I have a radio in the office to listen to Austin Approach or Tower. So today its on tower, its IMC, so I am listening to all the approaches coming in. I hear an American Airlines call a go around. You dont hear that too often, so I pulled it up on Flightaware and you can see the loop.
Just an aside...On my first IMC landing, the controller had us 10 degrees off centerline and I would have landed in the grass patch in the middle of the airfield if I would have stayed on his course. I had to go around and have a do-over with better vectors.
How did they have you on vectors to the runway on an IMC approach? You werent on an IAP? That doesnt make sense.
I don't know, I'm not instrument rated. I just know that when the controller told us to turn to 330 and intercept the localizer, my instructor freaked out because he knew we weren't lined up right. He requested a missed approach and told the controller that we were off like 10 degrees. As we broke through the soup, you could see we would have been right in line with the grass off to the left before he took the controls and executed the missed approach. That was my first time in the soup and I really don't see any reason for me to be in it again. I doubt I'll get instrument rated. Maybe if we get the A36 we are looking at. That might fall thru though. The pilot that has that plane quit flying commercially after her husband died and she was going to sell the Bonanza too but I think she is changing her mind..
Riding as a passemger onto Washington National (as it was known back then) I knew that the plane (airliner of some sort) was high and fast as it followed the river. (What a fun approach!! A shame we can't fly it any more.) Eventually the pilot poured on the coals and turned away for a missed approach. He came on the PA system and blamed a little plane on the runway for the problem. However, looking out the window as we climbed away I could see the little plane just beginning to move into takeoff position. That was the only time I have experienced a missed aproach in an airliner.
Pouring the coals to it at low altitude has got to burn a lot of fuel, then back around several miles to get in line for the approach. I heard the controller at sfo last month tell a 747 to go round. Anybody got an idea what the fuel burn would be for something like this?
I've read where a 747 burns 1 gallon every second. So figure that the go-around takes about 10 minutes...That's 600 gallons of fuel burn..or close to that anyhow.
JasonT Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Kurt,
>
> How did they have you on vectors to the runway on
> an IMC approach? You werent on an IAP? That doesnt
> make sense.
There are radar approaches at larger facilities with an approach control and military facilities have radar approaches with glidepath called GCA or PAR approaches. These are explained in the AIM.
edited because of bad keys on keyboard.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/10/2008 07:21PM by GM.
Further to GM's post, on occasion you can request and recieve a PAR from a military airfield, low approach only, you can't land. Neat what they can do.
I logged about twenty five actual GCA approaches with landings in BE-18's at TBN. By the way, the mil controllers do appreciate the opportunity to conduct these approaches as they have to maintain currency.
JasonT Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I wonder if they get their a$$ chewed for those?
No. Airline pilots are selected for being conservative fliers. If a pair of ATP's who make landings several times a day, every day, break out of the clag and don't think they can make the runway - no one is going to question that. They get called on the carpet if they don't go around and bend something.
I am familiar, although never flown a PAR approach. Do they give you vectors, or more a "turn right 5, above gs etc.."?
GM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> JasonT Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Kurt,
> >
> > How did they have you on vectors to the runway
> on
> > an IMC approach? You werent on an IAP? That
> doesnt
> > make sense.
>
> There are radar approaches at larger facilities
> with an approach control and military facilities
> have radar approaches with glidepath called GCA or
> PAR approaches. These are explained in the AIM.
>
> edited because of bad keys on keyboard.
As an American Airlines First Officer I can tell you we have a "no fault" go around policy. What ever the reason the Captain has the final say, even if it is as simple as it just doesn't look right. At the lower altitudes the MD-80's burn about 900 Gallons per hour, usually takes less than 10 minutes to get back around after a go-around so were looking at 100 to 150 gallons that the go-around cost us. Pulled up the flight on our company website and it still arrived a couple of minutes early. ANd to think I complain about the fuel burn of our Cherokee Six!!!
Ed Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pouring the coals to it at low altitude has got to
> burn a lot of fuel, then back around several miles
> to get in line for the approach. I heard the
> controller at sfo last month tell a 747 to go
> round. Anybody got an idea what the fuel burn
> would be for something like this?
Rule of thumb planning burn for a 747 is 20,000 PPH. A missed approach with low altitude vectoring for 15 minites will require 6000 pounds of fuel.
I recall chatting with a retired 747 captain at a BBQ. His last job was flying back and forth across the Pacific from Vancouver to Hongkong which if I recall right from all my trips sitting in the back was typically between 11 to 13 hours. When I asked what their alternates were if for some reason he couldn't land at Hongkong and he said they had lots of them as long as the decision was made while they were at 40,000 ft. Once they had descended and missed an approach due to weather then they could be in trouble quite easily as it took so much fuel to climb back up. There were times with typhoons near by that the decision was a bit worrying and if in any doubt they just carried on to another airport with a better forecast. Doing the go-around was ok of course since you only climbed back to circuit height.
So far all of my go-arounds have been the result of planes cleared for takeoff just sitting there while the controller gives them hell for accepting an "no-delay" takeoff clearance and not doing so. This afternoon the Cessna seemed to pause a bit before taxiing on to the active but then did get moving just in time. As he was lifting off and I was coming over the threashold I got my landing clearance. Keeps things interesting.
Out of curiosity, how many of you will use a full slide-slip to shed altitude when you find yourself high on short final?
I did it on my x country solo when the controller cleared me to land and I was still at 3000 ft. He calmy asked me if I could get down in time and i calmy stated "sure". I then put in a full slip and started sweating profuously at the same time hoping like hell I didn't have to abort. I made it down but it wasn't how I had planned on landing. Now, I actually enjoy slipping...didn't then though...
As with TurboKurt, my primary instructor taught me slipping down final early on. Found myself a bit high on one of the landings during my checkride so naturally I put in a bit of slip. DPE wanted to know what I though I was doing? Told her "This isn't a Cessna, you know..." :-)
I slip our Archer quite a bit. My home base is just north of (KBDL) Bradley's class C, and they keep us at +4000 until we are clear of their dep. and arr.'s. My home base is 270 msl., so if we are landing to the north, we have to dump plenty of altitude quickly. No problem for the Archer as it can drop like rock when you want it to..
