![]() The system is designed to have multiple levels of safety with backups for every identified threat and failure. Seems to me the safest thing is to get the passengers, crew and plane on the ground as soon as possible, not adding additional ascent, descent, and flight time due to multiple go-rounds. But the implication that there isn't increased risk just doesn't add up to me. I get that we're all probably still safer in the plane doing a go-round than we are in a car leaving the airport after we land. That tells me there is a lot that pilots need to do in those situations, I don't see how there isn't an increased risk of human error during a given flight when you add a whole bunch of human pilot activity to a flight. I think someone up thread used similar language. I've been on at least one go-round and remember the pilot apologizing for not letting us know what was going on earlier, but, they "were a bit busy up here". Seems to me aborting one landing therefore requiring a second introduces risk. I'm not a pilot but I hear many times pilots speak of the highest risk during takeoffs and landings. Perhaps it is a minute, unmeasurable amount of additional risk, but, there is an additional risk. So by definition there is more risk of failure during a given flight when a go-round (or any additional flight time) is required. Every additional minute of use gets one closer to the F. Neither situation puts the airplanes in dangerous proximity to each other and both provide a robust safety margin, as has been demonstrated by the rather significant errors that have led to runway incursions, which this incident was not, in the first half of this year.I can't tell if this is the corporate pilot assuring his passengers that all is well, or, if it truly is what is believed.Įverything has an MTBF. That is why airplanes are sent around when they don't have 6,000' and airborne, on the preceding departure, or clear of the runway, on the preceding arrival. The same failure is just as likely before the first approach. The risk of a mechanical problem does not increase after a go-around. Neither situation puts the airplanes in dangerous proximity to each other and both provide a robust safety margin, as has been demonstrated by the rather significant errors that have led to runway incursions, which this incident was not, in the first half of this year. The engines can suction-feed tank-to-engine if both pumps were to fail on the same tank. Each pump in a tank is powered by a different electrical bus. By the time you're landing, the center tanks are dry. We can see the other airplane out the window and avoid it.Īll fuel tanks have two fuel pumps. If a crew member is incapacitated, an emergency will be declared and ATC will make a big hole for the landing. what if something happened to one of the crew members (incapacitation) or equipment which increased the risk of flight on the 2nd or 3rd approach? what if a fuel pump went out then the reserve fuel for the 2nd/3rd attempt was no longer available? point being all of the extra attempts add unnecessary risk to the additional go-arounds (remote yes, but still unnecessary).The risk of a mechanical problem does not increase after a go-around. Thanks, you are assuming same conditions on the 2nd and 3rd approach. what if something happened to one of the crew members (incapacitation) or equipment which increased the risk of flight on the 2nd or 3rd approach? what if a fuel pump went out then the reserve fuel for the 2nd/3rd attempt was no longer available? point being all of the extra attempts add unnecessary risk to the additional go-arounds (remote yes, but still unnecessary). There is no risk of a collision.Thanks, you are assuming same conditions on the 2nd and 3rd approach. In this departing aircraft is not 6,000' down the runway and airborne, with emergency fuel, I'm landing anyway. ![]() ![]() If fuel is that low, we will have already declared minimum fuel, and then, emergency fuel, and ATC will provide more separation. If the controls aren't responding we have bigger problems than the go-around. We'll go-around on our own before it becomes a safety issue. The go-around doesn't come as any surprise to us. We can see the situation developing by looking out the window, listening to the clearances given to other aircraft, and seeing the spacing between us and the aircraft we are following on TCAS.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |