I was travelling into HND last night on VA77 from CNS. We had internet and I was watching FR24 as we approached the airport from the South.
All of a sudden we did a go around veering to the left and doing a clockwise loop with those on the right windows getting a terrific view of Tokyo in the evening. We landed 34 minutes later.
The pilot came over the PA suggested that due to separation/congestion issues our flight drew the short straw.
From what I recall and looking at the track, we had a lot of course changes coming in but otherwise, aircraft were spaced out on the flight path other than maybe we got too close to the one in front near the end.
Is this a common occurrence at HND and looking at the approach is there anything unusual?
The go around was shortly after 10:40 UTC on Jan. 31st.
Nope nothing unusual. They issue your descent clearance well before your nominated top of descent and drag you in well below profile.
You will also hardly be on the arrival and they will vector you instead to achieve the required spacing.
As you get closer they also start issuing speed restrictions. This is a non negotiable for them. You need to be at that speed. Anything faster or slower and they will pick you up on it. Similar to exceeding the 250kt limitation in the US.
My guess is the crew probably didn’t fly close enough to the speed so ATC took you off the approach and brought you around again.
Recent departure from CNS, A321, they didnt raise the gear until 5000ft.
Any potential reasons around this? The aircraft has 70 mins on the ground prior to leaving. Runway was wet. Prior arrival would have been on a wet runway also.
Recent departure from CNS, A321, they didnt raise the gear until 5000ft.
Any potential reasons around this? The aircraft has 70 mins on the ground prior to leaving. Runway was wet. Prior arrival would have been on a wet runway also.
When the aircraft take off, the brakes are automatically applied as part of the retraction sequence. If there were issues with that, then the MEL may require the gear to be left down for a specified length of time. That dramatically affects the performance calculations, as you have to consider the gear as being locked down for the obstacle clearance and engine out cases. Well, you should, anyway.
After this person is removed and hopefully permanently banned from being near an airport, what checks would need to be made of the engine and the aircraft generally?
After this person is removed and hopefully permanently banned from being near an airport, what checks would need to be made of the engine and the aircraft generally?
From what I gather it actually happened a while back and the video has just come to light, in which case the answer is probably nothing. If they’d known at the time, probably an engineers ‘daily’ inspection of the entire aircraft. I gather he’s no longer employed at the airport, but I think security would be having a look at what happened too. If he didn’t need to be there, I’m sure there’s a law or three that he’s broken.
Moronic thing to do. The engine isn’t running, but those spinning discs weigh a hundred kgs or so, and even the wind would impart enough energy to cause severe injury. Yes, crew have had pictures taken there for years, but not in front of a spinning fan.
Today my friend was flying QF1 back to the UK (SYD-SIN-LHR). Her departure was delayed around 1hr 20mins leaving Sydney. When I used a plane-tracking app to monitor her progress, it showed me "QF1" landing at LHR at the same time as her plane (QF1) was taxiing out at SYD.
Is this just a coincidence, or is there only "one" QF1 at a time, and my friend's departure from Sydney was delayed because the other plane was delayed in getting to London?
Today my friend was flying QF1 back to the UK (SYD-SIN-LHR). Her departure was delayed around 1hr 20mins leaving Sydney. When I used a plane-tracking app to monitor her progress, it showed me "QF1" landing at LHR at the same time as her plane (QF1) was taxiing out at SYD.
Is this just a coincidence, or is there only "one" QF1 at a time, and my friend's departure from Sydney was delayed because the other plane was delayed in getting to London?
There can be multiple QF1s operating concurrently especially in the event of delays. One way this is dealt with is identifying the flight number with date of departure, departure port ( for that leg in multi leg flights like QF1 & 2 land maybe arrival port. I'm sure there are other methods.
Today my friend was flying QF1 back to the UK (SYD-SIN-LHR). Her departure was delayed around 1hr 20mins leaving Sydney. When I used a plane-tracking app to monitor her progress, it showed me "QF1" landing at LHR at the same time as her plane (QF1) was taxiing out at SYD.
Is this just a coincidence, or is there only "one" QF1 at a time, and my friend's departure from Sydney was delayed because the other plane was delayed in getting to London?
Common enough. As long as they're a few hours apart, they'll be able to use the same callsign. If not, then the delayed aircraft will be assigned a 'delta' suffix.
- Earn up to 100,000 bonus Qantas Points* - Enjoy an annual $450 Qantas travel credit - Don't forget the two complimentary Qantas Club lounge invitations and two visits to the Amex Centurion Lounges in Melbourne and Sydney.
I did eventually follow up about the lack of condition clearances at Melbourne, via our Fleet Manager. It was causing some quite considerable take off delays, as gaps that we could easily have fitted in were seemingly being wasted. I don't have the actual email any more (again, from the FM when he heard back from ATC), but it had to do with the stop bars, and the procedures that had come with them. Stop bars exist all over the place, without the same issue, so it really came back to whatever procedures were being imposed. I have no idea if this is still the case.
The 380 could take a bit to get moving once you'd stopped. The engines were slow to spool up from ground idle. We could alleviate this in places like Dubai (where conditional crossing clearances happened all the time), by judging the closure of the traffic, against the spool up. But, if you're in limbo waiting for a call, you're not going to sit there with the engines at 70%.
On a similar note, I had a bit of a thing about FOs (anyone really, but I could only do something about my FOs) who stopped short of the holding point. If you go as far forward as you can, you'll be quite some distance further along than someone who stops as the hold line reached the bottom of the windscreen. This was incredibly common, and again in Dubai, because there were multiple holding points next to each other, you could see how far back people had stopped. I sometimes timed people from the time they were given a clearance by tower, to the point where they could have stopped, and it was at least 30 seconds, up to a minute. This wasn't the time to line up...just to reach the point they could have gone to. We had a nose gear camera (and you can judge it out the side windows) so there was no danger of going too far.
Sorry OT but have had a qf b747 pilot actually Refuse a conditional clearance...at old BN airport, hot summer day, said he "required" a rolling start. So as expected a spectacular takeoff to watch.
Why don’t some go up to the holding point? Is that a bad habit from somewhere? I was actually watching one of the live feeds (Sydney I think) and the tower has a crack at someone for not going all the way up to the holding point.
Join Australian Frequent Flyer (AFF) for free and unlock insider tips, exclusive deals, and global meetups with 65,000+ frequent flyers.AFF members can also access our Frequent Flyer Training courses, and upgrade to Fast-track your way to expert traveller status and unlock even more exclusive discounts!
