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

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

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

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

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

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

"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 ]

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.

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 ]

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

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