some kind was done by ET.

tcook052

After some post deletions I'll remind everyone of an advisory I posted recently against widening the thread discussion to the real or perceived training of other pilots in other parts of the planet as this isn't the place for that discussion.

tcook052
AC forum Mod.

bimmerdriver

If you think my conclusions are incorrect, explain how and why. I'm pretty sure you can't.

bimmerdriver

Based on the tone of the discussion today, I was mistaken to not have made it a priority to acknowledge what you said. I too appreciate that we can have a discussion about this without it getting off the rails, unlike others posting in this thread.


Arguing with an REDACTED

yyz_atc_qq

canadiancow

While I've certainly seen fewer go arounds than you, my experience has always been closer to 15 minutes than 5. But in my cases, it's never been for an emergency - it's always been "previous aircraft has not vacated runway" or "low visibility".

5mm

I have had go around take 5 min(Regina) to 45 min(Hong Kong)

yyz_atc_qq

I'd say that the first factor in the length of time would be the reason for the go-around. Second would be local traffic. Almost no traffic, weather related, likely back on the approach in 5 min or less. Busy traffic, but weather related.... 20min+. Emergency.... regardless of traffic levels, up to the pilot. If he says I need on the ground NOW.... less than 5 min. More often though they say that they need time to do checklists etc etc and it takes them 10-15min to be ready to go, which gets closer to the 20min mark.

That being said, today I saw multiple missed approaches at TZ, one after another after another, and they all kept saying they wanted to try again. I think the same flight missed 3 times in a row, and each one was 6-8 min apart and that's with sequencing other Q400s and dealing with their missed approaches also.

The Lev

Yes - several times including at YYZ.

yyz_atc_qq

Unless it happened at a very slow time, then the delay was for sequencing back into the flow and building a hole to fit the extra arrival in. If they had needed to be on the ground sooner.... it would have happened.