Go Around vs. Over Shoot [Archive]

yxcapt

28th Jan 2002, 10:00

I beleave the procedure would be Flaps up (to the position recommended by the manufacture) followed by the gear (at a positive rate). Flaps up to get rid of the drag and preserve lift, coordinate with pitch to stop descent, follow with gear up (+roc) just incase aircraft sinks slightly (assuming close to ground) Rather roll the wheels slightly rather than re-skin the belly. Then climb to get away from the ground. Here in the states you are supose to track to the right of the runway after the go around. Lining back up might be tough at this point.

Why did you go around? Aircraft on runway? Might hit it. Bad approach? Do you really have the aircraft under complete control now?

If the engine does quit and you have to land it, you may be better off with the gear up. If you land on something other than pavement, having the gear up reduces the chances of the airplane flipping over. Even on pavement the airplane will slide nicely. Their are design consideration built into the fuselage for gear up landings.

Its good to think about what could happen and what you might do if and when it happens. That way you have already formulated a plan!

Willie Everlearn

29th Jan 2002, 02:16

If you are less than a couple of miles (km)(Nm) finals. Gear down and configured. Why would you overshoot/go-around/miss?. .If you're staring at almost 10,000 feet of runway...land.. .If for some reason at mins you aren't visual...I think you'd prefer to . .1.) Set thrust/power and smoothly rotate your a/c to a positive deck angle, then call for; . .2.) Flap retraction. If you have 3 or 4 notches of flap, retract from 4th to 1st. then with a positive rate of climb. .3.) Select Gear Up.

Does that fit?. .Cheers and Happy Flying!. . <img src="wink.gif" border="0">

fruitbatflyer

29th Jan 2002, 05:51

Why not do it like the big boys/girls and put the power on, pitch it to a climb attitude, retract flaps from max drag to a setting which will ensure the warning horn won't blow, then retract the gear. Complete remainder of flap clean-up at safe altitude and speed. Whether one should wait for a positive rate of climb before retracting the gear depends on whether the aeroplane has the kind of performance to climb with gear still dangling, but you at least need to be sure you are not going to impact the ground before retracting gear as it does a lot to absorb crash forces.. .Retracting gear before getting rid of the landing flap will result in a most distracting warning horn on many types. Also, once you learn to do it one way, hopefully you will always be able to repeat it, whereas having different sequences for slightly different scenarios may cause confusion.. .If the flaps are at an intermediate setting, retracting them one stage before retracting the gear maintains the K.I.S.S. and won't do any harm if your speed is near where it should be.

Not_Another_Pot

29th Jan 2002, 06:51

Actually the procedure should be in accordance with the POH. Some require gear up and then flaps other require flaps and then gear it all depends on the aircraft.

NAP

yxcapt

29th Jan 2002, 08:34

Enlighten me. Which airplanes call for the gear up first.

Not_Another_Pot

29th Jan 2002, 09:18

TB 20 is one!

Extraction from POH:

GO-AROUND. .Smoothly apply full power. .Airspeed 76/81 KIAS

When climb rate is positive. .Landing gear lever UP. .Flaps “TAKE OFF”. .Airspeed 90 KIAS. .Flaps “RETRACTED”. .Climb at 95 KIAS

This is why it is important to read the POH and to know the correct procedure.

There was an article in an Australian magazine last month on this very subject. I shall try to find it tonight (which is mu birthday)! And post it.

Regards

NAP

Capt L

29th Jan 2002, 13:16

I feel I may not have made my question clear enough. The purpose of doing an overshoot is to practise a day VFR approach at a large airport (in my case Perth) without having to pay the landing fee. So there is no real reason that we cannot land on the runway. This is a common exercise amongst the flying schools that operate out of Jandakot.

In a real go around situation, the procedure is to retract the gear first to get rid of all the drag they produce with out any lift benifit, then once a positve rate of climb is established retract the flap in stages.

Thanks for all the replies everyone <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

Chuck Ellsworth

29th Jan 2002, 19:41

Capt L:

How much is the landing fee?

What kind of an airplane are you training on?

yxcapt

29th Jan 2002, 23:15

NAP-

I've never flown a TB20.

Thanks, Happy birthday

alphaalpha

29th Jan 2002, 23:54

Interesting topic, which made me think.

I did multi training on a C310 about three years ago and was taught: gear first then flaps. Gear transits slowly and you want to start reducing drag asap. (As an aside, I did gear first then flaps ALL the way up -- from 30 degrees -- on a single engine go around, to the music of the stall warner, the aircraft still sinking, speed probably less than than blue-line and the ground approaching. Instructor put the nose down, swearing softly, and we recovered at about 50 to 100 feet agl. So I learned that the C310 procedure is gear up, flaps to 15 degrees, achieve climb, retract flaps fully, achieve blue line. This is valid for single engine or two engines, I think)

Then two years later I did a (single engine) IR in a Piper Arrow. Go around training was: power full, pitch already full fine, flaps up one notch on the 'handbrake', positive rate of climb, gear up, flaps up fully. This worked very well for the Arrow. The mnemonic was FGF(F).

I suppose the summary is: Know your aeroplane, its' performance and the FM/POH. Fly the aeroplane. Any go around close to the ground in IMC and especially SE MUST MUST be flown correctly.

Be Safe.... .Regards

Capt L

1st Feb 2002, 12:07

The aircraft is an Arrow. The approach fee is about $20 and an extra $30 to do a touch and go!

Captain Airclues

1st Feb 2002, 13:20

Don't call "overshooting" in the US, or they'll send the fire trucks to the far end of the runway. In the US, and now in many other countries, a go-around is when you abort the landing, an overshoot is when you run off the end of the runway.

Airclues

john_tullamarine

2nd Feb 2002, 07:41

Perhaps I am just a nervous Nellie ... but I get rather twitchy reading of tales involving retracting the gear in light twins (with abysmal performance capabilities .. especially OEI) at the initiation of low level missed approaches ... and then waddling around scant feet above the ground with the wheels tucked away .. maybe I am just getting old ...

.. the thought of permitting oneself to be in the situation where an OEI missed approach is even a possibility from low level is not appealing in the slightest .. whatever happened to adopting a rather higher bottom line height below which the OEI missed approach is not an option ? .. or don't people do that these days ?

[ 02 February 2002: Message edited by: john_tullamarine ]</p>

Chuck Ellsworth

3rd Feb 2002, 02:49

Alphaalpha:

I am quite interested in how you got into the pucker factor during your single engine go around in the 310.

Why did you ( or your instructor ) not use both engines to arrest the rate of sink and recover airspeed before you got so close to the runway?

I, like John T. get really nervous when I read about training flights conducted with such narrow tolerances allowed for safe flight.

I just cannot imagine when anyone would attempt to go around on one engine in a light piston engine twin at such a low altitude.

There is no way I would go around in a light piston engine twin with one feathered once I got down to decision height, far better to land in 0/0 weather than try to go around.

Or to put another way why would you get yourself in such a perdicament in the first place?

..................... . :) The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no. :)

alphaalpha

3rd Feb 2002, 14:08

Cat Driver:

First let me say I am not an instructor, but the guy who did my multi training is very experienced (also trains instructors) and I have great confidence in him.

I have gone back and read my notes written after each training session. In my earlier post my failing memory has probably caused me to exagerate the height at which we recovered. The go around was started at our agreed commital height, 400 ft agl, so I should think the lowest height reached was 200 ft agl.

As soon as the stall warner started, the instructor lowered the nose and the aircraft accelerated. I do not remember he or I applying full power on the 'failed' engine. It was not feathered, but was set to produce zero thrust, so it was available immediately, if required.

The C310 has good engine-out performance and will climb at nearly 500 fpm at sea level at max weight when flown correctly. We were light, so once blue-line speed was achieved, even at 200 ft agl, there was no problem.

Concerning your paragraph 'I just cannot imagine why anyone would go around on one engine in a light twin at such a low altitude.' Engine-out go arounds are in the training syllabus -- see R D Campbell's 'Flying Training Multi engine rating' book page 179 where he describes the excercise of going around on the approach starting at or above commital height. Clearly the whole excercise would have been carried out at a greater height if we had been flying something like a twin Commanche at near max weight.

Was it dangerous? No, I don't think so. Did I learn a lesson? Yes, definitely. Was there anything more to learn? Yes, need to fully understand the procedure - in this case, the need to retract flaps to only 15 degrees in the first instance. I don't think I will never ever make that mistake again.

Hope this helps.. .Regards

Chuck Ellsworth

3rd Feb 2002, 19:08

Hi again Alphaalpha:

Thanks for your reply and please understand that it is not my desire to embarrass you or anyone else here, my only reason for asking is to discuss the safe operation of aircraft.

There was some doubt in my mind as to exactly what you had described in your first description of the go around in the Cessna 310. With regard to the practice of single engine go arounds during training there is no operational reason why these exercises should not be carried out at an altitude sufficient to recover should the airplane depart from controlled flight. Say for instance four or five thousand feet above ground.

Arguably the most common loss of life in twin engine airplanes is due to engine failures and loss of control during the initial take off and climb out segment. A large precentage of such accidents are due to pilot error. Regardless of how poor the performance of any given light twin may be with an engine out there is no reason to depart controlled flight and roll over and make a lawn dart out of it.

Now I agree that the 310 lightly loaded has sufficient single engine climb performance to safely perform a go around and climb to a safe altitude, providing you start from a densitity altitude that allows sufficient climb performance.

I do however have some discomfort with the instructor allowing the situation to deteriroate to the point where the stall warning was sounding with gear and flaps down, from four hundred feet you in all likelyhood wouldnt have a prayer of recovery once it departed controlled flight.

My reason for going into all this discussion is simply because there is this missconseption among the great majority of pilots that their instructors are real experts and their teaching methods are beyond reproach, sadly in many cases this is not true.

One of the most frustrating and discouraging aspects of the business I am in is the low level of flying skills and understanding of flight that I observe among what should be qualified pilots.. .Re training is far more difficult than training as the habits and preceptions of how to fly are in most cases very difficult to erase.

May I add the comment that almost without exception I find the military trained pilots to be far superior in flying skills and knowledge of aerodynamics than civilian trained pilots. That of course is due to the quality of their instructors and the fact that money is not the same consideration generally speaking.

Anyhow I do appreciate your reply and trust that you take my comments as trying to help not hinder.. .: <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> . .................. . :) The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no. :)

alphaalpha

3rd Feb 2002, 21:11

Hi Cat Driver:

No problem at all with your comments. We all make mistakes and do things that are sometimes stupid, sometimes embarrassing. In this particular case, the stubid/embarrassing thing was the briefing or my understanding of it. I'm quite happy to share my mistakes with others. That way we all learn something.

The lesson of this thread is, I think, that the safe procedures for cleaning-up in a go around situation differ from a/c to a/c and a low level engine out go-around is a critical situation which you can not afford to get wrong.

So far as practicing at low level is concerned, I really don't have the experience to comment. I'm happy to accept your view.

Thinking about my story a bit further, you should maintain blue-line speed down the approach until you commit to land, shouldn't you. So I was at blue line at the start of the g/a. Since the stall warner sounded, I must have lifted the nose too high and allowed the speed to decay before the a/c was cleaned up. This means I made two mistakes: trying to climb at the expense of speed AND raising the flaps full up in one go.

<img src="redface.gif" border="0"> . .Regards

yxcapt

4th Feb 2002, 01:48

According to the NTSB and the AOPA, most twin pilots lose the airplane during a single engine approach and landing phase of flight.

Interesting. You would think the SE Take-off/departure would be number one.

john_tullamarine

4th Feb 2002, 06:04

If I may amplify a comment of Cat Driver's, similarly tongue in cheek .. four or five thousand feet for OEI missed approach practice is a good idea ... allows for a cup of coffee while the aircraft progressively descends on one engine to a much lower height where there might be a semblance of excess thrust to arrest the descent .. should this coincidentally occur at an altitude higher than the ground ... then that is a GOOD THING.

On a serious note .. the quality of instructors is critical, regardless of their origin.

I had the very good fortune to submit to the tender mercies of a couple of very experienced (and no longer with us) old greybeards (they must have been all of 45-50 .. I was around 17 at the time) for my initial training (a long time ago). As the RAAF was paying (some of the older Oz pilots might remember the now long defunct ATC scholarship scheme) they saw no reason to be other than (nicely) merciless (ruthless?). The end result was a course of 10 or so which progressed very rapidly and learnt a great deal...

I cannot speculate regarding the overseas experience but here, in Australia, I see much evidence that the sort of instructor typically encountered in the 60s (competent, gruff and grizzled) has, to an uncomfortable degree, been superseded by the "be nice to the student" style significantly driven by the commercial imperative of "the student might go someplace else for the next lesson".

One consequence of this sort of situation, I suspect, is that mediocrity begets mediocrity and the overall (GA instructor) industry standard here has, for good or bad, gone somewhat downhill over the past 20-30 years .. this is not to suggest that there are no superb instructors about .. there most certainly are ... but there are also a great many mediocre examples of the beast.

Chuck Ellsworth

4th Feb 2002, 06:25

Yxcapt:

Hadn't really given it much thought but it is probably because the a/c is configured for climb and is usually accelerating whereas on a landing it is generally the opposite.Hmmm.

Anyhow, practice go arounds in light piston engine twins can get out of hand real fast if you are only using one engine to fly it, easy to correct most mistakes at altitude however can be dangerous near the ground.

Just reinforces my own opinion about feathering just to have a look at the prop stopped. It flys the same in simulated feather with the option of using the 0 thrust engine immediately should you need it.

When someone wishes to see / practice an actual feathering unfeathering sequence I get a ground power unit and we feather / unfeather parked on the ramp or sitting in the hangar.

No danger involved in doing it that way.

Can't wait for spring so I can go back to work instead of giving myself a keyboard lobotomy on pprune. <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

...............

:) The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no. :)

john_tullamarine

4th Feb 2002, 06:46

There is one consideration which favours at least a look at a feathered landing for training familiarisation. On a prop aircraft with significant (as in lots of) power, the drag of the (asymmetric) operating engine during the flare as the throttles are closed can be a surprise on the first exposure.

Apart from that I concur with the view that ill-considered practice (in all its forms) can kill you far more consistently than the less frequently occurring situation for which you were practising in the first place.

Chuck Ellsworth

4th Feb 2002, 07:23

John-T:

About ten years ago I sold a flight training school with six fixed wing aircraft and one R22 helicopter for the simple reason that I could no longer accept the frustration of trying to operate a flight school with the robots the Government forced me to hire. For instance I put a J3 cub on line for those who wished to learn on a conventional gear airplane, guess what, only one instructor would fly it. The rest were convinced that it was just to difficult to train on.

I have reached the conclusion that flight instruction should be split into two camps. Schools that train airline crews to operate todays modern computerized aircraft and a seperate class of school with more flexibility in the methods of instruction. By that I mean the school can be free to choose their own curriculum free of the rote learning, dumbed down to the lowest common demoninator enforced teaching methods that the government insists on now.

This would allow for a choice of training for the student as there is definately a difference in flying between airlines and recreational flying.

When I learned to fly I had to first become an airplane mechanic before they allowed me to fly. ( Cubs and Stearman crop dusters ) <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> beyond doubt that gave me a great advantage during my ensuing years and also allowed me to seamlessly shift into the glass cockpit era of todays world.. .The one thing I am still not comfortable with is landing the A320 in a stromg x/wind, my brain and hands and feet want me to fly it like a DC3, unfortunately a DC3 it ain't.

Looking foward to meeting all you down under guys and gals hopefully in about a year from now.

By the way Melbourne is blocked for a four day inspection on the airplane.

. .................. . :) The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no. :)

john_tullamarine

4th Feb 2002, 11:47

Then I shall have to ensure that my next contract is not too far from Oz .... look forward to having an ale or 10 with you ...

yxcapt

5th Feb 2002, 07:19

Cat-

The engine out go-around in a light twin just aint possable 99% of the time anyway. I do attempt to demostrate this at about 2000 ft AGL. If the student is lucky, he'll maintain altitude at the bottom of the final descent. Most descend well below the simulated field elevation.

Most prop manufacture recommend not feathering props on the ground and have the Tech put it back in the fine pitch position when needed. I guess if your in a King Air with those pratts you could feather and unfeather all day!!

John T. makes a good point. Landing with a prop feather the airplane will float without the drag. It's hard to simulate the feathered prop. Zero thrust is safer, but it is not minimum drag like the feathered prop will be.

I don't advocate engine out/prop feathered landings during training. If it happens, it happens but if the student really screws it up you have to save your butt by either adding (attempt SE go-around) or reducing power (and keep it up right befor you hit). In either case your screwwed!

A thought on the Old Grey beards. I was tought to really fly an airplane from a WWII P-51 Ace, Harold(Spence)Spencer. I had 2000 hours when I first flew with him. I learned more from him in the 2 years I worked for him than from anyone else before or after him. God rest his soul.

alphaalpha

5th Feb 2002, 12:50

Just to say that I've learned a lot from this thread. Thanks guys.. .Regards

Chuck Ellsworth

5th Feb 2002, 22:20

yxcapt:

The engine I was referring to is a P&W, however it is a P&W 1830 radial and of course the feathering is done by an electrc feathering motor producing 1400 psi oil pressure to feather and unfeather the prop. So all we need is electrical power and we can feather / unfeather without running the engine.

We also have another slight edge we do not need to call a tech. as there are only three of us in our company and we are all both pilots and the mechanics so except for unusual problems that require a DAR we do everything ourselves.

This has been a good discussion and we should continue to seek others opinions, because none of us know very much in the grand scheme of things.

............

. . :) The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no. :)

john_tullamarine

6th Feb 2002, 03:07

Amen to that ... the older I get .. and the more I learn .. the more I realise that there is far, far more to know than I had previously imagined.

How I survived being a young pilot is quite beyond me ....

yxcapt

6th Feb 2002, 08:04

Cat-

I have very little round engine all of it in 2 single engine airplanes (UPF-7 & SNJ). Back when most of my friends and myself where building time, I got lucky and started flying turbins. There is one airplane I really want to fly, the DC-3. Someday.....

John T & Cat-. .Like you, I cant beleave I survived my early years. Between bad employiers and the dumb decisions I've made, I truely wounder how I got to be where I am today. As long as we keep learning we know we are alive.

Thanks

Chuck Ellsworth

6th Feb 2002, 09:07

yxcapt:

The DC3 is truly a pilots delight, what you fly usually is determined by when you upgraded. I just happened to start flying for an airline during the DC3 era so put I in about five thousand hours in them. But the hands down best airplane from a Jesus look what Ive got my hands on machine has to be the Catalina. Just something about the beast that nothing else I have flown can come close to. I hate to sound insulting but a turbo prop or a jet just dosen't have that certain sound and romance of a big radial.

As soon as the weather gets flyable over the North Atlantic I have to move a Cat from London to Virginia Beach, and it just ain't like rocketing up to FL390 and monitoring a multi colored video game. We have no radar, no anti ice and the world moves below us about 120 knots on a good day.

Do you remember the good old days when Fed Ex started with Beech 18's?

Oh hell I have to go to bed.

................ . :) The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no. :)

moggie

6th Feb 2002, 14:07

If you are going around to fly a visual circuit I would have thought that it would still make sense to fly your standard go-around procedure.

You will have a standard G/A for instrument (missed) approaches, so why not fly this for the practice and kill two birds with one stone? Then, if your normal visual circuit requires a different configuration, you have loads of time as you turn downwind to get set up.

I have never seen the point in making up alternative procedures when you probably have standard procedures which will do the job perfectly well.

alphaalpha

6th Feb 2002, 23:51

Cat--. .Re your London - USA in a Cat (now I understand your 'handle')

Do you need a co-pilot?. .No, I cam't say that. Do you need a 'helper????'

Sounds great fun and, from previous posts on this thread, we have some things to discuss.

Regards

yxcapt

7th Feb 2002, 05:52

CAT-

Sounds like hard work, but fun as all get out! I help out at the EAA in Oshkosh. When not working, you can find me listening to the war birds start, taxi, take-off....what noise!! Personal favorite P-51 fly-bys.

I don't remember Fed-Ex Beeches. I do recall their Falcon 20s. My old boss was asked to join them as a pilot & examiner very early on (he was one of the first to fly the 20). He thought the company wouldn't last fly boxes in jets and turned them down. I think he still kicks himself about that call.

In the CAT, how much flying time and how many fuel stops. Do you have any old Pan American ghosts flying that route with you?

Chuck Ellsworth

7th Feb 2002, 06:34

yxcapt:

Our routing will be.

North Weald England to Prestwick Scotland 2.5 hours.

Prestwick - Keflavik Iceland 6.5 hours.

Keflavik - Narsarsuaq Greenland 6.5 hours

Narsarsuaq - Goose Bay NFLD. 6.0 hours

Goose Bay - Virginia Beach 11.0 hours

We do a lot of this type of flying and even though the Cat will fly 20 hours non stop, for single engine safety reasons we try to keep our legs within a reasonable take off all up weight.

The South Atlantic route was a case where we departed Dakar 5,000 pounds over gross alowable with a ferry permit. The first six to eight hours we are flying two single engine airplanes in one , if we lose an engine we will end up landing on the ocean, not a pleasant thought.

Take a look at our web site and some pictures of some of the places we fly.

<a href="http://www.pbyflighttraining.com" target="_blank">www.pbyflighttraining.com</a>

................. . :) The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no. :)