Re: Go around

Lonny M. Regan (mach0_at_ibm.net)
Thu, 15 Jan 1998 13:06:28 -0800

Major Tony T. Kern, 472-4727 wrote:
>
> Friends,
> One last shot on the go-around issue. Some time ago, I participated
> in an investigation of a landing accident where the copilot claimed he
> "had not done an unplanned go-around" in over 18 months (his entire
> career to that point), but that "he had seen lots worse approaches
> salvaged." So he was ironically, more comfortable with an idle power,
> 1900 ft/min sink rate at less than 100 AGL, than he was in suggesting a
> go-around to the aircraft commander, who was just having a bad day.
> This gave us great cause to look at the frequency of our "unplanned
> go-around training" requirements. Guess what we found? Do others
> require this type of training? If not, should we?
>
> Beating a dying horse,
>
> Tony KernMorning Tony-

Would you accept this part reply?

At DL on the MD-11, the following maneuver tolerances apply for CAT I:

*Heading + or - 10 degrees
*Speed + or - 10 knots
*Altitude + or - 100 feet

FINAL APPROACH

*Speed - 5 knots + 10 knots

BELOW 500 feet AFE

*Any descent exceeding 1,000 FPM, the PNF will callout "SINK____"
*Appropriate action will be taken or the approach abandoned.

AT DA(H)

* + or - 1/2 dot LOC
* + or - 1 dot G/S

The PF conducts a thorough approach brief *TO INCLUDE* "Standard
Callouts, any questions?". We both know what a normal stabilized approach
looks like, we both know what the acceptable tolerances are. A successful
approach requires both pilots doing their job! We have a game plan and we
do our job. There should be no problem, correct? In your case, there was
an unsafe approach, the PF knew it and did nothing about it and the PNF
sat there and watched. The problem began long before the PNF should have
done something, correct??

Just a personal opinion!

Regards-

Lonny