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

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?

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

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

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)

"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.)

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

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

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.