El Al Boeing 777 Makes Dramatic Go-Around on Paris-Tel Aviv Route After Runway 30 Approach Deviates

El Al flight LY324 from Paris Charles de Gaulle to Tel Aviv made a go-around at Ben Gurion Airport after the Boeing 777 descended to about 600 feet while roughly one nautical mile north of the intended Runway 30 approach track. The aircraft, registration 4X-ECF, had been cleared for a visual approach before the crew discontinued the landing attempt. The wide-body jet subsequently climbed, repositioned and completed a second approach, landing safely about 20 minutes later. Available flight-tracking information establishes the sequence, but it does not establish why the aircraft became misaligned. For travellers, the episode illustrates why crews may abandon a landing when an approach no longer meets safe operational parameters. International aviation guidance treats the go-around as a normal safety manoeuvre when a stable approach cannot be maintained.

The First Approach Unfolded Off Track

El Al flight LY324 was operating from Paris Charles de Gaulle Airport to Ben Gurion Airport, connecting two major international gateways used heavily by business and leisure travellers. The aircraft was a Boeing 777-200ER, a long-haul wide-body type designed for high-capacity international operations.

During its arrival at Tel Aviv, the aircraft was cleared for a visual approach to Runway 30. A visual approach gives pilots greater flexibility than a fully instrument-guided procedure, but the crew remains responsible for maintaining the required flight path and runway alignment.

The aircraft subsequently established a final approach trajectory approximately one nautical mile north of the intended track. It continued descending while remaining displaced from the runway alignment.

The aircraft reached approximately 600 feet above ground level before the crew discontinued the approach. Rather than attempting to correct the situation at very low altitude, the pilots initiated a go-around and climbed away from the airport.

That decision changed the flight from a landing sequence into a repositioning manoeuvre. The Boeing 777 subsequently climbed to approximately 4,000 feet before the crew prepared for another approach.

The aircraft then returned towards Runway 30 and completed the second approach successfully. It landed at Ben Gurion roughly 20 minutes after the initial go-around, according to the flight sequence described in the available information.

Why A Go-Around Matters for Travellers

A go-around can look dramatic from the passenger cabin, particularly when a large aircraft appears to descend towards the runway before suddenly climbing again. In operational terms, however, a go-around is an established part of commercial aviation.

The International Civil Aviation Organization identifies a go-around as the appropriate response whenever landing safety appears compromised. Its guidance includes situations where an approach becomes unstable or fails to meet defined approach criteria.

That principle is especially relevant during the final stages of an approach. An aircraft that is not correctly aligned, configured or positioned may require the crew to discontinue the landing rather than attempt a late correction.

ICAO guidance on stabilised approaches states that the aircraft should remain on the correct track, in the appropriate landing configuration and within the operator’s specified performance parameters. In visual meteorological conditions, the stabilisation reference is commonly 500 feet above aerodrome elevation, although operators may establish their own procedures.

The El Al event therefore provides a useful illustration of a broader safety principle. Continuing an unsuitable approach simply because the aircraft is already close to the runway is not the objective.

Instead, the crew can climb away, establish a safer position and reassess the approach before trying again.

For passengers, that may mean a few additional minutes in the air. It can also mean a temporary increase in workload for air traffic control and the flight crew. However, the manoeuvre exists precisely because landing is not always the safest option.

Runway Alignment Is Central to Safe Landings

The reported displacement of approximately one nautical mile is significant because runway alignment becomes increasingly important as an aircraft descends towards the threshold. A large commercial aircraft needs sufficient time and space to establish the correct flight path.

Once an aircraft reaches the later stages of an approach, large corrections can create additional operational demands. The crew must manage lateral position, descent profile, speed, configuration and energy while maintaining awareness of surrounding traffic and runway conditions.

The aircraft involved in this event was reportedly still offset from Runway 30 when it reached about 600 feet. The crew then discontinued the approach rather than continuing towards an unsuitable landing position.

ICAO material describes a stabilised approach as one maintaining a constant-angle and constant-rate profile towards the touchdown area. It also emphasises maintaining the correct track and appropriate aircraft configuration.

This distinction matters when interpreting flight-tracking data. A track can show that an aircraft flew north of the expected approach path. It cannot, by itself, determine whether the deviation resulted from navigation, weather, traffic, visual references, crew workload or another operational factor.

Consequently, the cause of the initial misalignment remains unconfirmed based on the information available for this report.

What The Flight Data Can And Cannot Show

Flight-tracking information is increasingly important in aviation reporting because it allows journalists and travellers to reconstruct an aircraft’s movements. However, its limitations are equally important.

Tracking data can reveal an aircraft’s approximate position, altitude, direction and sequence of movements. It can therefore help establish that LY324 descended to a low altitude, remained displaced from the expected approach path and subsequently climbed for another approach.

It cannot necessarily reveal what the pilots saw inside the cockpit. Nor can it independently establish communications with air traffic control, weather conditions at every stage or the crew’s decision-making process.

That distinction prevents premature conclusions about the incident.

This separation between fact and inference is particularly important in aviation journalism. An unusual flight path does not automatically identify its cause.

Until an airline, aviation authority or investigation provides additional information, the initial deviation should therefore be described as an observed event rather than attributed to a specific factor.

Ben Gurion Remains A Critical Travel Gateway

Ben Gurion Airport is Israel’s principal international aviation gateway and a major component of the country’s inbound and outbound travel network. Its operations connect Tel Aviv with European, North American, Middle Eastern and other international markets.

The airport’s approach environment also operates within a wider Israeli airspace system. The Israel Airports Authority’s Aeronautical Information Service publishes operational notices affecting Ben Gurion and surrounding airspace. Current notices demonstrate the importance of checking official aeronautical information when assessing runway and airspace conditions.

For travellers, however, the reported El Al event does not indicate a general closure of Runway 30 or a broader airport disruption. The available sequence shows an individual aircraft discontinuing one approach and subsequently landing.

That distinction is important because a single go-around does not necessarily translate into passenger disruption across an airport.

In busy international operations, aircraft routinely perform missed approaches for numerous reasons. The aircraft may subsequently land on the same runway, use another runway or enter a holding pattern before attempting another approach.

A Visual Approach Requires Constant Assessment

Visual approaches can offer operational flexibility because pilots can maintain visual reference with the airport and runway rather than relying solely on an instrument approach procedure. Yet that flexibility does not remove the need for accurate alignment and stable aircraft control.

The El Al aircraft was reportedly cleared for a visual approach to Runway 30. The subsequent track suggests that the aircraft approached the airport from a position approximately one nautical mile north of the intended final approach path.

A visual approach can therefore involve a high degree of pilot judgement. The crew must continuously assess whether the aircraft remains appropriately positioned for a safe landing.

If that judgement changes during the final approach, a go-around provides an established escape from the landing sequence.

ICAO guidance specifically encourages operators to reinforce go-around policies and avoid continuing an approach when stabilised approach criteria are not met.

The principle extends beyond any single airline or airport. It forms part of a wider international approach to reducing risks during landing operations.

Boeing 777 Brings Long-Haul Capacity

The aircraft involved, 4X-ECF, is a Boeing 777-200ER. The type belongs to one of the most widely recognised families of large twin-engine long-haul aircraft.

Boeing’s published specifications place the 777-200ER in the 300-to-375-seat range in a two-class configuration, with a maximum take-off weight of 297,550 kilograms and a range of up to 7,500 nautical miles.

The aircraft involved in the reported event was configured differently, with the source material identifying a three-class layout of 313 seats. Its stated configuration comprised 28 business-class seats, 32 premium-class seats and 253 economy seats.

The difference illustrates why published manufacturer capacity figures should not automatically be treated as the seating configuration of an individual airline aircraft. Carriers tailor cabins according to their network, commercial strategy and passenger demand.

The 777’s long-range capability has made it particularly valuable for international markets where airlines require substantial passenger and cargo capacity. Boeing describes the family as providing long-range capability alongside high passenger capacity.

What The Incident Means For Passengers

For passengers travelling to or from Tel Aviv, the most immediate practical point is that a go-around does not necessarily signal an emergency.

A sudden climb after an apparently normal descent can cause concern in the cabin. Yet pilots train extensively for the manoeuvre, and airlines establish procedures governing when crews should discontinue approaches.

The reported LY324 sequence ultimately involved one discontinued approach followed by a successful landing. There is no indication in the supplied information that the aircraft suffered damage or that passengers required evacuation.

Travellers should also avoid assuming that every go-around will produce the same outcome. A second approach can take longer if the aircraft needs to enter a holding pattern, if another aircraft has priority, or if weather conditions deteriorate.

Operationally, the crew may also need to coordinate with air traffic control before receiving another approach clearance.

For passengers connecting through Ben Gurion, a short delay could therefore follow a go-around. However, the scale of that delay depends on the airport’s traffic situation and the reason for the discontinued approach.

How Go-Arounds Protect Landing Safety

The aviation industry has spent decades developing stabilised-approach policies because the final stages of flight demand precise coordination. A go-around interrupts that sequence when the aircraft no longer meets the required conditions.

ICAO guidance states that operators should prepare crews to execute go-arounds throughout the approach. It also recommends policies that support the decision rather than creating pressure to complete a landing.

This is significant from a commercial aviation perspective. Airlines operate under schedule pressures, airport slot constraints and passenger expectations. Yet a missed approach remains a recognised operational response when safety criteria are not met.

ICAO material also identifies several possible triggers for go-arounds, including abnormal approach conditions, environmental factors, aircraft conditions and situations where stabilised approach criteria are not maintained.

The lesson for travellers is straightforward. A flight arriving late because of a go-around is usually a different situation from a flight experiencing a serious landing accident.

The go-around exists to create additional time and space for the crew to establish a safer approach.

Tel Aviv Travellers Should Watch Official Updates

Passengers travelling through Ben Gurion should rely on airline notifications and official airport information when assessing disruptions. Flight-tracking websites can provide useful context, but they should not replace operational information from the carrier or airport.

The Israel Airports Authority’s aeronautical information system publishes official operational notices for Israeli aviation. These notices can include runway, navigation, airspace and other operational information.

Travellers should therefore check their individual flight status before heading to the airport. A single aircraft’s go-around does not automatically mean widespread delays or cancellations.

For connecting passengers, however, additional time can be useful when operating through a busy international hub. A delayed arrival can affect onward connections even when the original flight lands safely.

Airlines may also change aircraft, departure times or operational routings in response to broader airport conditions. These decisions remain separate from the reported LY324 approach.

The Wider Safety Lesson Is Clear

The El Al Boeing 777 episode is notable because the aircraft reached a relatively low altitude while displaced from the intended Runway 30 approach path. The crew then discontinued the landing and returned for another approach.

The available information does not establish why the deviation occurred. It does, however, show how a go-around can interrupt an unsuitable approach before landing and provide the crew with an opportunity to reset the flight path.

That principle is consistent with international aviation safety guidance. ICAO recommends a go-around whenever safety appears compromised or stabilised approach criteria are not met.

For the travelling public, the outcome is therefore more important than the drama of the aircraft climbing away from the runway. The Boeing 777 did not continue an unsuitable first approach; it repositioned and landed safely on the second attempt.

The incident also reinforces why flight-tracking data must be interpreted carefully. Position and altitude can reveal what happened operationally, but they cannot alone reveal the underlying cause.

A Safe Landing Followed The Second Attempt

El Al flight LY324 ultimately completed its journey without an accident after the crew abandoned the first landing attempt. The Boeing 777 climbed to approximately 4,000 feet, repositioned and returned for another approach to Ben Gurion’s Runway 30.

The aircraft then landed safely around 20 minutes after the go-around. For passengers, that outcome demonstrates the practical value of having a clear and disciplined response when an approach no longer supports a suitable landing.

The available evidence confirms the aircraft’s route, approach deviation, low-altitude descent, go-around and subsequent landing. It does not establish the reason for the initial misalignment, so further attribution would remain speculative without official findings.

For travellers, the key message is simple: a go-around is an established aviation safety manoeuvre, not by itself evidence of an accident or aircraft failure. The LY324 sequence ultimately ended with the aircraft safely on the ground at Tel Aviv.