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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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...ation/200707/1