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

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

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 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...)

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

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

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"

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

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

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 :-))

"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.