Allan38103

Takeoffs are optional. Landings are mandatory.

halls120

This. Especially if you fly in and out of an airport like DCA, where the majority of takeoffs and landings are on a single runway. I have experienced two while flying into Reagan, and seen dozens of others.

LarryJ

Most go-arounds are due to runway separation. The preceding landing aircraft must be clear of the runway before the next landing aircraft reaches the runway threshold--even though the airplanes are still a mile, or more, apart. That is a hard line in the sand that can't be crossed. Normal operations at a busy airport result in only 20 to 30 seconds of "padding" between the first airplane existing and the next airplane reaching the threshold so it doesn't take too much to result in a go-around.

In this TPA case, it sounds like it may have been that they were unable to meet the required stabilized approach criteria after the last minute runway change. We have three "gates" on arrival (1,500', 1,000', & 500') where we have to specific criteria for aircraft configuration (gear & flaps), airspeed, rate of descent, and vertical and horizontal alignment. At the first two gates we call out any deviations so that they can be corrected. At the last gate, any exceedances require a go-around. That last gate is another hard "line in the sand" that can't be crossed. Sometimes, particularly when a runway was changed very late in the approach, it may become obvious long before that last gate that you aren't going to meet the criteria so the go-around may be started sooner instead of waiting for 500'.

On the 737, I probably average a go-around about once per quarter. Almost all are for runway separation.

IAATM

Today Sunday September 3rd UA2381 apparently did a go-around prior to landing at SAN.

would anybody know why the pilots initiated the go-around?

LBDaveD

Spend any amount of time near SAN and you will see plenty of aborted landings. That's what happens when you have to try and land a passenger jet in a hole. SAN has a miserable location.

kale73

Check with the flight deck crew and Air Traffic Control. They probably know why.

sbm12

UA had two goarounds at SAN today. Both were called/requested by the pilots. Basically they were out of position to make the landing within spec's so they went around and did it again.


http://archive-server.liveatc.net/ks...2017-2100Z.mp3

UA2381
~9:30 in the linked MP3:
UA: We're not going to be able to make this one work. Do you want us to do the published miss?
~10:38 tower asks for why the goaround:
UA: Even fully configured we are unable to descend at a ?? rate.

UA497
~14:37
UA: We've got a huge tailwind and it put us up high here.

~16:47 in the transcript tower tells another pilot of a 20 knot tailwind ~1200 feet. That's a lot to work with.

LarryJ

The approach to runway 27 at SAN has a steeper than normal descent angle. 3.5deg instead of the usual 3.0deg. Doesn't sound like much of a difference but it makes it much more difficult to slow down while descending on the glidepath. That, coupled with the strong tailwinds on final, would make it difficult to get back on profile if you are high or fast.

DCA writer

We had a go-around on UA 2046 SFO-DCA tonight. The approach was unusual to begin with: We didn't make the turn to line up with the runway around Mount Vernon and instead hung a left several miles north, not far south of the Wilson Bridge. We seemed a little high, then the engines spooled up and we climbed above National. (Neat to see the general-aviation hangars from directly overhead.)

After a loop to the south, we again headed towards Runway 1--but this time, we banked right, flew east and then south over P.G. County before performing something much closer to the usual Mount Vernon Visual approach. That left us with the interesting figure-eight track you see below.

DELee

Kinda looks like they were flying to avoid the weather just to the east of DC.

David

Thatcher Library

UA 2119 from Nashville this morning, Nov. 3, made a normal approach to landing and then pulled up and circled before trying it a second time. The captain said that another plane was in a runway, stuck with a yellow caution light that delayed its movement. Plausible and professionally handled, but SFO has a bad record for near misses in landing operations. Did anyone else see it differently?

LarryJ

The ATC audio is available on www.liveatc.net. It's on the Nov-3-1830Z archive for KSFO tower.

An Alaska flight was cleared for takeoff but couldn't start rolling immediately because the Runway Hold Lights, part of the automated Runway Status Lights system which displays red stop lights for departures and at intersecting taxiways when a potential conflict exists, were still illuminated. In this case, the previous landing, that was holding short of 28L, had not pulled far enough forward to put the red lights out so the Alaska flight correctly did not start their takeoff with the lights still on. By the time the flight pulled up, and the lights extinguished, 2119 was too close to landing so was sent around.

greg99

I'm curious what draws you to this conclusion (excluding, of course, Air Canada).

Thatcher Library

Thanks, LarryJ. I can believe this. But SFO landing mishaps are too common for comfort.

LarryJ

No common threads, though. Nothing specific to SFO causing incidents.

This go-around, however, was not an incident. It was the system working as it should. Happens many times everyday at airports all around the world.