Is a "Go Around" an unfamiliar manoeuvre to a student pilot?

[David Wright[_2_]]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/essex/6294778.stm

Interesting that a "Go Around" is considered here as an "unfamiliar
manoeuvre" - and that the pilot was "put in a situation beyond his
experience" - okay he only had 15 hours of flying time and it was only his
second solo, but I was doing touch and go's and going around from about my
third hour onwards.

D.

[James Sleeman]

On Jul 12, 10:56 pm, "David Wright" >
wrote:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/essex/6294778.stm
>
> Interesting that a "Go Around" is considered here as an "unfamiliar
> manoeuvre" - and that the pilot was "put in a situation

I think this is probably a case where one needs to read the accident
report. I have a feeling that the news reporting may have simplified
a little too much. Anybody know where to find the report online?

[James Sleeman]

On Jul 13, 12:09 am, James Sleeman > wrote:
> a little too much. Anybody know where to find the report online?

To answer my own question:

http://tinyurl.com/2fltym

( http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/sites/aaib/publications/bulletins/july_2007/cessna_f150l__g_babb.cfm
)

[Ol Shy & Bashful]

On Jul 12, 5:56 am, "David Wright" >
wrote:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/essex/6294778.stm
>
> Interesting that a "Go Around" is considered here as an "unfamiliar
> manoeuvre" - and that the pilot was "put in a situation beyond his
> experience" - okay he only had 15 hours of flying time and it was only his
> second solo, but I was doing touch and go's and going around from about my
> third hour onwards.
>
> D.

David, et al;
Each area and each instructor has a different idea of relative
importance for nearly every phase of flying. But, in my not so humble
opinion, far too much importance is placed on solo early. Many years
back, 10 hours was the magic number for solo and if you went over
that you were a clod not worthy of continued training. (Well,
something like that...)
It didn't take me long as an instructor to figure out if a student
couldn't do very basic flight manuevers safely, they had no business
flying solo!
As for landings, I remind my students, they only have one opportunity
for a safe landing for EVERY takeoff. And, further, each takeoff will
be followed by one of two things......a good approach and landing, or
a GO-AROUND hopefully to be followed by a good landing.
A go around is a very important skill to learn and it has to be
appropriate for the aircraft being flown. May I offer my own
dissertation on go arounds? Thank you. :<)
The conditions that require an aborted landing are myriad and fluid.
So does the point when the pilot must make a decision to continue or
to go around. The common factor is a vertical descent rate that must
be arrested to effect a go around. The altitude may be 500'agl, or it
may be 10'agl under extremes. So, the most important thing to do is to
stop the descent and get stabilized while doing whatever has to be
accomplished in order to go back up and make another attempt or divert
to an alternate.
Most go around procedures require application of takeoff power
followed by reduction of flaps, or retraction of gear, or application
of collective (for the rotorheads) and the appropriate procedures for
both the aircraft and the operations involved.
I insist the student say out loud during the approach, the pertinent
numbers and what they are doing. When they are on short final they
must declare it to be a touchdown or a potential go around. If I
declare a "GO AROUND" THEY MUST APPLY TAKEOFF POWER, arrest the
descent, get stabilized, and then before they touch the flap control,
MUST call out their airspeed and a positive rate of climb. Once they
have done that, they can stage the flaps up and resume a normal climb.
In order for any student pilot to accomplish any kind of precison of
the aircraft, they must first learn the rudimentary skills for flight.
Teaching them nothing but touch and go landings is to their detriment.
Your technique and opinion will vary with mileage.
Cheers
Ol S&B Soaring Buzzard
World Infamous Pilot/Instructor

[Thomas Borchert]

David,

> Interesting that a "Go Around" is considered here as an "unfamiliar
> manoeuvre"
>

IMHO, it is impossible for an instructor to prepare a student for each
and every situation he might encounted. However, it IS not only
possible, but mandatory to prepare him to be flexible, think for
himself and adjust to unfamiliar situations. If the student hasn't
mastered that, he isn't ready for (solo) flying.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

David Wright wrote:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/essex/6294778.stm
>
> Interesting that a "Go Around" is considered here as an "unfamiliar
> manoeuvre" - and that the pilot was "put in a situation beyond his
> experience" - okay he only had 15 hours of flying time and it was only his
> second solo, but I was doing touch and go's and going around from about my
> third hour onwards.
>
> D.
>
>
A "go- around" is NOT an unfamiliar maneuver; at least it shouldn't be
to any student who has been checked out for solo. In fact, go arounds
are an intricate part of the learning curve and should be taught to
every student pilots before solo is achieved.
I can see no reason why a properly training student pilot would be
incapable of going around during any solo flight that student was signed
off to make.
If a student crashes on a go around because normal procedures were not
followed, there is a serious problem either involving the instructor.
Even if mis-communication was a factor, the student STILL should have
been able to handle the situation avoiding a crash.
I look heavily toward the instructor in matters like these.
This having been said, I ALSO would reserve any final decision on these
matters until I had studied the official accident report.
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> David,
>
>> Interesting that a "Go Around" is considered here as an "unfamiliar
>> manoeuvre"
>>
>
> IMHO, it is impossible for an instructor to prepare a student for each
> and every situation he might encounted. However, it IS not only
> possible, but mandatory to prepare him to be flexible, think for
> himself and adjust to unfamiliar situations. If the student hasn't
> mastered that, he isn't ready for (solo) flying.
>
You're right. Instructors who attempt to teach students with an "if this
happens...do this" approach are in my opinion not teaching properly. You
teach how it should be done the right way, then you teach how to use
common sense and flexibility in flying the airplane to maintain that
right way and/or return to that right way when deviations occur.
A properly trained student pilot faced with a sudden unusual situation
involving a go-around would "fly the airplane first", remain stabilized
and calm, and then solve the peripherals required to return the aircraft
to a normal situation.
Dudley Henriques

[Stefan]

James Sleeman schrieb:

> To answer my own question:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2fltym

Thanks for the link. The report explains everything, if one reads it to
the end.

[James Sleeman]

On Jul 12, 10:56 pm, "David Wright" >
wrote:
> Interesting that a "Go Around" is considered here as an "unfamiliar
> manoeuvre" - and that the pilot was "put in a situation beyond his
> experience" - okay he only had 15 hours of flying time

I have now read the (comprehensive!) accident report, and as I
expected, it was important to do so because the BBC article doesn't
give anything like the whole truth.

Here is my attempt at boiling it down to the essence...
1. The pilot was a 16 year old new-solo student on his second solo
after a checkride with instructor. During the flight preceding the
accident it was apparent that he wasn't entirely comfortable with
radio communications outside of the "normal" circuit procedures.
2. The airport is fairly busy catering for both fast guys and club
and student pilots in C150s etc.
3. The ATC units operating at the time of the accident appear not to
have been aware the pilot was a new solo.
4. The C150 was on fairly late final and had been cleared #1.
5. A faster aircraft (Malibu) was coming in on basically a straight
in approach from outside the circuit.
6. ATC decided to put the Malibu in first and get the C150 out of
the way (remembering here that the C150 as the aircraft in front, on
final should have had right of way).
7. An instruction was given to the C150, however, the phrasology was
bad, it started out requesting a go-around "maintain centerline", then
in the same transmission said to "disregard" and "just do a left turn
and fly north, I'll call you back in later", he was also told there
was a fast aircraft behind him
8. the C150 pilot read back the left turn instruction
9. the C150 pilot proceeded to turn to the reciprocal (west of
north) of the base leg, indicating the sense of "constrainment to the
circuit" the student felt.
10. at the same time it seems likely the workload was high, and he
would be looking out for other aircraft in the sometimes busy circuit,
not to mention the "fast aircraft behind"
11. lack of confidence, and experience, and the workload and perhaps
confusion all contributed to the pilot not cleaning up the aircraft
(or climbing to circuit altitude) and it remained in the low power,
low altitude, approach configuration through the turn
12. when called by ATC that he could return to land the pilot
initiated a turn, but in the process a stall-spin eventuated and it
was all over rover

The ultimate cause of the accident at the end of the day was that the
pilot forgot to fly the plane, he appears to have been confused and
overwhelmed by the non-standard turn of events and the break-away from
the "circuit procedures with possible go-around" for which he had been
trained.

The go-around was not called for properly, standard phrasology is
required by the rules, and the procedure is also standard - clean up,
climb up, and move to the right of centerline. "Turn to the north"
from late in the final is nothing like that (to the student).

The potential for *exactly* this accident sequence had been identified
by the ATC unit at that very airport in the 90s and instructions were
given at the time that would have avoided it basically that ATC should
only ever tell club/student pilots to "go around, say again, go
around" which is the offical phrase and procedure for which students
are trained. New ATC personell having joined the unit after this
instruction was promulgated were not made aware of it. The
instruction has subsequently been re-issued.

I think what should be learned from this is that especially low-time
students still circuit bashing have very set procedures they are
following in thier minds, and any break-away from those procedures can
quickly lead to confusion and over-workload situations. Combine that
"procedural break" with it being at low altitude, low speed, approach
configuration, and you are asking for trouble. A standard "go around,
say again, go around" would have been fine, because the student would
have known exactly what was expected of him.

[David Wright[_2_]]

> Thanks for the link. The report explains everything, if one reads it to
> the end.

The non-standard phraseology used certainly seems to have been an important
factor.

D

[Peter R.]

On 7/12/2007 9:58:36 AM, James Sleeman wrote:

> 6. ATC decided to put the Malibu in first and get the C150 out of
> the way (remembering here that the C150 as the aircraft in front, on
> final should have had right of way).

This means nothing at a towered airport. Tower controllers have the option of
canceling the landing clearance and vectoring the landing aircraft out of the
way for faster aircraft if needed. I have heard it on the frequency routinely
and experienced it once firsthand while flying a C172 during a 35 knot
headwind/blinding lake effect snow event on final.

It should be a non-event. Sadly in this case it wasn't

--
Peter

[James Sleeman]

On Jul 13, 2:08 am, "Peter R." > wrote:
> On 7/12/2007 9:58:36 AM, James Sleeman wrote:
>
> > 6. ATC decided to put the Malibu in first and get the C150 out of
> > the way (remembering here that the C150 as the aircraft in front, on
> > final should have had right of way).
>
> This means nothing at a towered airport. Tower controllers have the option of


That is true, controllers do have the discretion to prioritize, and
indeed training flights are lower priority than normal flights.

However, the wisdom of calling for manouvering (not just a simple go-
around) of aircraft which are on late final for the primary reason of
expediency for a faster aircraft earlier in the approach is what I
would question. And a recommendation was made in that report to that
similar regard.

[Stefan]

James Sleeman schrieb:

> However, the wisdom of calling for manouvering (not just a simple go-
> around) of aircraft which are on late final for the primary reason of
> expediency for a faster aircraft earlier in the approach is what I
> would question.

Actually, this was not the reason. They first considered to let the
Malibu do a circle, but were concerned about some unidentified radar
echos nearby. So they decided to let the student go around.

It's all in the report, no guessing required.

[James Sleeman]

On Jul 13, 3:10 am, Stefan > wrote:
> James Sleeman schrieb:
>
> Actually, this was not the reason. They first considered to let the

Fair call, the controller did feel there was a safty aspect in that.

> So they decided to let the student go around.

That was the problem, controller didn't get the student to "go
around" (like they should have) but instead to perform a non-standard
manouver ("turn left, fly north") late in the approach, if they had
asked for a go-around, seems we wouldn't be having this conversation,
pilot would have gone around and everybody would have been happy.

It's certainly not totally ATC's fault, after all, the pilot is the
one who forgot rule #1 (fly the plane), but certainly ATC does have to
(and it appears has done) take a lesson from this most unfortunate
accident. A young boy of 16 needlessly lost his life because of a
couple of mistakes, he can't learn from it, but we can.

[Peter R.]

On 7/12/2007 11:52:39 AM, James Sleeman wrote:

> That was the problem, controller didn't get the student to "go
> around" (like they should have) but instead to perform a non-standard
> manouver ("turn left, fly north") late in the approach, if they had
> asked for a go-around, seems we wouldn't be having this conversation,
> pilot would have gone around and everybody would have been happy.

Not meaning to trivialize the death in this accident, but for the purpose of
discussion why would a "turn left, fly north" instruction be considered a
non-standard maneuver at a towered airport? What is a standard maneuver at a
towered airport?

--
Peter

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Peter R. wrote:
> On 7/12/2007 11:52:39 AM, James Sleeman wrote:
>
>> That was the problem, controller didn't get the student to "go
>> around" (like they should have) but instead to perform a non-standard
>> manouver ("turn left, fly north") late in the approach, if they had
>> asked for a go-around, seems we wouldn't be having this conversation,
>> pilot would have gone around and everybody would have been happy.
>
> Not meaning to trivialize the death in this accident, but for the purpose of
> discussion why would a "turn left, fly north" instruction be considered a
> non-standard maneuver at a towered airport? What is a standard maneuver at a
> towered airport?
>
Had the student been trained properly, he should have executed the EXACT
instructions he heard on the radio while maintaining control of the
airplane. Once turned left and headed North as directed, with the
airplane completely under control and watching for other traffic, he
should have ASKED for clarification and further instructions, even if
that required him using plain language telling ATC he was a student and
needed help.
There is always a tendency, and indeed a fact, that in a final accident
report, the FAA and the NTSB compartmentalize everything they consider
to be contributing factors. We as pilots and instructors on the other
hand must look at these things in the context of what WE could have done
to prevent the accident from happening in the first place.
That being said, it's obvious to me at least, that this student wasn't
prepared to deal with the situation he found himself in, and was killed
by the very basics he should have been following but wasn't.
In preparing a student for solo, it's incumbent on the instructor to
teach a student in such a way that when something unforeseen happens
like a command from ATC to vary from the expected, the trained reaction
of the student is to continue to fly the aircraft while sorting out the
"problem"
All this having been said, there is no absolute way for an instructor to
insure that a student won't do the wrong thing at the wrong time, but
the evidence in this accident indicates strongly that this student was
concentrating way too heavily on trying to follow the instructions given
at the expense of his basic flying skills.
It's always a toss up on these things, but I for one would want to sit
down with this student's instructor and have one LONG talk about this
accident and this student's preparation for solo in the environment
surrounding this accident.
Dudley Henriques

[[email protected]]

On Jul 12, 9:58 am, James Sleeman > wrote:
> The potential for *exactly* this accident sequence had been identified
> by the ATC unit at that very airport in the 90s and instructions were
> given at the time that would have avoided it basically that ATC should
> only ever tell club/student pilots to "go around, say again, go
> around" which is the offical phrase and procedure for which students
> are trained. New ATC personell having joined the unit after this
> instruction was promulgated were not made aware of it. The
> instruction has subsequently been re-issued.

Thanks for the excellent summary and commentary!

When I began soloing, my instructor forbade me to engage in any low-
altitude
maneuvering on final approach (e.g. 360s for spacing, which the tower
sometimes called for). He explained clearly that any such request from
ATC
should be met with "Unable, student pilot, going around", followed by
a
standard go-around. I think that's an excellent policy for students
until
they have extensive solo-landing experience.

[James Sleeman]

On Jul 13, 3:57 am, "Peter R." > wrote:

> Not meaning to trivialize the death in this accident, but for the purpose of
> discussion why would a "turn left, fly north" instruction be considered a
> non-standard maneuver at a towered airport? What is a standard maneuver at a
> towered airport?

Non standard in the context of a spacing procedure at late stage of
final. The standard would have been to simply ask "G-ABCD go-around",
but controller basically asked for a modified go around, first to
maintain centerline (instead of going right), and then mid-sentance
changing thier mind and asking for a left turn, which appears to have
further confused the pilot.

[Andrew Gideon]

On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 09:13:16 -0400, Dudley Henriques wrote:

> A "go- around" is NOT an unfamiliar maneuver; at least it shouldn't be to
> any student who has been checked out for solo.

Someone I know was badly injured in what appears to be a botched
go-around. This was a very experienced pilot (ie. multiple hundreds of
hours, ME rated, etc.). But how often had he performed that maneuver in
the past few years? I don't know.

Do biennials typically cover this? And what about those that "place out"
of biennials via WINGS program. Do the CFIs doing the flight time hours
for WINGS include such things (ie. in that hour of t/o and landing work)?

My club membership involves an annual flight review. At least one CFI
with whom I take these loves to throw these at me (and, I suspect, his
other victims {8^): aborted landings, aborted takeoffs, etc. Last time
with him I was doing a touch-and-go and he aborted the "go" after the
"touch".

- Andrew

P.S. That last flight review also included dueling gear breaker
work. I noticed that the CFI (not he I mentioned above) had pulled the
gear breaker well before I needed the gear. So while his attention was
elsewhere, I pushed it back in. But then when I did try to drop the
gear, I found that he'd managed to get it out again.

I know some fun CFIs <grin>.

[Kloudy via AviationKB.com]

> okay he only had 15 hours of flying time and it was only his
>second solo, but I was doing touch and go's and going around from about my
>third hour onwards.
>
>D.

My instructor and I practiced aborted approaches ( go-arounds) at least once
every session. FROM THE SECOND LESSON. I never knew when the command would
come. Seemed it was most often when I had the entire approach nailed...
perfect! >_<
I do remember that as soon as power was applied, it took a LOT of forward
yoke force in the C152 to keep the nose down and let A/S build since we were
in landing config. Flaps out, trim and all.

Maybe this poor chap hadn't experienced that effect enough.

I was instructed that after reaching climb speed I must manuever away from RW
centerline, start climb, s-l-o-w-l-y bring in the flaps and establish normal
climb config.

My glider instructors would also frequently abort aerotow unexpectedly which
totally saved my cheese when I experienced my first real rope break.
Bless 'em.

Too bad for this kid. A real shame.

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200707/1

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

> When I began soloing, my instructor forbade me to engage in any low-
> altitude
> maneuvering on final approach (e.g. 360s for spacing, which the tower
> sometimes called for). He explained clearly that any such request from
> ATC
> should be met with "Unable, student pilot, going around", followed by
> a
> standard go-around. I think that's an excellent policy for students
> until
> they have extensive solo-landing experience.
>
I would respectfully disagree with this line of reasoning from an
instructor and would never recommend this or condone this procedure from
any instructor within shouting distance of my voice :-)
The entire purpose of teaching people to fly airplanes is to teach them
to operate safely within a constantly changing dynamic. This means both
the aerodynamic AND the ATC dynamic.
Students learning to fly in a controlled traffic environment are not
well served by instructors who encourage them to deny an ATC request as
a routine procedure based on the fact that the pilot is a student.
This should in no way be misconstrued into meaning that a student
shouldn't take whatever action is necessary to maintain flight safety if
contrary to an instruction from ATC. It does mean however that student
pilots are better taught to function in the traffic environment as
PILOTS rather than students right from the gitgo, as in any and all
situations encountered in that environment they will have to act as
pilots and not students.
The only time a student should not follow an instruction from ATC is
when that instruction over rides a flight safety issue that is
immediately apparent to the student. In that case, an "unable to comply"
followed by a brief transmission as to why is the protocol, but doing
this should always be the abnormal situation not the norm!
In the specific instance you have used as an example, there might very
well be a valid reason known to the controller ONLY as to why a specific
instruction was given at a specific moment in time. There could ALSO be
a valid reason why a go around from a present position when the ATC
request was made would be inadvisable due to traffic separation or an
aircraft sequencing on a crossing runway.
The reasons why something can be valid or invalid in the ATC environment
are many and varied.
The bottom line on this is that a student pilot should be trained to
respond to any and all reasonable requests made by ATC when in the
traffic pattern of a controlled field, NOT taught to change or deny an
ATC request based on a student pilot status. If the student is dual, the
instructor is PIC. If the student is solo, that student should know how
to deal with any and all ATC requests and be functioning as a normal
aircraft in the traffic environment. That responsibility is also the
instructor's.
Dudley Henriques
Dudley Henriques

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Peter R." > wrote
>
> It should be a non-event. Sadly in this case it wasn't

I'm not sure that a go-around is even a required skill for solos, (from reading
the rather lengthy report) for the country in which this took place.

If not, it should be.
--
Jim in NC

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jul 12, 3:56 am, "David Wright" >
wrote:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/essex/6294778.stm
>
> Interesting that a "Go Around" is considered here as an "unfamiliar
> manoeuvre" - and that the pilot was "put in a situation beyond his
> experience" - okay he only had 15 hours of flying time and it was only his
> second solo, but I was doing touch and go's and going around from about my
> third hour onwards.
>
> D.

I just read the news report. Man, flying in the UK must be exciting if
the tower can ask you do perform a loop to avoid traffic!! No wonder
the poor kid crashed.

-Robert

[Jim Stewart]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> David,
>
>> Interesting that a "Go Around" is considered here as an "unfamiliar
>> manoeuvre"
>>
>
> IMHO, it is impossible for an instructor to prepare a student for each
> and every situation he might encounted. However, it IS not only
> possible, but mandatory to prepare him to be flexible, think for
> himself and adjust to unfamiliar situations. If the student hasn't
> mastered that, he isn't ready for (solo) flying.

Reading the accident report, it's clear that
the cause was insufficient airspeed coupled
with a high bank angle probably uncoordinated
turn close to the ground. This was the *first*
thing I was taught not to do. The second was
to "fly the airplane".

So the whole "Go Around" thing seems to be a
something of a misnomer.

[george]

On Jul 13, 6:41 am, "Morgans" > wrote:
> "Peter R." > wrote
>
>
>
> > It should be a non-event. Sadly in this case it wasn't
>
> I'm not sure that a go-around is even a required skill for solos, (from reading
> the rather lengthy report) for the country in which this took place.
>
> If not, it should be.

That's why they invented the touch and go.
And it sounds like the unfortunate student got caught on the backside
of the power curve.

[Euan Kilgour]

On Jul 13, 1:13 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> David Wright wrote:
> >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/essex/6294778.stm
>
> > Interesting that a "Go Around" is considered here as an "unfamiliar
> > manoeuvre" - and that the pilot was "put in a situation beyond his
> > experience" - okay he only had 15 hours of flying time and it was only his
> > second solo, but I was doing touch and go's and going around from about my
> > third hour onwards.
>
> > D.
>
> A "go- around" is NOT an unfamiliar maneuver; at least it shouldn't be
> to any student who has been checked out for solo. In fact, go arounds
> are an intricate part of the learning curve and should be taught to
> every student pilots before solo is achieved.
> I can see no reason why a properly training student pilot would be
> incapable of going around during any solo flight that student was signed
> off to make.
> If a student crashes on a go around because normal procedures were not
> followed, there is a serious problem either involving the instructor.
> Even if mis-communication was a factor, the student STILL should have
> been able to handle the situation avoiding a crash.
> I look heavily toward the instructor in matters like these.
> This having been said, I ALSO would reserve any final decision on these
> matters until I had studied the official accident report.
> Dudley Henriques

I recall having to correctly perform a go around for the clubs head
instructor before being allowed to solo. I still remember his words,
"if you aren't ready to go around you aren't ready to land."

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Euan Kilgour wrote:

>
> I recall having to correctly perform a go around for the clubs head
> instructor before being allowed to solo. I still remember his words,
> "if you aren't ready to go around you aren't ready to land."

I trained at a little airport that was while small fairly busy back in the
'70s. There were lots of NORDO aircraft and guys that might have well been
NORDO. If you didn't know how to do a go around your life would be measured
in hours because I can't count the number of times in my ~40 hours that some
butthead pulled out on the active while I was on final. Yes most of them
would of been clear before I made it to the end of the runway but to a
newbie they looked like they were going to be at the same place I planned to
be in a minute or so.

[[email protected]]

On Jul 12, 2:38 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> I would respectfully disagree with this line of reasoning from an
> instructor and would never recommend this or condone this procedure from
> any instructor within shouting distance of my voice :-)
> The entire purpose of teaching people to fly airplanes is to teach them
> to operate safely within a constantly changing dynamic. This means both
> the aerodynamic AND the ATC dynamic.
> Students learning to fly in a controlled traffic environment are not
> well served by instructors who encourage them to deny an ATC request as

I see your point. Thanks. I'll reconsider.

[Kloudy via AviationKB.com]

>george wrote:

>And it sounds like the unfortunate student got caught on the backside
>of the power curve.

That was kinda what I was thinking. As a student it took me a bit to
understand that notion of pitch and power relationship.
Was kinda creepy roaring around at near full power with the stall warning
horn blarin' away. O_o

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200707/1

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Andrew Gideon wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 09:13:16 -0400, Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
>> A "go- around" is NOT an unfamiliar maneuver; at least it shouldn't be to
>> any student who has been checked out for solo.
>
> Someone I know was badly injured in what appears to be a botched
> go-around. This was a very experienced pilot (ie. multiple hundreds of
> hours, ME rated, etc.). But how often had he performed that maneuver in
> the past few years? I don't know.

A go around isn't really a maneuver, it's a transition. It should be
taught along with landings as an integral part of the landing scenario
and a possibility to occur on every landing.
This is why I have always objected to the "compartmentalized" method of
teaching people to fly airplanes; ie; landing, crosswind landings, go
arounds etc. Every landing has the potential for both a crosswind and/or
a go around. I prefer to teach landings as a single event that can
encompass any and all circumstances found in a landing. The result of
this approach (no pun intended :-) is that a pilot starts considering
all landings from the first one on as an event that can, and often does
mean, deviation from a rock solid and rigid and most importantly
EXPECTED sequence of events.
The good instructor wants the student to be fluid, flexible, with the
goal of landing the airplane in mind at all times, but ready in an
instant to deviate from what the airplane is doing NOW to what the
airplane now HAS TO DO!



>
> Do biennials typically cover this? And what about those that "place out"
> of biennials via WINGS program. Do the CFIs doing the flight time hours
> for WINGS include such things (ie. in that hour of t/o and landing work)?
A good bi-annual given by a good instructor will be relaxed and informal
with the instructor observing what you are doing and how you are doing
it. It would and should be quite common for an instructor giving a
bi-annual to ask for a go-around from any point in the approach,
(conditions permitting) including the flare.
>
> My club membership involves an annual flight review. At least one CFI
> with whom I take these loves to throw these at me (and, I suspect, his
> other victims {8^): aborted landings, aborted takeoffs, etc. Last time
> with him I was doing a touch-and-go and he aborted the "go" after the
> "touch".


I've done this as well conditions permitting. The entire purpose of a
review is to see the pilot act and react in both a normal and abnormal
environment; then to make a decision on the skill levels shown.
I usually knew by the time we reached the runway just what to expect
from a pilot I was reviewing. It's amazing how accurate the period
involving preflight to pre-takeoff is as a prediction tool for a sharp CFI.
Dudley Henriques

[Peter R.]

On 7/12/2007 12:15:59 PM, Dudley Henriques wrote:

> Had the student been trained properly, he should have executed the EXACT
> instructions he heard on the radio while maintaining control of the
> airplane.

I agree. This accident had all the markings of poor training.

Dudley, could I ask you to expand on your other comment that read, in part,
an instructor should not teach "if this happens, do this"? I have considered
someday pursuing my instructor's certificate and from a very high-level view,
this comment seemed to me like a normal in-cockpit training discussion.

--
Peter

[Peter R.]

On 7/12/2007 12:20:52 PM, James Sleeman wrote:

> Non standard in the context of a spacing procedure at late stage of
> final. The standard would have been to simply ask "G-ABCD go-around",

What standard? Is this documented somewhere? I am based at a towered airport
and while I have heard "go around" used, I have also heard other variants
similar to the one used by this tower controller.

--
Peter

[Andy Hawkins]

Hi,

In article >,
Peter > wrote:
> What standard? Is this documented somewhere?

In the UK, we have CAP 413, which says its purpose is:

'The aim of the United Kingdom Radiotelephony Manual (CAP 413) is to provide
pilots and Air Traffic Services personnel with a compendium of clear,
concise, standardised phraseology, and associated guidance, for
radiotelephony communication in United Kingdom airspace.'

I presume there's something similar for R/T in other places?

Andy

[Andy Hawkins]

Hi,

In article >,
Andy > wrote:
> In the UK, we have CAP 413

Incidentally, this is what CAP413 has to say about missed approaches:

1.10 Missed Approach

1.10.1 Instructions to carry out a missed approach may be given to avert an
unsafe situation. When a missed approach is initiated cockpit workload is
inevitably high. Any transmissions to aircraft going around shall be brief
and kept to a minimum.

Tower: Fastair 345 go around I say again go around acknowledge
Pilot: Going around Fastair 345

Andy

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Peter R. wrote:
> On 7/12/2007 12:15:59 PM, Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
>> Had the student been trained properly, he should have executed the EXACT
>> instructions he heard on the radio while maintaining control of the
>> airplane.
>
> I agree. This accident had all the markings of poor training.
>
> Dudley, could I ask you to expand on your other comment that read, in part,
> an instructor should not teach "if this happens, do this"? I have considered
> someday pursuing my instructor's certificate and from a very high-level view,
> this comment seemed to me like a normal in-cockpit training discussion.
>

Hi Peter;

No problem at all.
Looking at what I'm saying in the broad sense only and leaving out the
details, the basic gist of it is that there are many methods of
instruction that a CFI can use when teaching someone to fly. The
approach I prefer and have always used is a "total approach" on each
phase of the flight syllabus rather than taking each item on the long
list of skills that have to be learned and teaching them one at a time,
each separate from the other.
I much prefer a more integrated approach to flight instruction where
each thing learned is learned with the entire picture in mind at all times.
For example, when teaching landings, I would never separate crosswind
landings from "normal landings". From the first landing on, I prefer to
treat landings as landings. This means we learn right from the start
that any landing might or might not have a crosswind component. It means
that any landing might or might not have a go-around involved.
This approach is what I call the "total" approach.
What this means to an instructor using this type of approach to teaching
is simply that a landing is taught from the beginning with all that
landings involve; the blending of everything that came before; the
coming together of the high work, the low work, the maneuvers, the
pattern work and the stalls.....all coming together and now being used
as needed and where needed to put the airplane down on the ground in one
piece.
The "building block concept" is still there mind you, as each maneuver
is still taught as an individual maneuver....ie, 8's around pylons,
stalls, etc, but the difference is how the instructor BLENDS all these
things into a TOTAL picture for the student.
Reduced to it's most common denominator, the "total" approach to
teaching flying differs from the compartmentalized approach as the
instructor demonstrates ON A CONTINUING BASIS how each thing learned
fits into the TOTAL picture so that the end result for the student isn't
a pilot flying by the numbers, but rather a pilot performing a single
fluid action involving anything and everything required to fly the
airplane safely at the right time and in the right place.....all
performed with the TOTAL of what is required in mind as opposed to the
more compartmentalized method of flying where the pilot thinks more on a
I do a landing by doing 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10. The pilot thinking "total
approach" performs the landing by thinking 10 all the way through the
approach and interjecting the other steps in sequence.....or out of
sequence if necessary.....to get the airplane to 10 where it has to be.
Hope this helps a bit.
Dudley Henriques

[Roberto Waltman]

"Peter R." wrote:
>Dudley Henriques wrote:
>> Had the student been trained properly, he should have executed the EXACT
>> instructions he heard on the radio while maintaining control of the
>> airplane.
>
>I agree. This accident had all the markings of poor training.

Or insufficient training? (Which amounts to the same.)
The following caught my eye in the official report:

Commander’s Flying Experience:
5 hours (all of which were on type)
Last 90 days - 7 hours
Last 28 days - 4 hours

Are these numbers typical? ( The last line will fit a schedule of one
1-hour lesson per week, the "7 hours in 90 days" sounds too low...)

Roberto Waltman

[ Please reply to the group,
return address is invalid ]

[Bob Crawford]

On Jul 13, 12:29 pm, Roberto Waltman > wrote:
> The following caught my eye in the official report:
>
> Commander's Flying Experience:
> 5 hours (all of which were on type)
> Last 90 days - 7 hours
> Last 28 days - 4 hours
>
> Are these numbers typical? ( The last line will fit a schedule of one
> 1-hour lesson per week, the "7 hours in 90 days" sounds too low...)

Perhaps he had just started weekly lessons ~7 weeks previous.

[Roberto Waltman]

Bob Crawford wrote:
>Roberto Waltman wrote:
>> The following caught my eye in the official report:
>>
>> Commander's Flying Experience:
>> 5 hours (all of which were on type)
>> Last 90 days - 7 hours
>> Last 28 days - 4 hours
>>
>> Are these numbers typical? ( The last line will fit a schedule of one
>> 1-hour lesson per week, the "7 hours in 90 days" sounds too low...)
>
>Perhaps he had just started weekly lessons ~7 weeks previous.

Yes, you are right, some people could reach the solo stage after 7
hours, although not in this case. - Sorry, I deleted a '1', that
should have been:
"15 hours (all of which were on type)."

So the total is distributed as 4 hours in the month immediately before
the accident, 3 hours in the two months before that, (may be
immediately before,) and 8 more hours three or more months before.

Roberto Waltman

[ Please reply to the group,
return address is invalid ]

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-07-12 05:53:14 -0700, Ol Shy & Bashful > said:

> On Jul 12, 5:56 am, "David Wright" >
> wrote:
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/essex/6294778.stm
>>
>> Interesting that a "Go Around" is considered here as an "unfamiliar
>> manoeuvre" - and that the pilot was "put in a situation beyond his
>> experience" - okay he only had 15 hours of flying time and it was only his
>> second solo, but I was doing touch and go's and going around from about my
>> third hour onwards.
>>
>> D.
>
> David, et al;
> Each area and each instructor has a different idea of relative
> importance for nearly every phase of flying. But, in my not so humble
> opinion, far too much importance is placed on solo early. Many years
> back, 10 hours was the magic number for solo and if you went over
> that you were a clod not worthy of continued training. (Well,
> something like that...)
> It didn't take me long as an instructor to figure out if a student
> couldn't do very basic flight manuevers safely, they had no business
> flying solo!

However, I would expect that a student pilot with 15 hours would fly a
go-around competently. Unfortunately, the tower did not really request
a go-around. They instead tried to instruct the student by giving him
step by step direction, a job that most tower controllers are
manifestly incapable of doing.

You gotta admit, no matter how bad you think the instructors are at
teaching people how to fly an airplane, the tower controllers are
probably a lot worse...

Maybe what the student's instructor really failed to teach him was what
it means to be PIC.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-07-12 06:25:15 -0700, Dudley Henriques > said:

> Thomas Borchert wrote:
>> David,
>>
>>> Interesting that a "Go Around" is considered here as an "unfamiliar manoeuvre"
>>>
>>
>> IMHO, it is impossible for an instructor to prepare a student for each
>> and every situation he might encounted. However, it IS not only
>> possible, but mandatory to prepare him to be flexible, think for
>> himself and adjust to unfamiliar situations. If the student hasn't
>> mastered that, he isn't ready for (solo) flying.
>>
> You're right. Instructors who attempt to teach students with an "if
> this happens...do this" approach are in my opinion not teaching
> properly. You teach how it should be done the right way, then you teach
> how to use common sense and flexibility in flying the airplane to
> maintain that right way and/or return to that right way when deviations
> occur.
> A properly trained student pilot faced with a sudden unusual situation
> involving a go-around would "fly the airplane first", remain stabilized
> and calm, and then solve the peripherals required to return the
> aircraft to a normal situation.
> Dudley Henriques

Exactly. You are teaching someone to be PIC, not someone who follows a
rote list for every situation.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-07-12 16:49:32 -0700, Dudley Henriques > said:

> Andrew Gideon wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 09:13:16 -0400, Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>
>>> A "go- around" is NOT an unfamiliar maneuver; at least it shouldn't be to
>>> any student who has been checked out for solo.
>>
>> Someone I know was badly injured in what appears to be a botched
>> go-around. This was a very experienced pilot (ie. multiple hundreds of
>> hours, ME rated, etc.). But how often had he performed that maneuver in
>> the past few years? I don't know.
>
> A go around isn't really a maneuver, it's a transition. It should be
> taught along with landings as an integral part of the landing scenario
> and a possibility to occur on every landing.
> This is why I have always objected to the "compartmentalized" method of
> teaching people to fly airplanes; ie; landing, crosswind landings, go
> arounds etc. Every landing has the potential for both a crosswind
> and/or a go around. I prefer to teach landings as a single event that
> can encompass any and all circumstances found in a landing. The result
> of this approach (no pun intended :-) is that a pilot starts
> considering all landings from the first one on as an event that can,
> and often does mean, deviation from a rock solid and rigid and most
> importantly EXPECTED sequence of events.
> The good instructor wants the student to be fluid, flexible, with the
> goal of landing the airplane in mind at all times, but ready in an
> instant to deviate from what the airplane is doing NOW to what the
> airplane now HAS TO DO!
>
>
>
> >
>> Do biennials typically cover this? And what about those that "place out"
>> of biennials via WINGS program. Do the CFIs doing the flight time hours
>> for WINGS include such things (ie. in that hour of t/o and landing work)?
> A good bi-annual given by a good instructor will be relaxed and
> informal with the instructor observing what you are doing and how you
> are doing it. It would and should be quite common for an instructor
> giving a bi-annual to ask for a go-around from any point in the
> approach, (conditions permitting) including the flare.
>>
>> My club membership involves an annual flight review. At least one CFI
>> with whom I take these loves to throw these at me (and, I suspect, his
>> other victims {8^): aborted landings, aborted takeoffs, etc. Last time
>> with him I was doing a touch-and-go and he aborted the "go" after the
>> "touch".
>
>
> I've done this as well conditions permitting. The entire purpose of a
> review is to see the pilot act and react in both a normal and abnormal
> environment; then to make a decision on the skill levels shown.
> I usually knew by the time we reached the runway just what to expect
> from a pilot I was reviewing. It's amazing how accurate the period
> involving preflight to pre-takeoff is as a prediction tool for a sharp
> CFI.
> Dudley Henriques

You never know. Around here a bear could run out onto the runway.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-07-12 12:00:49 -0700, "Robert M. Gary" > said:

> On Jul 12, 3:56 am, "David Wright" >
> wrote:
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/essex/6294778.stm
>>
>> Interesting that a "Go Around" is considered here as an "unfamiliar
>> manoeuvre" - and that the pilot was "put in a situation beyond his
>> experience" - okay he only had 15 hours of flying time and it was only his
>> second solo, but I was doing touch and go's and going around from about my
>> third hour onwards.
>>
>> D.
>
> I just read the news report. Man, flying in the UK must be exciting if
> the tower can ask you do perform a loop to avoid traffic!! No wonder
> the poor kid crashed.
>
> -Robert

You think that is bad. I once had to do an Immelman as a solo student
at Boeing Field!
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Peter Dohm]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> On 7/12/2007 12:15:59 PM, Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
> > Had the student been trained properly, he should have executed the EXACT
> > instructions he heard on the radio while maintaining control of the
> > airplane.
>
> I agree. This accident had all the markings of poor training.
>
This seems like a good place to insert a little information specific to the
Cessna 150, and the way that some pilots instruct in it.

According to the Cessna 105/152 Model history, available at
http://www.cessna.org/public/samplemodel.pdf

1) Some time during the early in the Cessna 150 production, electrically
operated flaps were introduced.

2) In 1968, on the 150H, the flap control was redesigned to allow
hands-off" retraction--which IMHO was an excellent feature. At the same
time, the Flap Position Indicator was moved to the left door post--which I
did not like at all on the 105J which I flew a couple of times.

3) The 1972 Cessna 150L in the report presumably had the features
introduced to the flap control system in 1968, since the next major revision
which I could find occured in 1977.

4) In 1977, during the porduction run of the 150M, the flap control was
changed to a detent system and the Flap Position Indicator was placed
adjacent to the selector. This made the flap system of the 150M similar to
Cessna's more advanced aircraft--ranging from the then current 172 through
the 400 series models. It was a excellent system, and a joy to fly.

Now for the problem:

Many instructors, including one than one with whom I flew, demanded that the
flaps be "milked off" in order to prevent a sudden loss of lift. That is
completely and utterly bogus for multiple reasons--but I will confine myself
to just the most glaring:

a) The missed approach is ordinarily begun, as it appears to have been in
this case, from a descent at approximately the normal initial climb speed.
Therefore the using the sequence of advencing the throttle to full open
while arreting the descent, carb heat off, and retract the flaps is pretty
obvious.

b) Even if a pilot is very slow getting around to the flap retraction
step, and the speed bleeds all the way down to the "full flaps and level at
full power" speed of 50KIAS, he is still comfortably above the power off
stall speed and far above the power on stall speed--even if it was possible
to truly "dump" the flaps. And all of that is at gross weight--solo is also
light!

c) The flap position indicator in the left door post is clearly visible
to the right seat passenger, but requires some effect on the part of the
left seat pilot to be seen clearly. Staring at that #$%&* idicator while
allowing the airspeed to decay and also talking to ATC and watching for
traffic is a very bad combination.

So, in summary:

Take fear of retracting the flaps. Add the tendency of a novice, and even
some supposedly experienced pilots, to skid in a shallow left turn at high
power--and it becomes really easy to correct the dots.

It is possible that the kid simply forgot to retract the flaps, but I have
seen enough poor procedures and worse information around airports to make me
extremely suspicious.

Peter
(Sorry to be a prick, but...)

[Kloudy via AviationKB.com]

Dudley Henriques wrote:
>> On 7/12/2007 12:15:59 PM, Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>
>>No problem at all.
>I much prefer a more integrated approach to flight instruction where
>each thing learned is learned with the entire picture in mind at all times.
>For example, when teaching landings, I would never separate crosswind
>landings from "normal landings". From the first landing on, I prefer to
>treat landings as landings.
>This approach is what I call the "total" approach.
>Dudley Henriques

I think that is an excellent approach.(no pun intended...but appreciated)
I had the opportunity to learn to fly airplanes in a compartmentalized
fashion and in retrospect found my glider instructors tended to take an
holistic approach.
It is interesting to me that until your description Dudley, I never could
describe to anyone what the fundamental differences in instruction were. I
feel I learned more about being a "Pilot" from the glider guys as opposed to
"Learning to Fly" from the airplane guys.

Thanks for that.

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Kloudy via AviationKB.com wrote:
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>> On 7/12/2007 12:15:59 PM, Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>>
>>> No problem at all.
>> I much prefer a more integrated approach to flight instruction where
>> each thing learned is learned with the entire picture in mind at all times.
>> For example, when teaching landings, I would never separate crosswind
>> landings from "normal landings". From the first landing on, I prefer to
>> treat landings as landings.
>> This approach is what I call the "total" approach.
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> I think that is an excellent approach.(no pun intended...but appreciated)
> I had the opportunity to learn to fly airplanes in a compartmentalized
> fashion and in retrospect found my glider instructors tended to take an
> holistic approach.
> It is interesting to me that until your description Dudley, I never could
> describe to anyone what the fundamental differences in instruction were. I
> feel I learned more about being a "Pilot" from the glider guys as opposed to
> "Learning to Fly" from the airplane guys.
>
> Thanks for that.
>

I feel, along with you, that learning to fly in a glider with all that
this entails offers a very well rounded aeronautical experience.
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

C J Campbell wrote:
> On 2007-07-12 16:49:32 -0700, Dudley Henriques > said:
>
>> Andrew Gideon wrote:
>>> On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 09:13:16 -0400, Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>>
>>>> A "go- around" is NOT an unfamiliar maneuver; at least it shouldn't
>>>> be to
>>>> any student who has been checked out for solo.
>>>
>>> Someone I know was badly injured in what appears to be a botched
>>> go-around. This was a very experienced pilot (ie. multiple hundreds of
>>> hours, ME rated, etc.). But how often had he performed that maneuver in
>>> the past few years? I don't know.
>>
>> A go around isn't really a maneuver, it's a transition. It should be
>> taught along with landings as an integral part of the landing scenario
>> and a possibility to occur on every landing.
>> This is why I have always objected to the "compartmentalized" method
>> of teaching people to fly airplanes; ie; landing, crosswind landings,
>> go arounds etc. Every landing has the potential for both a crosswind
>> and/or a go around. I prefer to teach landings as a single event that
>> can encompass any and all circumstances found in a landing. The result
>> of this approach (no pun intended :-) is that a pilot starts
>> considering all landings from the first one on as an event that can,
>> and often does mean, deviation from a rock solid and rigid and most
>> importantly EXPECTED sequence of events.
>> The good instructor wants the student to be fluid, flexible, with the
>> goal of landing the airplane in mind at all times, but ready in an
>> instant to deviate from what the airplane is doing NOW to what the
>> airplane now HAS TO DO!
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>>> Do biennials typically cover this? And what about those that "place
>>> out"
>>> of biennials via WINGS program. Do the CFIs doing the flight time hours
>>> for WINGS include such things (ie. in that hour of t/o and landing
>>> work)?
>> A good bi-annual given by a good instructor will be relaxed and
>> informal with the instructor observing what you are doing and how you
>> are doing it. It would and should be quite common for an instructor
>> giving a bi-annual to ask for a go-around from any point in the
>> approach, (conditions permitting) including the flare.
>>>
>>> My club membership involves an annual flight review. At least one CFI
>>> with whom I take these loves to throw these at me (and, I suspect, his
>>> other victims {8^): aborted landings, aborted takeoffs, etc. Last time
>>> with him I was doing a touch-and-go and he aborted the "go" after the
>>> "touch".
>>
>>
>> I've done this as well conditions permitting. The entire purpose of a
>> review is to see the pilot act and react in both a normal and abnormal
>> environment; then to make a decision on the skill levels shown.
>> I usually knew by the time we reached the runway just what to expect
>> from a pilot I was reviewing. It's amazing how accurate the period
>> involving preflight to pre-takeoff is as a prediction tool for a sharp
>> CFI.
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> You never know. Around here a bear could run out onto the runway.

Controller to United 262 Heavy after touchdown ;
" 262, bear left at the next taxiway"

United 262, " Roger, we have him in sight"

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-07-12 11:38:43 -0700, Dudley Henriques > said:

>
>> When I began soloing, my instructor forbade me to engage in any low-
>> altitude
>> maneuvering on final approach (e.g. 360s for spacing, which the tower
>> sometimes called for). He explained clearly that any such request from
>> ATC
>> should be met with "Unable, student pilot, going around", followed by
>> a
>> standard go-around. I think that's an excellent policy for students
>> until
>> they have extensive solo-landing experience.
>>
> I would respectfully disagree with this line of reasoning from an
> instructor and would never recommend this or condone this procedure
> from any instructor within shouting distance of my voice :-)
> The entire purpose of teaching people to fly airplanes is to teach them
> to operate safely within a constantly changing dynamic. This means both
> the aerodynamic AND the ATC dynamic.
> Students learning to fly in a controlled traffic environment are not
> well served by instructors who encourage them to deny an ATC request as
> a routine procedure based on the fact that the pilot is a student.

Besides, as Rod Machado so infamously pointed out, your credibility as
a student pilot starts to wear a little thin when you are calling ATC
from a 747. :-)

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Morgans[_2_]]

>> You never know. Around here a bear could run out onto the runway.
>
> Controller to United 262 Heavy after touchdown ;
> " 262, bear left at the next taxiway"
>
> United 262, " Roger, we have him in sight"

I HAVE to agree, now. You and I *Really* need to get a life! <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Morgans wrote:
>
>>> You never know. Around here a bear could run out onto the runway.
>>
>> Controller to United 262 Heavy after touchdown ;
>> " 262, bear left at the next taxiway"
>>
>> United 262, " Roger, we have him in sight"
>
> I HAVE to agree, now. You and I *Really* need to get a life! <g>

You and I AND CJ :-))

[Mike Isaksen]

"Peter Dohm" wrote in message ...
>
> It is possible that the kid simply forgot to retract the flaps, but I have
> seen enough poor procedures and worse information around airports to make
> me
> extremely suspicious.
>

I like what you said about the 150/152 in general, but I think you missed
the section in the report where the Throttle was found at approach power
settings (as indicated by the bent throttle shaft, analysis of the
carburator butterfly shaft, and confirmation by observers of low/normal
engine noise), and the carb heat knob was still pulled out. I don't remember
reading if he retracted the flaps, but he did not appear to initiate the
one/two steps of the go-around proc.

Also telling (no doubt to bolster the Controller's case in the report) was
that when the student called from the hold short line and told to backtrack
(back taxi) the runway, the student instead did a 180 turn at the hold short
line. The controller intended to buy the student wake vortex time, and
instead of holding him at the intersection was going to give the student the
whole runway. The student's action should have set off some alarm bells in
the controller's head. Then again, maybe this is a "normal" level of skill
for students trained and released for solo by this fight school. Very sad.

[Gary[_2_]]

> You never know. Around here a bear could run out onto the runway.
> --
> Waddling Eagle
> World Famous Flight Instructor

After landing at Mt Pocono (MPO) two weekends ago, the fuel guy told
me a bear had run across the runway while I was on downwind...
Alas, that wasn't the kind of traffic I was looking for at that
moment.

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 09:13:16 -0400, Dudley Henriques
> wrote:

>David Wright wrote:
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/essex/6294778.stm
>>
>> Interesting that a "Go Around" is considered here as an "unfamiliar
>> manoeuvre" - and that the pilot was "put in a situation beyond his
>> experience" - okay he only had 15 hours of flying time and it was only his
>> second solo, but I was doing touch and go's and going around from about my
>> third hour onwards.

I wasn't allowed to solo until I had demonstrated I was proficient at
making regular landing, short field landing, go arounds, and balked
landings.

>>
>> D.
>>
>>
>A "go- around" is NOT an unfamiliar maneuver; at least it shouldn't be
>to any student who has been checked out for solo. In fact, go arounds
>are an intricate part of the learning curve and should be taught to
>every student pilots before solo is achieved.
>I can see no reason why a properly training student pilot would be
>incapable of going around during any solo flight that student was signed
>off to make.

I have to relate to my own experiences but with about as many hours as
this student I was faced with an unexpected weather change that
required going around due to excessive cross wind, using a different
runway, and having to do an aggressive slip to get the plane down due
to the rapid pressure change making for an altimeter several hundred
feet off.

Not too many days later I landed to find a Comanche 180 landing down
wind and getting big, fast.

HOWEVER a couple years ago we had a post solo student coming in to
land who got too low. He over corrected with power, slowed up to lose
altitude and turned a 150 into a lawn dart right on the end of the
runway. He really put it right on the numbers with a roll out measured
in a couple of inches. Surprisingly he only had a few bruises, but the
150 which now had shoulders in the wings where the struts attached
wasn't so lucky. He apparently was still flying "mechanically" and
when things weren't what he expected he became "rattled" and over
reacted. He had flown great up until that time. He proved proficient
enough to solo with another instructor, but was required to put on a
few more hours. His flying was again more than adequate and he flew
for nearly a year. Actually it was one day less than a year when he
came in to land a 172. This time he was a bit high and pushed the
nose down which of course gave him some extra speed. With such a light
plane it doesn't take much extra to make it float and float and
float.... With about 2/3 of the runway behind him he forced it on
instead of going around. That put the nose wheel down followed by the
mains, followed by a steep climb which was repeated until he again
turned a plane into a lawn dart on the runway. Again he received only
bruises while the 172, like the 150, gained a set of shoulders and the
FBO gained a BIG increase in his insurance rates. At this point he
decided to quit flying. (BTW he said he has no idea as to why he
didn't go around as he had been trained.)

A good friend and licensed pilot who hadn't flown in a couple of
months took another friend out for a ride. (should have at least gone
around the pattern once alone). The flight went well and they were
out for about an hour before she decided it was time to get back. She
had been flying out of a larger airport so 3BS would have looked a bit
different but I would have expected her to be low instead of high. At
any rate she recognized the need to go around and did, but the second
time was also high. So around they went again. This time she was in a
better position but still a bit high. It was when they were still in
the air about half way down the runway and only a few feet off that I
realized that she was going to land this time regardless. She should
have almost been able to hear me with out a radio, but she did set it
down. I 172 disappeared in a cloud of tire smoke as it slid up to the
end of the runway. When the smoke cleared she had just enough room
left to make the turn and taxi to the parking.

Another friend flying a twin picked me up at HTL when I took the Deb
up for maintenance.The winds were bad and popped him up about 50 feet
just as the mains were ready to touch. Full power and a lot of
wobbling while hanging on the edge of a stall managed to salvage the
landing into a go-around. He was gone for a few minutes before
returning. (probably to find all the seat cushions) He chose to wait
until the wind subsided before coming back.

When we arrived at 3BS the wind favored 36 slightly but 06/24 is 800
feet longer. We came in to land on 36 kinda fast as he was still
spooked from the earlier landing. So I didn't think much about being a
bit high and fast over the numbers, but we were still fast over the
intersection, and still 20 feet off as we passed the FBO a third of
the way down the runway and maybe 5 feet off half way down. It was
about this time I had the sudden realization of: "Ohhhh myyyyGAWDDD,
he's gonna do it!" I had to set on my hands to keep from taking the
controls. He plunked it on and we S-turned from one side of the runway
to the other to the tune of squealing and liberally smoking tires. We
skidded around the turn onto the taxiway at the end of the runway
within a couple feet of the lights. Had he set it down 15, 10, or
even 5 feet farther down the runway we'd have taken out the lights at
the end.

That was the only time I've ever really been scared in an airplane.

Pilots with different experience levels from low time student to multi
engine with over a 1000 hours. Aircraft from a Piper Colt, Cessna 150,
172, and Twin Comanche making choices based on pressure and
unfamiliar circumstances. Some good decisions, some bad, some with a
good outcome, two of those due to luck, and some with poor outcomes,
but still involving luck to survive.

What makes a pilot (student or experienced) make the proper decisions
over an over, some times for years, and then suddenly seem to ignore
all that training and do something contrary to common sense and
training? Incidents are always due to a sequence or series of actions
(or inaction) and I doubt any of these incidents were isolated
happenings, but I have to ask, what training, attitudes, emotions, or
background led to each end choice or action. "I think" in a couple of
cases there were probably clues that all of us missed. When I say all
of us I include not only instructors but other pilots who had flown
with the licensed pilots. I do realize different people react to
stress differently under the same circumstances.

>If a student crashes on a go around because normal procedures were not
>followed, there is a serious problem either involving the instructor.
>Even if mis-communication was a factor, the student STILL should have
>been able to handle the situation avoiding a crash.
>I look heavily toward the instructor in matters like these.
>This having been said, I ALSO would reserve any final decision on these
>matters until I had studied the official accident report.
>Dudley Henriques

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 21:43:50 -0400, Dudley Henriques
> wrote:

>C J Campbell wrote:
>> On 2007-07-12 16:49:32 -0700, Dudley Henriques > said:
>>

>> You never know. Around here a bear could run out onto the runway.
>
>Controller to United 262 Heavy after touchdown ;
>" 262, bear left at the next taxiway"
>
>United 262, " Roger, we have him in sight"

Uhhh..I don't see him.

Roger

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Roger (K8RI) wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 21:43:50 -0400, Dudley Henriques
> > wrote:
>
>> C J Campbell wrote:
>>> On 2007-07-12 16:49:32 -0700, Dudley Henriques > said:
>>>
>
>>> You never know. Around here a bear could run out onto the runway.
>> Controller to United 262 Heavy after touchdown ;
>> " 262, bear left at the next taxiway"
>>
>> United 262, " Roger, we have him in sight"
>
> Uhhh..I don't see him.
>
> Roger
Big furry guy, over there.....by the ILS shack.....see um?
D

[Peter Dohm]

"Mike Isaksen" > wrote in message
news:xegmi.3743$yx4.3191@trndny08...
>
> "Peter Dohm" wrote in message ...
> >
> > It is possible that the kid simply forgot to retract the flaps, but I
have
> > seen enough poor procedures and worse information around airports to
make
> > me
> > extremely suspicious.
> >
>
> I like what you said about the 150/152 in general, but I think you missed
> the section in the report where the Throttle was found at approach power
> settings (as indicated by the bent throttle shaft, analysis of the
> carburator butterfly shaft, and confirmation by observers of low/normal
> engine noise), and the carb heat knob was still pulled out. I don't
remember
> reading if he retracted the flaps, but he did not appear to initiate the
> one/two steps of the go-around proc.
>
You are correct, I did miss that--I looked at the report on screen, rather
than printing it, which would have resulted in more thorough reading.

> Also telling (no doubt to bolster the Controller's case in the report) was
> that when the student called from the hold short line and told to
backtrack
> (back taxi) the runway, the student instead did a 180 turn at the hold
short
> line. The controller intended to buy the student wake vortex time, and
> instead of holding him at the intersection was going to give the student
the
> whole runway. The student's action should have set off some alarm bells in
> the controller's head. Then again, maybe this is a "normal" level of skill
> for students trained and released for solo by this fight school. Very sad.
>
The student may have had an "off day" and simply did not have enough
experience to ground himself. As you said, very sad.

Peter

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 07:56:59 -0400, Dudley Henriques
> wrote:

>Roger (K8RI) wrote:
>> On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 21:43:50 -0400, Dudley Henriques
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> C J Campbell wrote:
>>>> On 2007-07-12 16:49:32 -0700, Dudley Henriques > said:
>>>>
>>
>>>> You never know. Around here a bear could run out onto the runway.
>>> Controller to United 262 Heavy after touchdown ;
>>> " 262, bear left at the next taxiway"
>>>
>>> United 262, " Roger, we have him in sight"
>>
>> Uhhh..I don't see him.
>>
>> Roger
>Big furry guy, over there.....by the ILS shack.....see um?

That's the FBO without a shirt!

>D

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Roger (K8RI) wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 07:56:59 -0400, Dudley Henriques
> > wrote:
>
>> Roger (K8RI) wrote:
>>> On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 21:43:50 -0400, Dudley Henriques
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> C J Campbell wrote:
>>>>> On 2007-07-12 16:49:32 -0700, Dudley Henriques > said:
>>>>>
>>>>> You never know. Around here a bear could run out onto the runway.
>>>> Controller to United 262 Heavy after touchdown ;
>>>> " 262, bear left at the next taxiway"
>>>>
>>>> United 262, " Roger, we have him in sight"
>>> Uhhh..I don't see him.
>>>
>>> Roger
>> Big furry guy, over there.....by the ILS shack.....see um?
>
> That's the FBO without a shirt!
>
>> D
Kind of makes ya wish Pamela Anderson was an FBO doesn't it :-)
D

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote

> Kind of makes ya wish Pamela Anderson was an FBO doesn't it :-)

Pamela Anderson, with fur under her shirt? <Shudder>

Man, I need to go wash my eyes out with soap, to get the bad taste out of
them!
;-))
--
Jim in NC

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Morgans wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote
>
>> Kind of makes ya wish Pamela Anderson was an FBO doesn't it :-)
>
> Pamela Anderson, with fur under her shirt? <Shudder>
>
> Man, I need to go wash my eyes out with soap, to get the bad taste out of
> them!
> ;-))
Don't blame me. It's ROGER with the bear fetish!!!!
:-))))))))))
D

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 19:23:44 -0400, Dudley Henriques
> wrote:

>Morgans wrote:
>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote
>>
>>> Kind of makes ya wish Pamela Anderson was an FBO doesn't it :-)
>>
>> Pamela Anderson, with fur under her shirt? <Shudder>
>>
>> Man, I need to go wash my eyes out with soap, to get the bad taste out of
>> them!
>> ;-))
>Don't blame me. It's ROGER with the bear fetish!!!!
>:-))))))))))
Hey! You're the one with the fixation on my topless FBO<:-)))))

>D

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Roger (K8RI) wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 19:23:44 -0400, Dudley Henriques
> > wrote:
>
>> Morgans wrote:
>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote
>>>
>>>> Kind of makes ya wish Pamela Anderson was an FBO doesn't it :-)
>>> Pamela Anderson, with fur under her shirt? <Shudder>
>>>
>>> Man, I need to go wash my eyes out with soap, to get the bad taste out of
>>> them!
>>> ;-))
>> Don't blame me. It's ROGER with the bear fetish!!!!
>> :-))))))))))
> Hey! You're the one with the fixation on my topless FBO<:-)))))
>
>> D

Let's face it Rog; if you and I were in the Deb and one of us was
taxiing it back to the line and we had to taxi between two hangars with
a foot tip clearance on either wing to get through.....and Pamela
Anderson was standing there topless by the hangars as we taxied through,
which one of us would YOU want taxiing the airplane??? Now think about
this carefully Rog......tip tanks are expensive!!!! :-))
Dudley

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 23:21:50 -0400, Dudley Henriques
> wrote:

>Roger (K8RI) wrote:
>> On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 19:23:44 -0400, Dudley Henriques
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Morgans wrote:
>>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote
>>>>
>>>>> Kind of makes ya wish Pamela Anderson was an FBO doesn't it :-)
>>>> Pamela Anderson, with fur under her shirt? <Shudder>
>>>>
>>>> Man, I need to go wash my eyes out with soap, to get the bad taste out of
>>>> them!
>>>> ;-))
>>> Don't blame me. It's ROGER with the bear fetish!!!!
>>> :-))))))))))
>> Hey! You're the one with the fixation on my topless FBO<:-)))))
>>
>>> D
>
>Let's face it Rog; if you and I were in the Deb and one of us was
>taxiing it back to the line and we had to taxi between two hangars with
>a foot tip clearance on either wing to get through.....and Pamela
>Anderson was standing there topless by the hangars as we taxied through,
>which one of us would YOU want taxiing the airplane??? Now think about
>this carefully Rog......tip tanks are expensive!!!! :-))

You taxi the airplane, I'll get out and walk. (you only go around once
and It's only money)

Roger

>Dudley

[Thomas Borchert]

David,

> The non-standard phraseology used certainly seems to have been an important
> factor.
>

Couldn't be. Ask MX.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

C,

> Maybe what the student's instructor really failed to teach him was what
> it means to be PIC.
>

Absolutely.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

James,

> I think what should be learned from this is that especially low-time
> students still circuit bashing have very set procedures they are
> following in thier minds,
>

Only after bad instruction.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Peter R.]

On 7/13/2007 11:22:50 AM, Dudley Henriques wrote:

> I much prefer a more integrated approach to flight instruction where
> each thing learned is learned with the entire picture in mind at all
> times. For example, when teaching landings, I would never separate
> crosswind landings from "normal landings". From the first landing on, I
> prefer to treat landings as landings. This means we learn right from the
> start that any landing might or might not have a crosswind component. It
> means that any landing might or might not have a go-around involved.
> This approach is what I call the "total" approach.
<snip>

Ah, that makes sense to me now and it does seem the better approach. Thanks
for taking the time for the clarification.

--
Peter

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Roger (K8RI) wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 23:21:50 -0400, Dudley Henriques
> > wrote:
>
>> Roger (K8RI) wrote:
>>> On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 19:23:44 -0400, Dudley Henriques
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Morgans wrote:
>>>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>> Kind of makes ya wish Pamela Anderson was an FBO doesn't it :-)
>>>>> Pamela Anderson, with fur under her shirt? <Shudder>
>>>>>
>>>>> Man, I need to go wash my eyes out with soap, to get the bad taste out of
>>>>> them!
>>>>> ;-))
>>>> Don't blame me. It's ROGER with the bear fetish!!!!
>>>> :-))))))))))
>>> Hey! You're the one with the fixation on my topless FBO<:-)))))
>>>
>>>> D
>> Let's face it Rog; if you and I were in the Deb and one of us was
>> taxiing it back to the line and we had to taxi between two hangars with
>> a foot tip clearance on either wing to get through.....and Pamela
>> Anderson was standing there topless by the hangars as we taxied through,
>> which one of us would YOU want taxiing the airplane??? Now think about
>> this carefully Rog......tip tanks are expensive!!!! :-))
>
> You taxi the airplane, I'll get out and walk. (you only go around once
> and It's only money)
>
> Roger
>
>> Dudley

Ah HA!! I win!! You see, as you are so competent a pilot in the Deb, you
wouldn't have needed my services in this hypothetical, and I of course
also being competent, would have not been in the Deb at all but rather
over there standing next to Pamela with a Jack Daniles in one hand and
my arm around her with the other while she petted Streak with one hand
and held mine with the other while both of us waved at you as you taxied
on by.
:-)))
D

[Euan Kilgour]

On Jul 17, 3:06 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> Roger (K8RI) wrote:
> > On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 23:21:50 -0400, Dudley Henriques
> > > wrote:
>
> >> Roger (K8RI) wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 19:23:44 -0400, Dudley Henriques
> >>> > wrote:
>
> >>>> Morgans wrote:
> >>>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote
>
> >>>>>> Kind of makes ya wish Pamela Anderson was an FBO doesn't it :-)
> >>>>> Pamela Anderson, with fur under her shirt? <Shudder>
>
> >>>>> Man, I need to go wash my eyes out with soap, to get the bad taste out of
> >>>>> them!
> >>>>> ;-))
> >>>> Don't blame me. It's ROGER with the bear fetish!!!!
> >>>> :-))))))))))
> >>> Hey! You're the one with the fixation on my topless FBO<:-)))))
>
> >>>> D
> >> Let's face it Rog; if you and I were in the Deb and one of us was
> >> taxiing it back to the line and we had to taxi between two hangars with
> >> a foot tip clearance on either wing to get through.....and Pamela
> >> Anderson was standing there topless by the hangars as we taxied through,
> >> which one of us would YOU want taxiing the airplane??? Now think about
> >> this carefully Rog......tip tanks are expensive!!!! :-))
>
> > You taxi the airplane, I'll get out and walk. (you only go around once
> > and It's only money)
>
> > Roger
>
> >> Dudley
>
> Ah HA!! I win!! You see, as you are so competent a pilot in the Deb, you
> wouldn't have needed my services in this hypothetical, and I of course
> also being competent, would have not been in the Deb at all but rather
> over there standing next to Pamela with a Jack Daniles in one hand and
> my arm around her with the other while she petted Streak with one hand
> and held mine with the other while both of us waved at you as you taxied
> on by.
> :-)))
> D

Pamela Anderson and aviation? This thread delivers! :-)

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 11:06:11 -0400, Dudley Henriques
> wrote:

>Roger (K8RI) wrote:
>> On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 23:21:50 -0400, Dudley Henriques
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Roger (K8RI) wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 19:23:44 -0400, Dudley Henriques
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Morgans wrote:
>>>>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Kind of makes ya wish Pamela Anderson was an FBO doesn't it :-)
>>>>>> Pamela Anderson, with fur under her shirt? <Shudder>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Man, I need to go wash my eyes out with soap, to get the bad taste out of
>>>>>> them!
>>>>>> ;-))
>>>>> Don't blame me. It's ROGER with the bear fetish!!!!
>>>>> :-))))))))))
>>>> Hey! You're the one with the fixation on my topless FBO<:-)))))
>>>>
>>>>> D
>>> Let's face it Rog; if you and I were in the Deb and one of us was
>>> taxiing it back to the line and we had to taxi between two hangars with
>>> a foot tip clearance on either wing to get through.....and Pamela
>>> Anderson was standing there topless by the hangars as we taxied through,
>>> which one of us would YOU want taxiing the airplane??? Now think about
>>> this carefully Rog......tip tanks are expensive!!!! :-))
>>
>> You taxi the airplane, I'll get out and walk. (you only go around once
>> and It's only money)
>>
>> Roger
>>
>>> Dudley
>
>Ah HA!! I win!! You see, as you are so competent a pilot in the Deb, you
>wouldn't have needed my services in this hypothetical, and I of course
>also being competent, would have not been in the Deb at all but rather
>over there standing next to Pamela with a Jack Daniles in one hand and
>my arm around her with the other while she petted Streak with one hand
>and held mine with the other while both of us waved at you as you taxied
>on by.
>:-)))

<Sigh> Yah just can't win against a guy who makes up the rules as he
goes along<:-))


>D

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Roger (K8RI) wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 11:06:11 -0400, Dudley Henriques
> > wrote:
>
>> Roger (K8RI) wrote:
>>> On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 23:21:50 -0400, Dudley Henriques
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Roger (K8RI) wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 19:23:44 -0400, Dudley Henriques
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Morgans wrote:
>>>>>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Kind of makes ya wish Pamela Anderson was an FBO doesn't it :-)
>>>>>>> Pamela Anderson, with fur under her shirt? <Shudder>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Man, I need to go wash my eyes out with soap, to get the bad taste out of
>>>>>>> them!
>>>>>>> ;-))
>>>>>> Don't blame me. It's ROGER with the bear fetish!!!!
>>>>>> :-))))))))))
>>>>> Hey! You're the one with the fixation on my topless FBO<:-)))))
>>>>>
>>>>>> D
>>>> Let's face it Rog; if you and I were in the Deb and one of us was
>>>> taxiing it back to the line and we had to taxi between two hangars with
>>>> a foot tip clearance on either wing to get through.....and Pamela
>>>> Anderson was standing there topless by the hangars as we taxied through,
>>>> which one of us would YOU want taxiing the airplane??? Now think about
>>>> this carefully Rog......tip tanks are expensive!!!! :-))
>>> You taxi the airplane, I'll get out and walk. (you only go around once
>>> and It's only money)
>>>
>>> Roger
>>>
>>>> Dudley
>> Ah HA!! I win!! You see, as you are so competent a pilot in the Deb, you
>> wouldn't have needed my services in this hypothetical, and I of course
>> also being competent, would have not been in the Deb at all but rather
>> over there standing next to Pamela with a Jack Daniles in one hand and
>> my arm around her with the other while she petted Streak with one hand
>> and held mine with the other while both of us waved at you as you taxied
>> on by.
>> :-)))
>
> <Sigh> Yah just can't win against a guy who makes up the rules as he
> goes along<:-))
>
>
>> D
Well....if you want to now the truth, I'd be willing to bet that both of
us would be out of luck in this hypothetical, and streak would be the
one lucking out. No woman can resist petting a big old cat like Streak,
and if she's busy doing that, you and I both might just as well give up
on the whole idea and go fly :-)
D

[Snowbird]

Back to the OT. I read the report and this discussion.

To me this accident looks like a perfect example of the "Swiss cheese model"
which describes how several small individual mistakes may combine to cause
an accident.

A question to the CFIs in the group:

Do you normally include a set of "unexpected events" such as the abnormal
go-around that was a factor in this accident, in your flight training
syllabus before solo, even though the regulations might not require it?

Here are some examples that I have experienced either as watcher or pilot,
that might be useful to rehearse with each student before solo. (Note that
some of them need cooperation from ATC):

- Orbit in the pattern (for spacing) in various locations and aircraft
configurations.
- Go-around with a heading change and nonstandard pattern re-join (like in
this accident).
- Taxi into position ("Line up" for the Europeans) then ATC orders a/c to
expediently vacate runway.
- In a touch and go, after the "touch" the a/c is ordered to make it a full
stop landing.
- Landing clearance simply omitted. (should result in go-around)
- Landing clearance only after a/c is beyond the threshold.
- A/c is requested to land long, in order to be able to vacate runway more
expediently.
- Low fly-by to enable tower to inspect a/c (with binoculars) for possible
landing gear defect.

In my own case I had rehearsed only some of these events during training,
so when they eventually occurred it was "exciting", with probably increased
risk level. So maybe they would be good to rehearse before solo?

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Snowbird wrote:
> Back to the OT. I read the report and this discussion.
>
> To me this accident looks like a perfect example of the "Swiss cheese model"
> which describes how several small individual mistakes may combine to cause
> an accident.
>
> A question to the CFIs in the group:
>
> Do you normally include a set of "unexpected events" such as the abnormal
> go-around that was a factor in this accident, in your flight training
> syllabus before solo, even though the regulations might not require it?
>
> Here are some examples that I have experienced either as watcher or pilot,
> that might be useful to rehearse with each student before solo. (Note that
> some of them need cooperation from ATC):
>
> - Orbit in the pattern (for spacing) in various locations and aircraft
> configurations.
> - Go-around with a heading change and nonstandard pattern re-join (like in
> this accident).
> - Taxi into position ("Line up" for the Europeans) then ATC orders a/c to
> expediently vacate runway.
> - In a touch and go, after the "touch" the a/c is ordered to make it a full
> stop landing.
> - Landing clearance simply omitted. (should result in go-around)
> - Landing clearance only after a/c is beyond the threshold.
> - A/c is requested to land long, in order to be able to vacate runway more
> expediently.
> - Low fly-by to enable tower to inspect a/c (with binoculars) for possible
> landing gear defect.
>
> In my own case I had rehearsed only some of these events during training,
> so when they eventually occurred it was "exciting", with probably increased
> risk level. So maybe they would be good to rehearse before solo?
>
>
>
>
>
It should be common practice for instructors to use part of every dual
period spent with a student covering possible situations that could be
encountered by ANY pilot engaging in the maneuver or scenario being taught.
In other words, everything an instructor teaches in the air should be
considered and covered from two directions; first, what to do to make it
come out right, and secondly, things to consider if things DON'T come
out right.
This is instruction 101 for any good instructor.
Dudley Henriques

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 22:16:42 -0400, Dudley Henriques
> wrote:

>Roger (K8RI) wrote:
>> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 11:06:11 -0400, Dudley Henriques
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Roger (K8RI) wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 23:21:50 -0400, Dudley Henriques
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Roger (K8RI) wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 19:23:44 -0400, Dudley Henriques
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Morgans wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Kind of makes ya wish Pamela Anderson was an FBO doesn't it :-)
>>>>>>>> Pamela Anderson, with fur under her shirt? <Shudder>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Man, I need to go wash my eyes out with soap, to get the bad taste out of
>>>>>>>> them!
>>>>>>>> ;-))
>>>>>>> Don't blame me. It's ROGER with the bear fetish!!!!
>>>>>>> :-))))))))))
>>>>>> Hey! You're the one with the fixation on my topless FBO<:-)))))
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> D
>>>>> Let's face it Rog; if you and I were in the Deb and one of us was
>>>>> taxiing it back to the line and we had to taxi between two hangars with
>>>>> a foot tip clearance on either wing to get through.....and Pamela
>>>>> Anderson was standing there topless by the hangars as we taxied through,
>>>>> which one of us would YOU want taxiing the airplane??? Now think about
>>>>> this carefully Rog......tip tanks are expensive!!!! :-))
>>>> You taxi the airplane, I'll get out and walk. (you only go around once
>>>> and It's only money)
>>>>
>>>> Roger
>>>>
>>>>> Dudley
>>> Ah HA!! I win!! You see, as you are so competent a pilot in the Deb, you
>>> wouldn't have needed my services in this hypothetical, and I of course
>>> also being competent, would have not been in the Deb at all but rather
>>> over there standing next to Pamela with a Jack Daniles in one hand and
>>> my arm around her with the other while she petted Streak with one hand
>>> and held mine with the other while both of us waved at you as you taxied
>>> on by.
>>> :-)))
>>
>> <Sigh> Yah just can't win against a guy who makes up the rules as he
>> goes along<:-))
>>
>>
>>> D
>Well....if you want to now the truth, I'd be willing to bet that both of
>us would be out of luck in this hypothetical, and streak would be the
>one lucking out. No woman can resist petting a big old cat like Streak,
>and if she's busy doing that, you and I both might just as well give up
>on the whole idea and go fly :-)
>D

At the risk of plagerism...Truer words were never spoken. <sigh>

Roge

[Thomas Borchert]

Snowbird,

> - Landing clearance simply omitted. (should result in go-around)

Actually, that should result in "xxx tower, please verify N12345 is cleared
to land/option/t&g" in due time in the pattern. And the deeper learning point
in this is: "You are the pilot in command, assert yourself and your needs on
the radio. Don't wait for them to hand down the manna (aka clearance) from
the heavens, ask for clarification before things become a problem."

> - Low fly-by to enable tower to inspect a/c (with binoculars) for possible
> landing gear defect.

I have never understood the usefulness of that particular maneuver (sp?).
First, what's the likelyhood of the tower people knowing the slightest thing
about landing gear and the specifics of the plane flying by? And second, how
would they see from a flyby whether the gear is locked down or just looks
locked down?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Snowbird]

"Thomas Borchert" wrote
>
>> - Landing clearance simply omitted. (should result in go-around)
>
> Actually, that should result in "xxx tower, please verify N12345 is
> cleared
> to land/option/t&g" in due time in the pattern.

Agreed. However, in this case, as far as I remember, the tower frequency was
so busy that the landing a/c simply did not get a chance to transmit.
Normally, a "N12345 on short final" also usually works.

>
>> - Low fly-by to enable tower to inspect a/c (with binoculars) for
>> possible
>> landing gear defect.
>
> I have never understood the usefulness of that particular maneuver (sp?).
> First, what's the likelyhood of the tower people knowing the slightest
> thing
> about landing gear and the specifics of the plane flying by?

We had a situation at the local airport where one main wheel fell off on
take-off and remained dangling from the brake line. I'd guess the tower was
able to brief the pilot about the airplane's condition better than the pilot
himself was able to. Whether it made any difference or not, I'm not sure.
(The landing went without any major damage.)

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Roger (K8RI) wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 22:16:42 -0400, Dudley Henriques
> > wrote:
>
>> Roger (K8RI) wrote:
>>> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 11:06:11 -0400, Dudley Henriques
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Roger (K8RI) wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 23:21:50 -0400, Dudley Henriques
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Roger (K8RI) wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 19:23:44 -0400, Dudley Henriques
>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Morgans wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Kind of makes ya wish Pamela Anderson was an FBO doesn't it :-)
>>>>>>>>> Pamela Anderson, with fur under her shirt? <Shudder>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Man, I need to go wash my eyes out with soap, to get the bad taste out of
>>>>>>>>> them!
>>>>>>>>> ;-))
>>>>>>>> Don't blame me. It's ROGER with the bear fetish!!!!
>>>>>>>> :-))))))))))
>>>>>>> Hey! You're the one with the fixation on my topless FBO<:-)))))
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> D
>>>>>> Let's face it Rog; if you and I were in the Deb and one of us was
>>>>>> taxiing it back to the line and we had to taxi between two hangars with
>>>>>> a foot tip clearance on either wing to get through.....and Pamela
>>>>>> Anderson was standing there topless by the hangars as we taxied through,
>>>>>> which one of us would YOU want taxiing the airplane??? Now think about
>>>>>> this carefully Rog......tip tanks are expensive!!!! :-))
>>>>> You taxi the airplane, I'll get out and walk. (you only go around once
>>>>> and It's only money)
>>>>>
>>>>> Roger
>>>>>
>>>>>> Dudley
>>>> Ah HA!! I win!! You see, as you are so competent a pilot in the Deb, you
>>>> wouldn't have needed my services in this hypothetical, and I of course
>>>> also being competent, would have not been in the Deb at all but rather
>>>> over there standing next to Pamela with a Jack Daniles in one hand and
>>>> my arm around her with the other while she petted Streak with one hand
>>>> and held mine with the other while both of us waved at you as you taxied
>>>> on by.
>>>> :-)))
>>> <Sigh> Yah just can't win against a guy who makes up the rules as he
>>> goes along<:-))
>>>
>>>
>>>> D
>> Well....if you want to now the truth, I'd be willing to bet that both of
>> us would be out of luck in this hypothetical, and streak would be the
>> one lucking out. No woman can resist petting a big old cat like Streak,
>> and if she's busy doing that, you and I both might just as well give up
>> on the whole idea and go fly :-)
>> D
>
> At the risk of plagerism...Truer words were never spoken. <sigh>
>
> Roge

I love that line :-))
D

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 09:25:21 -0400, Dudley Henriques
> wrote:

>Roger (K8RI) wrote:
>> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 22:16:42 -0400, Dudley Henriques
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Roger (K8RI) wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 11:06:11 -0400, Dudley Henriques
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Roger (K8RI) wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 23:21:50 -0400, Dudley Henriques
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Roger (K8RI) wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 19:23:44 -0400, Dudley Henriques
>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Morgans wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Kind of makes ya wish Pamela Anderson was an FBO doesn't it :-)
>>>>>>>>>> Pamela Anderson, with fur under her shirt? <Shudder>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Man, I need to go wash my eyes out with soap, to get the bad taste out of
>>>>>>>>>> them!
>>>>>>>>>> ;-))
>>>>>>>>> Don't blame me. It's ROGER with the bear fetish!!!!
>>>>>>>>> :-))))))))))
>>>>>>>> Hey! You're the one with the fixation on my topless FBO<:-)))))
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> D
>>>>>>> Let's face it Rog; if you and I were in the Deb and one of us was
>>>>>>> taxiing it back to the line and we had to taxi between two hangars with
>>>>>>> a foot tip clearance on either wing to get through.....and Pamela
>>>>>>> Anderson was standing there topless by the hangars as we taxied through,
>>>>>>> which one of us would YOU want taxiing the airplane??? Now think about
>>>>>>> this carefully Rog......tip tanks are expensive!!!! :-))
>>>>>> You taxi the airplane, I'll get out and walk. (you only go around once
>>>>>> and It's only money)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Roger
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dudley
>>>>> Ah HA!! I win!! You see, as you are so competent a pilot in the Deb, you
>>>>> wouldn't have needed my services in this hypothetical, and I of course
>>>>> also being competent, would have not been in the Deb at all but rather
>>>>> over there standing next to Pamela with a Jack Daniles in one hand and
>>>>> my arm around her with the other while she petted Streak with one hand
>>>>> and held mine with the other while both of us waved at you as you taxied
>>>>> on by.
>>>>> :-)))
>>>> <Sigh> Yah just can't win against a guy who makes up the rules as he
>>>> goes along<:-))
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> D
>>> Well....if you want to now the truth, I'd be willing to bet that both of
>>> us would be out of luck in this hypothetical, and streak would be the
>>> one lucking out. No woman can resist petting a big old cat like Streak,
>>> and if she's busy doing that, you and I both might just as well give up
>>> on the whole idea and go fly :-)
>>> D
>>
>> At the risk of plagerism...Truer words were never spoken. <sigh>
>>
>> Roge
>
>I love that line :-))

BTW, what's it mean when your cat starts trying to teach you
something? (re e-mail) I wish I had a video of that. Apparently
he's getting tired of catching his own mice and expects me to provided
fresh food as in "food on the hoof" as compared to "cat food".

I think that cat is one whale of a lot smarter than I've been giving
him credit for!" Actually it's almost scary as in twilight zone.<:-))

Maybe it's payback for protecting him from the big bad thunderstorm
with a tornado in it yesterday. Now that would have been something to
fly through. I was storm chasing, had spotted a wall cloud which was
confirmed by another spotter. I ended up getting a bit closer than I
really wanted and stopped in traffic at a light. While waiting for
the light visibility dropped to between a 100 and 200 feet while hail
started at pea size and rapidly went to half inch, 3/4 inch, and over
one inch all while waiting for that light. Hail over an inch is
NOISY! Good thing I didn't have Joyce's car as the big stuff would
have covered it with dents. I even picked up a few in the 4-Runner.
BTW I found out later it tore up some trees and power lines just a few
hundred yards from me but I never saw any of it other than the hail
and heavy rain. (bout an inch in 10 minutes)

At any rate I managed a U-turn, got behind the thing and followed it
back south. Joyce was listening to the weather net (spotters and the
county EOC). When I called in the *rotating* wall cloud passing over
our place she said she was listening to the net from under the
basement stairs. Streak was hiding between the washing machine and
the basement wall. He was my shadow all evening after I got home.

I remember leaving BJC (Jefferson county at Boulder Co) in a rental
car some years back, looking up, and seeing a piper twin spit out the
side of a big towering Q. He was past 90 degrees and probably by the
looks of it, beyond Vne as well. <:-)) Man, I'll bet that was some
ride. We were 90 degreed in the Deb about 30 miles to the SE of BJC
on the way in but at least it wasn't inside a cloud.
>D

[es330td]

On Jul 12, 6:56 am, "David Wright" >
wrote:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/essex/6294778.stm
>
> Interesting that a "Go Around" is considered here as an "unfamiliar
> manoeuvre" - and that the pilot was "put in a situation beyond his
> experience" - okay he only had 15 hours of flying time and it was only his
> second solo, but I was doing touch and go's and going around from about my
> third hour onwards.
>
> D.

A student pilot I know (no, not me. I haven't even been up in the left
seat yet) was at the controls for a prop strike because they didn't
know how to "go around." The instructor had neglected to teach the
procedure and when the pilot-in-training realized they were short they
just pushed the throttle back in to normal cruise setting instead of
full power. Since the instructor thought the pilot was going to full
power when he realized the pilot didn't it was too late and the plane
hit 100' short of the runway.