3 ms·

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: y

by t0mas88 15d 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 15d 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 11d 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.

by t0mas88 15d ago

dylan604 15d 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 11d 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.