By John Q. Hosedrinker 
American Airlines flight 2246 from Boston executed a standard go-around at Reagan National Airport due to an air traffic controller’s instruction to maintain separation from another aircraft departing the same runway. The airline confirmed the maneuver was a routine procedure, emphasizing its “no-fault” policy regarding go-arounds, and that the flight landed safely. A similar incident occurred shortly after at Chicago’s Midway International Airport involving a Southwest Airlines flight, also resulting in a precautionary go-around to avoid a conflict with a private jet on the runway. Both incidents highlight the safety measures employed to prevent collisions.
Read the original article here
An American Airlines flight from Boston recently aborted its landing at a D.C. airport to avoid a departing plane. This isn’t, however, the uncommon, alarming event that some media outlets might portray it as. The incident was simply a routine “go-around,” a standard procedure designed to maintain safe separation between aircraft. These events occur frequently in air traffic control, and are a result of the system functioning as it should. It’s a safety mechanism to prevent collisions, not a sign of systemic failure.
Many pilots have reported that this type of go-around, prompted by insufficient spacing between arriving and departing aircraft, is a commonplace occurrence. It’s a perfectly normal part of air traffic management, and far from indicative of an impending aviation crisis. The increased media coverage might be attributed to a heightened awareness of near-misses and accidents in the aviation industry, prompting more scrutiny of even routine incidents. The frequency of such events suggests that the system, while imperfect, is generally effective at preventing accidents.
The concern over reduced FAA resources and staffing shortages is valid, though. Cuts to these vital areas could lead to a rise in such incidents in the future, increasing the likelihood of potentially hazardous situations. It’s imperative that these resources remain adequately funded to maintain the safety and efficiency of our air traffic control system. While go-arounds are normal, consistently understaffed and underfunded air traffic control significantly increases risk.
The suggestion that increased reporting, rather than increased incidents, is driving the news cycle might hold true. The recent focus on aviation safety, fueled by other incidents, seems to have heightened sensitivity and media attention towards even minor events, like this go-around. This increased reporting needs to be balanced with the context of how often go-arounds occur, and their primary role as a safety protocol. News should focus on serious problems, and this should not be misrepresented as indicative of larger issues.
It’s understandable that passengers might be disconcerted by a sudden go-around. The sensation of the plane rapidly ascending can be jarring and unexpected, especially without immediate explanation from the pilot. However, it’s crucial to understand that this is a standard procedure implemented for safety, and not a cause for alarm. Pilots are trained to handle these situations, and air traffic controllers actively work to prevent such close calls. This is a normal function of aviation safety.
Some have drawn parallels to other recent incidents, such as the near-miss at Midway airport. However, these situations are vastly different. The Midway incident involved a runway incursion, a far more serious event than a go-around due to spacing issues. The comparison is inaccurate. One was a failure to maintain proper separation, the other involved a potentially catastrophic runway incursion.
We should approach these narratives with a balanced perspective. While media coverage of such events is important for transparency and accountability, it’s equally vital to understand the context and frequency of routine procedures like go-arounds. Overemphasizing individual incidents without providing the bigger picture can unjustly alarm the public and may lead to misinterpretations. The current FAA staffing crisis is undeniably concerning, but this particular instance was a normal and expected safety procedure. The focus should remain on addressing the more severe systemic concerns in the industry, rather than sensationalizing standard safety protocols.
Finally, the digital age has made it easier than ever to capture and share videos and accounts of aviation events. This increased visibility, while valuable for accountability, also contributes to a higher frequency of news coverage regarding even minor incidents. The public needs nuanced information and not just sensationalized, simplified accounts of potentially routine events, to assess risk and advocate for safer skies. The current media emphasis on near misses and accidents in aviation needs to avoid misinterpreting commonplace safety measures as evidence of systemic problems.