At National Airport, aborted landings are not uncommon

[marmar]

from the WaPo:



By Ashley Halsey III, Wednesday, March 30, 11:02 PM


The wheels were down and the plane’s nose was pointed to the waiting runway at Reagan National Airport. The lights of the Kennedy Center and the Washington Monument flashed by outside the window, and Sharon Cooley braced herself for the thud of tire on tarmac.

Instead, with a mighty roar of engines, the plane rocketed into a steep climb.

The gasps on board were mirrored by the reaction in the airport waiting area as the underbelly of the climbing plane seemed to skim just overhead.

The remarkable thing about the aborted landing of Alaska Airlines Flight 6 from Los Angeles last week was that it wasn’t remarkable at all; it happens regularly at National. Another plane was sitting on the runway, and air-traffic controllers gave the pilot prudent instructions to keep everyone safe. .............(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/at_national_airport_aborted_landings_are_not_uncommon/2010/09/20/AFJz39xB_story.html?wprss=rss_local

[fasttense]

1. And that's what happens when you destroy unions. n/t

[liberal N proud]

3. Compliments of Ronald Reagan

Destroyed unions, less than safe skys

[marmar]

4. And as the ultimate slap in the face, they renamed the airport after him.

...... Though I will NEVER call it Reagan National Airport.

[blondeatlast]

16. Me either--I was actually a travel agent at the time

and refused to call it that.

[Carolina]

12. thank you and that's also

why I will always call that airport Washington National instead of that ghastly misnomer!

[ProgressiveProfessor]

11. Actually most likely it is not a controller issue and has nothing to do with the union

Talk to an experienced pilot and have them explain it to you

[av8rdave]

17. Actually, it very likely a controller issue

Go arounds/missed approaches are generally caused by poor visibility (not a controller issue), unstable weather (not a controller issue), unstable/high energy approach (sometimes, but not always a controller issue), or inadequate traffic spacing (completely a controller issue).

Statistically, in commercial aviation, the predominant cause of a go around/missed approach is traffic still on the runway, which is a controller issue. The controllers attemp to get maximum utilization of the runway (as they are supposed to at busy airports), but it only takes a small miscalculation to get the spacing too tight. If I am on final approach, I cannot touch down until the preceding landing aircraft has completely cleared the runway, or the preceding aircraft taking off has left the ground. These situations are the main cause of rejected landings. In my career, I would guess they account for more than 90% of the go arounds I have executed.

When the visibility is poor, this ceases to be a factor, since the spacing requirements are greater for instrument approaches. When missed approaches occur in this situation, they are mostly because the pilot had inadequate visual reference with the runway when he/she reached minimums (the lowest altitude you can go without seeing the runway). These are fairly rare, however, since it is not legal to even commence the approach unless the reported visibility is good enough to see the runway at minimums. In fact, for the lowest legal visibility approaches, the airplane I am transitioning to now can continue to a landing even if the pilot never sees anything before touchdown, so an instrument missed approach is rare indeed.

[FSogol]

2. End result of Republican politics. They will try and blame the unions though. n/t

[liberal N proud]

5. Does that plane not have it's landing gear down?

I have been on a flight where they didn't lower it. We came in for a landing and took right back off. I realized as we did, that I never heard the gear go down.

The pilot said they did a fly by so the tower could look over the plane.

[av8rdave]

7. The gear is down in that photo

It's just hard to see against the dark background.

[av8rdave]

6. Go arounds at Washington National (I still refuse to call it R*****) do happen

I've done more than one myself.

It is noteworthy, though that go arounds happen at airports all over the country. My last one was a couple of months ago in Atlanta. Any time you have high runway utilization (always in Washington), low visibility or unstable weather, the probability of go arounds/missed approaches rises.

FWIW, a go around, missed approach or rejected landing (all are essentially the same thing, though there are legal and sometimes procedural differences between them) are not as rare as they may seem, and by themselves do not constitute an emergency. While they may seem unsettling to the passengers, they are actually a very "normal" maneuver that we train for regularly. In fact, I am in training for another aircraft right now. Approximately 50% of approaches we fly end with a missed approach, go around or rejected landing.

Whenever a flight is cleared for an instrument approach, the clearance by default includes clearance for the missed approach.

[buddysmellgood]

8. I agree, it was already named for a president.

[av8rdave]

10. And at least THAT President had the courtesy to be gone before they named it for him

I always thought it tacky to name things for people when they're still around.

Edited for content.

[Shagbark Hickory]

9. From what I hear, aborted takeoffs are not uncommon either.

[av8rdave]

13. We also train for those, but they are MUCH more rare

Particularly high speed ones. Analysis of rejected takeoff events has shown that once the airplane is in the high speed regime, it is most often safer to continue the takeoff and deal with whatever issue you have in the air. Obviously there are exceptions to this, which we also train for.

Prior to any takeoff, we have a calculated set of speeds used to determine when the airplane is in the high speed portion of the takeoff roll, when it is safe to initiate rotation (raising the nose to get it off the ground), when there is a minimum safe speed to guarantee controllability with an engine failure, and (most importantly) the maximum speed at which a rejected takeoff can be initiated and still be able to stop on the runway.

Rejected landings are a fairly routine procedure. Rejected takeoffs are a much bigger deal.

[Shagbark Hickory]

14. I was reffering to the ones where passengers sit in a crowded plane for hours on the tarmac listenin

to screaming babies and breathing in farts.

[av8rdave]

15. Ah! Much different! Very common and they suck.

[FLPanhandle]

18. I've been on 3-4 flights that aborted landings due to other aircraft on the runway

I think it's usually an issue because you have different controllers for aircraft on the ground vs. in the air.

Sometimes they don't coordinate well and their computer systems are crap