Missed Approach CYYZ - ACA409 - January 28, 2009

[kea001]

Chautauqua  7795 (Embraer ERJ-145) aborts take-off.
ACA409 (Airbus A320) forced to miss approach.

[cessna157]

Seems like old Air Canadia needs to work on his listening skills:
Go around.
Who, me?
Yes you, go around.  Runway heading, 3000
Okay, we'll go around and fly the published
No, don't fly the published, fly the runway up to 3000.

Turn left to 240
No thanks we'll fly this way for noise and turn a little later.


Pro/Con here:
I have always liked the sound quality of Canadian air traffic controllers.  They are always have a lot higher quality sound across the airwaves.  It can sorta be heard on this recording.
But why do they always have to read back the read back?  I'm assuming this is Canadian procedure, it jsut seems to be an unneeded transmission.  Just seems to add confusion when the throw in a half worded "..ger" after every readback.  Almost sounds like the pilot stepped on the controller.

[kea001]

It's not my trade so I don't know what the protocols are but I think the confusion arises because the word 'negative' was garbled in transmission.


Controller:... Fly runway heading stop climb at 3000.

Pilot: Negative (garbled) published missed approach.

Controller: Air Canada 409..uh..negative on the published missed approach...fly runway heading, stop climb at 3000.


The pilot would have been better off just repeating what the Controller had said rather than throwing in the  'negative published missed approach'. 


I just got a kick out of when he said, after a long pause,  'Was that clearance......fo...for us ma'm?

Then later on it sounds like the co-pilot takes over the radio and, well, he sounds like he's been sucking helium or something.

[delta092b]

On a missed approached can the noise restrictions be ignored?

[eppy]

This subject reminds me of a missed approach last year at MEL (Melbourne, Australia, not Florida!) where I was a PAX on a 744 flight from Singpaore. The aircraft actually conducted 2x missed approaches, pulling up both times at about 150 feet due to bad runway visibility.

After circling for 30 mins we diverted to ADL (Adelaide), which took another hour's flying time.  It was during this long detour that the sparcity of the Australian continent really came home to me, in that the nearest civilian airport capable of handling 744 operations was 450 miles/720km away.

One of the downsides of this is the amount of reserve fuel that must be carried on such flights. When the A340-400 LR was being designed, the marketing people showed it had the range to fly Europe-Australia non-stop. However, they didn't factor in the need for additional reserve fuel needed due to distances between large airports, and this is why London/Australia for me is still a minimum one stop flight.

[eppy]

p.s. Does someone know the minimums for a CAT IIIc enabled airport such as MEL? At the time I was wondering why the PF didn't conduct an autoland.

[kea001]

the nearest civilian airport capable of handling 744 operations was 450 miles/720km away.

Here, the airlines rarely do what would seem logical to the average passenger.

Yesterday we had a major snow event in Toronto. I heard one pilot deliberating about going to their 'alternate'
airport which was Sault Ste. Marie.

I've heard of flights originating in Montreal, can't land at their destination, Toronto, and end up going to Halifax which is the other end of the country.

Some of these decisions have to do with where they want the aircraft rather than where they want the passengers.

Alternates Made Easy (FAA):
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-7099868/Alternates-made-easy-When-the.html

[KSYR-pjr]

p.s. Does someone know the minimums for a CAT IIIc enabled airport such as MEL?

Here in the States (and I would suspect world-wide via ICAO?) there are no minimums for a CAT III c approach.   Zero-zero.

At the time I was wondering why the PF didn't conduct an autoland.

Most likely one of three reasons:  Airport (either permanently or temporarily due to equipment outages), aircraft, and/or pilots not certified for CAT III c.

[jbkatz]

On a missed approached can the noise restrictions be ignored?

It would depend on the airport, but if safety is ever questioned, then certainly noise abatement can be ignored.  A good example came on a day I was spotting at LAX.  At LAX, the noise abatement procedure is to stay on runway heading with no turns until you've crossed the coast since there are houses right next to the airport.  A 737 executed a missed approach as another 737 on the parallel (200' to the side or so) was in the middle of its takeoff roll.  To avoid two planes flying parallel with a few hundred feet of separation, the go-around took an immediate, sharp bank to fly right over the houses.  Loud, yes, but much, much safer.