Missed Approach Question (with video)

[Roger Murdoch]

Hi All, I am new here and while not a pilot, I am an avid enthusiast of aviation. I witnessed, and managed to film, a missed approach of QF427, a 737-838 on Tuesday at tullamarine.

 

 

At the time the wind was W @ 31knots, gusting to 35, this aircraft was attempting to land on runway 34.

 

The video tells the rest of the story but after seeing it I had some questions that hopefully someone with their wings might be able to answer.

 

Why with this wind would this flight not been given runway 27 for landing? 27 was being used also at the time, does this just come down to a congestion issue? (this flight did land on 27 after going around)

 

What does this wind strength need to reach before runway 34 would not be a viable option for incoming aircraft?

 

Any info would be great.

 

 

[Happyflyer]

The pilot would have been informed of the wind before landing. He may have wanted to land on the longer runway with cross wind rather than the shorter runway into wind. He may have wanted the practice or wanted the co-pilot to have the practice. More likely it was the option that he thought would get him down on the ground earlier and save time, fuel and therefore money. He soon found that either the conditions had deteriorated or he wasn't as good as he thought he was. No harm done, good learning experience. Different aircraft have different crosswind limits. Additionally one company may a lower limit than another. Co pilots may have a lower limit than the Captain.

 

 

[Aldo]

Big gust on late final, the best people to ask with heavies on this site would be Facthunter, Dutchroll or Bennyboy these guys all fly or have flown heavies.

 

 

[rhysmcc]

If the crosswind was 30kts, then runway 34 most likely wouldn't have been a nominated runway. The pilot would have known the wind conditions (from the ATIS most likely), he may have requested or been offered 34 to reduce his delay or track miles or training as has been pointed out.

 

 

[facthunter]

A change of runway could affect a lot of other traffic and there may be a bit of pressure to accept the conditions. The way the plane was behaving near the ground for whatever reason , the go around was the best decision. Nev

 

 

[Birdseye]

Probably thought he would save some taxy time. It didn't work.

 

 

[gandalph]

I wonder if the black boxes record heart rate these days?

 

 

[Patrick Normoyle]

ATC won't nominate a runway with more than 20kts x wind including gusts ?

 

 

[ben87r]

They will in Darwin, Broome, Cairns, Alice and a few others

 

 

[Roundsounds]

FCTM states crosswind limit of 33 kts on a dry runway, wind check on final may have been greater than this figure.

 

Bear in mind a 33kt crosswind component with a touchdown speed around 120 kts is similar to 14 kts in a C172 / PA28 touching down around 50 kts

 

 

[Marty_d]

I wonder if the black boxes record heart rate these days?

Pretty sure they don't record pucker factor, probably a good thing in this case as the sender would have been snapped off!

 

 

[johnm]

................. did that flight ever land at all ?

 

.............. if so, which runway did they finally lay some rubber on ?

 

 

[Patrick Normoyle]

Have a look in AIP, and I'm certain it is in MATS Manual of Air Traffic Services, can't nominate a runway with greater the 20kts crosswind or more than 5 knots downwind on a dry runway, unless there no other runway available, I doubt an RPT pilot ( especially for Qantas) would make a call like that and request runway 34 with such high crosswind component if runway 27 was available, it does happen but usually with much less reputable airlines. The cost associated with a go-around from a fuel and time perspective would be in the order of thousands, if the arrival sequence was fairly tight, it could mean a 10 - 15 min re-sequence, often below 10 thousand feet where the jet is not very efficient. I doubt it.

 

 

[facthunter]

It wasn't a large gust factor and 30 knots is not unusual as a X-wind and would be within limits dry conditions. The faster your correct touchdown speed the easier it is . Drift angle is the thing. Having a 10 knot downwind component at the same time is sometimes offered, which really puts the skill requirement up a few notches. Was common on 04 at Sydney which isn't overly long anyhow.

 

Patrick I can't imagine the pilot would have requested it. Pilots tend to follow others who have landed just prior and you aren't offered a choice of runway at places like Tulla in normal circumstances.

 

A pilot must not accept a runway that he/she thinks is not safe for the operation. Important thing here is the go round. Don't hesitate to do it when required.

 

I've posted at the same time as you Patrick , but will leave it Go rounds cost a lot but don't let that stop you. if you need to...

 

I imagine this one will be discussed in the office of the Nation's Carrier.Nev

 

 

[rhysmcc]

Have a look in AIP, and I'm certain it is in MATS Manual of Air Traffic Services, can't nominate a runway with greater the 20kts crosswind or more than 5 knots downwind on a dry runway, unless there no other runway available, I doubt an RPT pilot ( especially for Qantas) would make a call like that and request runway 34 with such high crosswind component if runway 27 was available, it does happen but usually with much less reputable airlines. The cost associated with a go-around from a fuel and time perspective would be in the order of thousands, if the arrival sequence was fairly tight, it could mean a 10 - 15 min re-sequence, often below 10 thousand feet where the jet is not very efficient. I doubt it.

Actually pilots make these requests all the time to save track miles or sequencing delays to the duty runway. It is also offered sometimes from ATC, nothing prevents it and it's the pilots choice to accept it or not. The key word is nominate (i.e. duty runway), non duty can be offered at any time (except now LAHSO can't be used with more then 20kts xw on either runway).

 

At the end of the day, the pilot accepted the approach, it didn't work out and he did the right thing and went around. Everyone made it safely on the ground.

 

 

[cherk]

I've had a peek several times now and I have trouble seeing much rudder input..........

 

Certainly GO AROUND would be the correct call..........no matter the $$$; cheaper in the END !

 

 

[dutchroll]

From the video it looks simply like the approach became unstable very close to the ground. That's a mandatory go-round in QF (anything breaching the stability criteria below 500').

 

Could've been a gust, or he may simply have had difficulty handling it. When the crosswind is just barely scraping within the aircraft limits, it's pretty hard work!

 

The Capt would've been flying that approach. 30+ kts is well outside the First Officer crosswind limitation (which is 20 kts across the mainline jet fleet).

 

I don't know what he was thinking accepting 34 under those conditions. It's not unusual for ATC to sequence us onto runways with crosswinds - or even tailwinds (!) - close to aircraft limits (welcome to noise abatement in Australia) when another runway would be far better, but most guys I know tell them to bash it, responding with a requirement for a more suitable runway. Then ATC have no choice but to concede.

 

 

[Roger Murdoch]

Thanks for all the great replies. Very interesting to hear your thoughts.

 

I saw about 6 come in on 34 in about an hour, 737, a320/a321 , including a Jetstar prior, ad a VA after this 737. Both of these obviously were effected by the X wind, but not to this extent.

 

I imagine this one will be discussed in the office of the Nation's Carrier

Does this mean this mean that this is a rare enough occurrence for the carrier to review it? Or does any go around warrant a mandatory review by the airline?

 

What are the thoughts on what kinda of announcement might come over the PA by the flight crew after the go around? I think pilots have a handy knack for understatements, and divulging very little. I agree with it, the travelling public don't need to know most details.

 

Also, what are the chances of "bash it" being accepted as appropriate radio communication?

 

 

[SDQDI]

Anouncements? Hmmm

 

'Ladies and gentlemen you will notice that we are gaining height and won't be landing just yet, my co pilot has informed me that he left his watch in Perth so we are just going to duck back there and grab it. Please remain seated until the seatbelt lights go off.'

 

'Ladies and gentlemen I must offer my apologies my co pilot went to sleep for a minute there and we nearly landed in Adelaide, we are just going to climb back to altitude and continue on, sorry for getting your hopes up.'

 

'Ladies and gentleman please bear with us I haven't landed this model yet i'll just line up for another go'

 

'Wow did you see the size of that runway......... How are we meant to land on one that short'

 

"Ladies and gentlemen you might have noticed the runway was poking out the right hand windows, we are now going to see if we can line it up so it is out the front windows, thank you for flying with us"

 

 

[dutchroll]

Thanks for all the great replies. Very interesting to hear your thoughts.I saw about 6 come in on 34 in about an hour, 737, a320/a321 , including a Jetstar prior, ad a VA after this 737. Both of these obviously were effected by the X wind, but not to this extent.

Yeah the Boeings are a bit easier (in my opinion) under these conditions. On the A330 I wouldn't like to accept 30-35 kts gusty crosswind unless there was just no other choice (eg, rwy 27 unavailable due works or whatever). It only takes one go-round for you to develop an aversion to accepting max crosswinds when a much more suitable runway is available! Having said that I don't know what other factors may have influenced the decision so I guess I should give him the benefit of the doubt.

 

Does this mean this mean that this is a rare enough occurrence for the carrier to review it? Or does any go around warrant a mandatory review by the airline?

Not for QF. QF have in recent years developed a culture where go-arounds are encouraged through a "no blame" policy. Long or short landings, or other situations which bust various limitations during touchdown due to "pressing on" under bad conditions are strongly discouraged and are likely to earn a tea & bikkies session with the Chief Pilot or Training Manager. Go-arounds in QF are rarely investigated as they are considered good airmanship to avoid a bad situation developing.

 

What are the thoughts on what kinda of announcement might come over the PA by the flight crew after the go around? I think pilots have a handy knack for understatements, and divulging very little. I agree with it, the travelling public don't need to know most details.

In QF, a PA to the passengers from the Captain after a go-around is a requirement if time permits - usually after the aircraft is cleaned up or in whatever configuration you want it for the tracking around to the next approach. A very brief explanation including the fact that a go-around is considered a "normal" manoeuvre is given. It's brief because the crew are very busy after a go-around. A phone call to the company on the ground is required outlining what happened, to allow them to head off any media sensationalism or other issues before too many Chinese whispers spread.

 

Also, what are the chances of "bash it" being accepted as appropriate radio communication?

Lol! Poetic licence on my part! No, we politely decline (usually) on the radio and state our operational requirement. On rare occasions if the situation is just ridiculous we may decline, and ask for an explanation of why they're doing whatever they're doing, but that's very rare. What we say privately to each other in the cockpit can be more blunt though!

 

 

[Bennyboy320]

The captain made a good command decision by carrying out a MAP, looking at the video the gusts were what made it unstable, there was no de-crab in the flare so I'm guessing that he may of been well on the downwind side of the r/w & diverging rapidly.

 

 

[facthunter]

Interesting that you have a different X wind limit for the CM2 or F/O or Co-pilot.

 

If you don't wish to accept the runway (or any clearance offered), you say "require, (something else)" which at some time you may have to substantiate. Unfortunately an alternative action may result in a considerable delay, and a go around may use up 20 minutes of extra flying at a busy terminal.

 

IF any passenger put in a report I'm sure it would be followed up. An airline I was involved with wanted to make a report mandatory for any go around. I protested that action as it might act to deter someone from doing it, when they should. Some people hate going into print, and some press on with a landing when they should not.

 

You are supposed to be "stabilised" below about 400 feet .It varies with operators. I would not apply that figure to RAAus ops but the concept 's good. Nev

 

 

[Bennyboy320]

Most airlines these days have different x/wind limits for the crew, in Dragonair the captains limits are the a/c limits dependent on r/w condition, an FO 20 kts, JFO 15 kts & SO 10 kts. Also go arounds are free, the boys upstairs only want to know about it incase the South China Morning Post rings up if it's a slow news day, due to the position of HKG airport anytime there's a x/wind from the south greater than 15 KTS this place becomes sporting, most of our MAP's are due to hard wind shear warnings on approach, i.e. at landing the wind shear detection function operates from 1300ft-50ft, makes operating in our usual 12-15 typhoons that affect HKG each summer interesting to say the least.

 

 

[dutchroll]

Interesting that you have a different X wind limit for the CM2 or F/O or Co-pilot.

I was once upon a time informed this is an insurance/risk management issue. I'm not certain how true that is though. F/Os are trained to the full aircraft limits in the sim.

 

 

[Tex]

It appears the heavies set up in crab approach m in X winds. Any particular reason for not getting set up shooting straight the center line with x-control right from the start?