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

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.

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

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.

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.

"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

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.

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...ation/200707/1