Had one this past summer IAH-GCM on a 738 or 9. GCM has a 6,100 ft runway that terminates in the Atlantic Ocean. As we were in the final stage of the approach on a cloudy day, we suddenly went full bore and ascended at a fairly steep angle - much steeper than takeoff. It actually felt more like the few times I have been on a corp. jet that seemed to take an aggressive takeoff at a steep angle, I assume because they're so small. From my vantage we couldn't have been more than a few hundred feet in the air - felt like last second to pull up (though I'm sure we had much more altitude than I thought). Flew a big circle around the island and landed. Found out a storm had popped up over the runway literally as we were landing, and we would have had a hard time stopping before the ocean according to the Captain.

Had several over the years, none more dramatic than my first.

DC-10 into ATL. Hit the power & the cabin shook enough to pop open a few overhead bins. Pilot later said there was someone on our runway.

Made more dramatic, no doubt, by my then youth and inexperience in the air, and by the fact that this was at the time when DC-10s were dropping engines off their wings.

In about 550 flight hours in the 737 (since late April) I've had one go-around. It was landing at Denver when the small aircraft which landed in front of us became disabled on the runway.

Go-around power, on the Boeings I've flown at least, is not full power because you simply don't need it. Full power is available to us but the first activation of the TOGA mode (TakeOff/Go-Around) gives you enough power to climb at about 2000fpm (feet per minute). Also, the pitch attitude is not any greater than it would be on a normal takeoff.

It does make for two busy pilots for a few minutes as there is a lot for us to do in a short period of time to accomplish the go-around and get setup for another approach. That's why you don't get an immediate PA from the Captain explaining the go-around.

They're not so bad. Even had my only two aborted takeoffs... on the same flight :D

Actually, while I obviously wasn't there, my bet is that the separation issue isn't the dependent approach limitations that you're citing in the order.

My guess is that the 757 was sent around because the heavy 747 (real heavy, not the "faux" heavy 757) was overtaking from above, and the 757 would potentially be behind and below the 747, at risk from its descending wake vortices.

At SFO, the parallel dependent approaches are typically used in somewhat but not fully crummy weather conditions (e.g., relatively heavy haze or a light cloud cover), such that pilots can't make a legal visual approach, but not so bad that they need to do a true ILS approach, with the resulting extreme limitations on flow rate. The parallel dependent approaches allow an ILS approach but reduced separation ("staggered"), which helps tremendously.

A couple of reasons why I think that - (a) the weather looks pristine, with minimal haze and no whitecaps on the bay, and (b) the instructions for the ILS & PDA approaches to 28L/R actually put the onus on the aircraft arriving on 28R (which would have been the CX 747) for wake turbulence avoidance: http://flightaware.com/resources/air...P/PRM+AAUP/pdf

On that short of final, I could also imagine the SFO tower controller deciding that it was safer to send the UA 757 around, because the 757's pilot had probably landed at SFO hundreds of times, had no language issues (which CX may or may not have had), was presumably lighter and had more juice to do a late GA than the 747, and hadn't just flown 13 hours.

Then again, my flight time is solely in a 172 and never @ SFO, so who knows if I'm correct. I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night, though... :D

BTW, that was an *awesome* video...

Greg

Have you ever used full power?

This supports my experience (3-4 go-arounds) that a go-around is NOT significantly different in pitch and climb rate from a takeoff, but because it is occurring at an unexpected part of the flight, I have no doubt that some people perceive it as steeper and/or faster.

Three go-arounds in my flying career.

One was landing at SNA, and we were banking and turning over the residential neighborhood near the airport as we descended, and I was all like, "Hmm. We seem awfully close to those houses." And then we just shot up and went around.

Another was also at SNA. We were coming in on a regular approach from the northeast over the 405, and just as we passed over the highway, we pulled up and went around. The flight crew said that there was a general aviation plane near the end of the runway.

Third was an attempted landing at EWR in windy, rainy, foggy conditions. Massive turbulence coming in, and it seemed like we were literally inches from touching down when we pulled up suddenly and diverted to Albany. Waited out the weather and went back about an hour later.

Never experienced an aborted take-off.

Oh, thanks for reminding me, I kept thinking there was a fourth @:-) (maybe more if more posts trigger memories).

In fact it was May or June this year at IAD and we too were what felt like inches above ground (saw runway from my window and was waiting for jolt of wheels hitting ground) and pilot announced we were going to divert (and I was going to lose my connection to Austrian Biz seat :( ).

Lucky for me, after circling IAD for about 15 minutes pilot came on to say storm's over and we'll land at IAD after all, so I made my connection :)

Most memorable was PHX, where US CR9 dropped like a rock close to the runway in the summer heat :eek: All too happy to do a goaround ^

Indeed. That was a great video. The sound of the engines gunning really brought back memories of my go-around last month, LAX-ORD. Woke me up, hearing the engines roaring, and looking at the city lights fade away as we ascended sharply.

Captain later explained that another aircraft didn't clear in time and he was ordered to go-around. He was able to make a light-hearted joke about it, something to the effect of "despite the extra flying practice, and tour of the city, we got you on the ground [15?] minutes early."

I have only had one go-around on a RJ a couple years back. If you think a 747/777 can ascend quickly, try one of the smaller planes. It was one of the rare moments on a plane when I thought I was going to die. We had almost hit the runway when we started ascending (rapidly) all of a sudden. It was a very, very strange feeling and abnormal sounds. Apparently, another plane hadn't cleared the runway.

No. There's no need for it.

A go-around is nothing more than a smooth transition from a descent to a climb followed by the normal clean-up and acceleration of a takeoff. The advantage in a go-around is that you're starting at 130-150 knots instead of 0 knots and with some altitude instead of at ground level.

Had one at SFO last month (on AA). Pilot said ATC wasn't happy with the spacing of us and another aircraft (can't remember if it was one landing to the side or ahead of us). Had a handful of other ones over the years.

My guess is the two incidents were separate in OPs case. If the person was wanted the police would have come on instead of asking her to deplane.

Sorry, I wasn't referring to just go arounds--have you ever used full power at any point of a flight?

Yes. We occasionally do full power takeoffs.