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

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.

On Jul 12, 10:56 pm, "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

I think this is probably a case where one needs to read the accident
report. I have a feeling that the news reporting may have simplified
a little too much. Anybody know where to find the report online?

On Jul 13, 12:09 am, James Sleeman wrote:
a little too much. Anybody know where to find the report online?

To answer my own question:

http://tinyurl.com/2fltym

( http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/sites/aai...0l__g_babb.cfm
)

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!
As for landings, I remind my students, they only have one opportunity
for a safe landing for EVERY takeoff. And, further, each takeoff will
be followed by one of two things......a good approach and landing, or
a GO-AROUND hopefully to be followed by a good landing.
A go around is a very important skill to learn and it has to be
appropriate for the aircraft being flown. May I offer my own
dissertation on go arounds? Thank you. :)
The conditions that require an aborted landing are myriad and fluid.
So does the point when the pilot must make a decision to continue or
to go around. The common factor is a vertical descent rate that must
be arrested to effect a go around. The altitude may be 500'agl, or it
may be 10'agl under extremes. So, the most important thing to do is to
stop the descent and get stabilized while doing whatever has to be
accomplished in order to go back up and make another attempt or divert
to an alternate.
Most go around procedures require application of takeoff power
followed by reduction of flaps, or retraction of gear, or application
of collective (for the rotorheads) and the appropriate procedures for
both the aircraft and the operations involved.
I insist the student say out loud during the approach, the pertinent
numbers and what they are doing. When they are on short final they
must declare it to be a touchdown or a potential go around. If I
declare a "GO AROUND" THEY MUST APPLY TAKEOFF POWER, arrest the
descent, get stabilized, and then before they touch the flap control,
MUST call out their airspeed and a positive rate of climb. Once they
have done that, they can stage the flaps up and resume a normal climb.
In order for any student pilot to accomplish any kind of precison of
the aircraft, they must first learn the rudimentary skills for flight.
Teaching them nothing but touch and go landings is to their detriment.
Your technique and opinion will vary with mileage.
Cheers
Ol S&B Soaring Buzzard
World Infamous Pilot/Instructor

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.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

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 "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.
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

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

James Sleeman schrieb:

To answer my own question:

http://tinyurl.com/2fltym

Thanks for the link. The report explains everything, if one reads it to
the end.

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.

Thanks for the link. The report explains everything, if one reads it to
the end.

The non-standard phraseology used certainly seems to have been an important
factor.

D