4 ms·

Do companies punish pilots for go arounds for costing them fuel and delays? If not outright punished, does it cost them in potential promotion/raises? Do they l

Do companies punish pilots for go arounds for costing them fuel and delays? If not outright punished, does it cost them in potential promotion/raises? Do they look into a go around enough to determine cause or are all go arounds assumed pilot error by the company?

t0mas88 26d ago
No, a go around is not a pilot error and it's not punished. It's almost the opposite. There is automatic monitoring for stable approach criteria (simplified: you must be at speed X with flaps selected etc by altitude Y). So this example would cause an automatic report from the aircraft to the airline, because they were too fast (not within stable approach criteria) and still continued the approach instead of going around. However even in those cases it's not meant for punishment but for safety improvement. In most professional operations these reports are made anonymous, and only for example someone from a union committee gets to know who the crew were and could have a talk with them if necessary.
- dylan604 25d ago
  > No, a go around is not a pilot error and it's not punished. But the cause of a need to go around can be pilot error. There could be non-pilot error needs for a go around like when there is a runway incursion so the pilot is waved off. If a pilot makes a bad approach, would that not be pilot error? Not being a pilot, I'm not sure of the procedure. I'm assuming a 767 uses autopilot for the majority of the flight. I just have no insight on whether the pilot or the autopilot is responsible for the approach.
  - t0mas88 21d ago
    That's not really how it works. The industry does not treat a go around like an error. You'll only ever get questions when you don't go around while procedures clearly require it, like what seems to have happened in this case. On autopilot use: The pilot is always responsible for the approach. You can definitely have an unstable approach on autopilot if you configure it wrong or ask it to do things that can't be done within the stable approach criteria. A common example is trying to slow down and descend at the same time, most jets can't really do that. But "responsible" does not necessarily mean to blame in aviation. The industry as a whole follows the Just Culture principles (see: https://www.caa.co.uk/general-aviation/general-aviation-at-the-caa/safety-reporting-and-just-culture/# https://www.caa.co.uk/general-aviation/general-aviation-at-t... ) The purpose of a report is to learn from it and improve safety, not to blame the crew.
outworlder 26d ago
This should not be the case for any modern airline; too many accidents were caused by exactly this problem in the past. However, I don't doubt shady operations might be doing this(more so if they aren't carrying passengers). They won't be around for long if they are caught doing this kind of nonsense and it causes an incident (or accident in this case). Today there may be some rules (more than X go arounds because of weather, you have to divert, etc).
- rbanffy 25d ago
  > I don't doubt shady operations If there is a company willing to bend rules to increase profits, I'd bet it'd be Amazon's retail side. Not via explicit punishment, because that'd be too easy to catch, but bonuses for timely arrivals, fuel efficiency, and so on.
  - tekla 25d ago
    Provide evidence of any of this, or are you just spreading random fud because you don't like Amazon. Claiming that this company is making Aviation unsafe is a serious accusation, that requires evidence.
    - throwaway173738 25d ago
      Well they tend to optimize heavily by discouraging things like bathroom breaks, and I’ve seen evidence of this thinking in how they treat their drivers. I’m not sure why this would be extraordinary? On its face those incentives don’t sound bad except that they will incentivize unsafe behavior in edge cases like this.
      - tekla 25d ago
        Why do you think delivery driver stuff is any way comparable to aviation? Do you have evidence of pilots being forced to do unsafe things?
        25d ago
throwaway173738 25d ago
I wonder if Amazon does.
xenadu02 25d ago
AFAIK all Part 121 Passenger operations in the US (and most worldwide) have a no-fault go-around policy. Most have eliminated even the minimal requirement to denote a log entry as to the reason lest that make pilots reluctant to do the right thing. Some airlines even have monitoring programs and will penalize pilots for not going around when they should even if they save the landing. They don't want a bad habit to develop (normalization of deviance) because some day the holes in the swiss cheese will line up and the pilot won't be able to save the landing - and by then it will be too late. Part 121 Cargo and Part 135 Charter are ... another story. Quality of training and procedures vary a lot. Some are run about as well as the Part 121 Passenger operations. At others a go-around is a career-limiting move. I do not know how 21Air operated - leave that to the NTSB to discover - but it would not surprise me whatsoever if Amazon leans heavily on their contracted ACMIs and yanks contracts for delays. A go-around means an extra 15 minutes (give or take) and Amazon cuts their logistics schedules razor thin so they don't have to pay for extra labor. A 15-20 minute delay in unloading the airplane can mean the sorting center staff and delivery trucks sit idle (though it wouldn't surprise me if they just stiff the delivery contractors for the wasted time). This isn't necessarily done with ill intent - the middle managers at Amazon are just chasing their numbers and an operator that prioritizes safety will inevitably have worse on-time performance. As is often the case these days outsourcing / contracting can end up being a race to the bottom even if no one intends it that way. FedEx Ground is all contractors who bid on routes. If you ever wonder why the driver throws your package or leaves it in your driveway: they had to be the lowest bidder to get the contract and that means X deliveries per hour or they lose money. It just so happens that with air cargo operations this kind of pressure can easily lead to an accident.
Mawr 25d ago
"If you think safety is expensive, try an accident"

t0mas88 26d ago

No, a go around is not a pilot error and it's not punished. It's almost the opposite. There is automatic monitoring for stable approach criteria (simplified: you must be at speed X with flaps selected etc by altitude Y). So this example would cause an automatic report from the aircraft to the airline, because they were too fast (not within stable approach criteria) and still continued the approach instead of going around. However even in those cases it's not meant for punishment but for safety improvement. In most professional operations these reports are made anonymous, and only for example someone from a union committee gets to know who the crew were and could have a talk with them if necessary.

dylan604 25d ago
> No, a go around is not a pilot error and it's not punished. But the cause of a need to go around can be pilot error. There could be non-pilot error needs for a go around like when there is a runway incursion so the pilot is waved off. If a pilot makes a bad approach, would that not be pilot error? Not being a pilot, I'm not sure of the procedure. I'm assuming a 767 uses autopilot for the majority of the flight. I just have no insight on whether the pilot or the autopilot is responsible for the approach.
- t0mas88 21d ago
  That's not really how it works. The industry does not treat a go around like an error. You'll only ever get questions when you don't go around while procedures clearly require it, like what seems to have happened in this case. On autopilot use: The pilot is always responsible for the approach. You can definitely have an unstable approach on autopilot if you configure it wrong or ask it to do things that can't be done within the stable approach criteria. A common example is trying to slow down and descend at the same time, most jets can't really do that. But "responsible" does not necessarily mean to blame in aviation. The industry as a whole follows the Just Culture principles (see: https://www.caa.co.uk/general-aviation/general-aviation-at-the-caa/safety-reporting-and-just-culture/# https://www.caa.co.uk/general-aviation/general-aviation-at-t... ) The purpose of a report is to learn from it and improve safety, not to blame the crew.

outworlder 26d ago

This should not be the case for any modern airline; too many accidents were caused by exactly this problem in the past. However, I don't doubt shady operations might be doing this(more so if they aren't carrying passengers). They won't be around for long if they are caught doing this kind of nonsense and it causes an incident (or accident in this case). Today there may be some rules (more than X go arounds because of weather, you have to divert, etc).

rbanffy 25d ago
> I don't doubt shady operations If there is a company willing to bend rules to increase profits, I'd bet it'd be Amazon's retail side. Not via explicit punishment, because that'd be too easy to catch, but bonuses for timely arrivals, fuel efficiency, and so on.
- tekla 25d ago
  Provide evidence of any of this, or are you just spreading random fud because you don't like Amazon. Claiming that this company is making Aviation unsafe is a serious accusation, that requires evidence.
  - throwaway173738 25d ago
    Well they tend to optimize heavily by discouraging things like bathroom breaks, and I’ve seen evidence of this thinking in how they treat their drivers. I’m not sure why this would be extraordinary? On its face those incentives don’t sound bad except that they will incentivize unsafe behavior in edge cases like this.
    - tekla 25d ago
      Why do you think delivery driver stuff is any way comparable to aviation? Do you have evidence of pilots being forced to do unsafe things?
      - 25d ago

throwaway173738 25d ago

I wonder if Amazon does.

xenadu02 25d ago

AFAIK all Part 121 Passenger operations in the US (and most worldwide) have a no-fault go-around policy. Most have eliminated even the minimal requirement to denote a log entry as to the reason lest that make pilots reluctant to do the right thing. Some airlines even have monitoring programs and will penalize pilots for not going around when they should even if they save the landing. They don't want a bad habit to develop (normalization of deviance) because some day the holes in the swiss cheese will line up and the pilot won't be able to save the landing - and by then it will be too late. Part 121 Cargo and Part 135 Charter are ... another story. Quality of training and procedures vary a lot. Some are run about as well as the Part 121 Passenger operations. At others a go-around is a career-limiting move. I do not know how 21Air operated - leave that to the NTSB to discover - but it would not surprise me whatsoever if Amazon leans heavily on their contracted ACMIs and yanks contracts for delays. A go-around means an extra 15 minutes (give or take) and Amazon cuts their logistics schedules razor thin so they don't have to pay for extra labor. A 15-20 minute delay in unloading the airplane can mean the sorting center staff and delivery trucks sit idle (though it wouldn't surprise me if they just stiff the delivery contractors for the wasted time). This isn't necessarily done with ill intent - the middle managers at Amazon are just chasing their numbers and an operator that prioritizes safety will inevitably have worse on-time performance. As is often the case these days outsourcing / contracting can end up being a race to the bottom even if no one intends it that way. FedEx Ground is all contractors who bid on routes. If you ever wonder why the driver throws your package or leaves it in your driveway: they had to be the lowest bidder to get the contract and that means X deliveries per hour or they lose money. It just so happens that with air cargo operations this kind of pressure can easily lead to an accident.

Mawr 25d ago

"If you think safety is expensive, try an accident"