Curious about aborted landing
Jun 3, 2012, 7:48 am
#33
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Salish Sea
Programs: DL,AC,HH,PC
Posts: 8,974
Happens all the time and probably not as dramatic as portrayed by OP.
Jun 3, 2012, 11:40 am
#34
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: BNA
Programs: HH Gold. (Former) UA PP, DL PM, PC Plat
Posts: 8,184
Airliners do not initiate go-arounds after touchdown. It doesn't happen.
You can have a situation where a go-around is initiated at a very low altitude (~50') and the aircraft touches down in the process. This normally only happens on very low visibility approaches.
Even less than that. Pitch attitude would be around 15°-18° which would result in a flight path more like 8° or 10°.
That would be a very bad idea. You never initial a go-around after thrust-reverser deployment. When doing touch-and-goes in training it is emphasized that if the spoilers extend, or thrust-reversers deplay, the airplane will stay on the ground.
Asymmetric thrust-reverser deployment is not a problem. Thrust reversers can be deferred maintenance items in normal operations which result in asymmetric thrust-reverser on ever landing.
You can have a situation where a go-around is initiated at a very low altitude (~50') and the aircraft touches down in the process. This normally only happens on very low visibility approaches.
Even less than that. Pitch attitude would be around 15°-18° which would result in a flight path more like 8° or 10°.
That would be a very bad idea. You never initial a go-around after thrust-reverser deployment. When doing touch-and-goes in training it is emphasized that if the spoilers extend, or thrust-reversers deplay, the airplane will stay on the ground.
Asymmetric thrust-reverser deployment is not a problem. Thrust reversers can be deferred maintenance items in normal operations which result in asymmetric thrust-reverser on ever landing.
Jun 6, 2012, 7:08 pm
#35
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,830
I know the Canadian regs have a requirement (http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviatio...25-005-961.htm) to allow for full power takeoffs after reverser deployment (after this incident - http://aviation-safety.net/database/...?id=19780211-0). In that accident, the crew encountered a snowplow on the runway after selecting reverse thrust. They attempted a go-around, but one of the reversers didn't retract correctly and the crew lost control.
One of the sections of the Transport Canada guidance to the regulation is interesting:
"An Aeroplane Flight Manual limitation prohibiting a go-around following reverse thrust operation may be required, but is not considered adequate, by itself, to demonstrate compliance with the reference regulations."
One of the sections of the Transport Canada guidance to the regulation is interesting:
"An Aeroplane Flight Manual limitation prohibiting a go-around following reverse thrust operation may be required, but is not considered adequate, by itself, to demonstrate compliance with the reference regulations."
Jun 7, 2012, 8:28 pm
#36
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Honolulu, HI
Programs: HAL Pualani Platinum, Delta Gold
Posts: 143
Having been on both sides of a go around I can say that they are more common than you think, especially at busier airports. It is an operation to ensure the safety of the flight. The reasons for a go around vary and are not always apparent to the passengers on board.
Oct 25, 2012, 6:39 am
#37
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: NYC
Programs: AADULtArer
Posts: 5,690
It is nice to know they have these contingencies planned.
Uh, yeah. They don't just make this up as they go along. Aviation has done an incredible job of engineering out accidents with hardware, personnel training, CRM, ......
Semiconductor is probably the only other industry that approaches process control so thoroughly....and they have much less meddling human element to deal with...
:-)
:-)
Oct 25, 2012, 6:45 am
#38
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: NYC
Programs: AADULtArer
Posts: 5,690
Forgot to add my last go around story...
On final into EWR, when ground fog closed runway. Pilot came on to announce, as s/he was doing so, flaps were being retracted and came in asymmetrically.
We were right over runway, and suddenly veered left 90 degrees ....guy to left of me caught eyes and raised eyebrows. "Hmmm, that was interesting"
Diverted to Harrisburg and landed "at unusually high speed" without flaps. Crew did a good job coming on and saying the landing would be a bit noisier than most
On final into EWR, when ground fog closed runway. Pilot came on to announce, as s/he was doing so, flaps were being retracted and came in asymmetrically.
We were right over runway, and suddenly veered left 90 degrees ....guy to left of me caught eyes and raised eyebrows. "Hmmm, that was interesting"
Diverted to Harrisburg and landed "at unusually high speed" without flaps. Crew did a good job coming on and saying the landing would be a bit noisier than most
Oct 25, 2012, 6:32 pm
#39
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 321
Once again, and no offense to the OP at all, but passengers generally have a pretty poor view of what actually is happening at any given moment.
From what I gather, the OP said they touched down, and then "a second" later the pilot "hit the thrust".
Well, turbofan engines don't work like that. It takes them anywhere from a second to three seconds to spool up from flight idle to TOGA thrust.
.
From what I gather, the OP said they touched down, and then "a second" later the pilot "hit the thrust".
Well, turbofan engines don't work like that. It takes them anywhere from a second to three seconds to spool up from flight idle to TOGA thrust.
.
Perhaps you're looking too literally into his choice of words. 