Safe height to go around?

[Put1992]

Upon being forced to commit a go around on my previous solo flight (still had to pay the landing fee) I was wondering if I should have gone earlier. PA-28 on the runway, and ATC told me to continue my approach at 500 feet. The PA-28 was vacating at the very end of the runway. Really, I should have gone around at an earlier point, but I hesitated, ignorant to the fact that aircraft were not vacating on the "middle" taxiway. I ended up going around at 300 Feet.

A combination of a busy circuit, and an A320 on the ILS meant it all got a bit hectic in the circuit!

Decided to call it a full stop after that. :ouch:

A very testing flight!

[Finals19]

Ultimately the GA is your call, but ATC were probably trying to squeeze you in due to traffic conditions at the time. Not unusual at larger airports for ATC to give you a VERY late landing clearance - its really all down to how comfortable you are with accepting it. Remember you can go around at any height you want, just as long as you deem it safe to do so. I have gone around at 50 feet or less, which is really no big deal, although lots of variables come into this, like wx, wind, obstacles etc.

Remember that large a/c go around from 200' agl on an ILS, and in reality they can actually dip below this in the process...

[SNS3Guppy]

Safe height to go around? It starts at the ground, and goes up from there.

[Put1992]

Ah ok. It just all seemed a bit dramatic at the time :E

[Mike Cross]

Go-around is as SNS3G says, anywhere from the ground up. If you land too fast and balloon a well-executed go around will save your bacon and prevent the nosewheel being broken off.

However until you are very comfortable with the handling it's wise not to push the envelope too far. Pushing the throttle forward and retracting the flaps with one hand can cause the other hand to move, particularly if you don't have the trim correctly set and are holding on some pressure, or if the a/c has a big pitch change when you do it.

The right point to go around is when you realise that you are not going to land. Continuing the approach when it's plain as a pikestaff that the other a/c won't vacate in time is pointless.

Not unusual at larger airports for ATC to give you a VERY late landing clearance They're masters of the art of holding the microphone open "Speedbird 243.................. continue approach................wind 240 10 kt.......................justwaiting for the previous aircraft to clear the runway...........clear to land!"

[BackPacker]

It just all seemed a bit dramatic at the time.

For a low-hours student, I can imagine that a GA can be very dramatic. Especially if it's not due to your own fault but because of external circumstances and ordered by ATC. Just keep your head cool, acknowledge the instruction, put full power on, carb heat off, keep the nose fairly low so you build speed first without losing any more altitude, get rid of some flap if you have to and then climb away. And yes, this can happen even at 1 ft. over the runway.

ATC told me to continue my approach at 500 feet

Just so I understand this correctly. Did ATC call "continue approach" when you happened to be at 500 feet, or did ATC call "maintain 500 feet" when you were on final approach?

I guess it would have been the first, and this is quite normal. You've called final, you had probably had confirmation earlier on that you were first to land (except for the one one the runway) and this is just ATCs way of saying "continue your approach as if you're going to land but I can't give you a landing clearance yet because of other traffic on the runway. But I think the timing will work out and I'll be able to give you a landing clearance in due time". So just continue your approach as if you're going to land, but just make sure your wheels don't touch the tarmac yet.

I fly from a long runway with exits at the beginning and end only and we get this a lot: traffic unfamiliar with the runway exit layout touching down at the "big aircraft" touchdown point, and then taxiing all the way down the runway. The trick is then to continue the approach, initiate the flare with a bit of power on so that you float indefinitely without touching the tarmac, and chop the power as soon as you get the landing clearance. Only when the landing clearance doesn't come when we've floated halfway down the runway (or more) do we initiate a go-around. Which is actually quite tricky when you're so close to the ground, due to the torque effect and everything. Increase power carefully and keep the nose pointed exactly where it was until you've got full power on. Only then raise the flaps carefully and climb away.

Come to think of it, this might be a very good exercise to do with your instructor, sometime. Don't do it with a stiff crosswind though, at least not the first few times.

Oh yeah, and anytime you do an approach and end up below 500 feet (I think) you have to pay a landing fee. Doesn't matter whether you call it a missed approach, go around, touch and go or full stop.

[Put1992]

Just so I understand this correctly. Did ATC call "continue approach" when you happened to be at 500 feet, or did ATC call "maintain 500 feet" when you were on final approach?


The called "continue approach".

I was just wondering why they did not tell me to go around, when it was clear, even from then, that I was not going to make it.

Cheers

[BackPacker]

I was just wondering why they did not tell me to go around, when it was clear, even from then, that I was not going to make it.

Perhaps because they though you could make it? Or because they thought, just like you did, that the aircraft in front would take the middle exit?

It is sometimes surprising what experienced pilots can do in a familiar aircraft and on a familiar airfield, and ATC knows that. So they sometimes push the envelope a bit when they are working an aircraft based locally, expecting that an experienced pilot will work with them, an an inexperienced pilot will simply say no.

So in your case, executing the go-around at 300 feet was the right thing to do. But a more experienced pilot, familiar with the field, ATC and the aircraft, might have continued the approach and squeezed in behind anyway.

In situations like that, it's a bit of a game between the pilots and ATC. If you know the rules and have the experience, you can play the game. If you lack the experience, don't play and stick to what you know. You can always go around. It's the landings that are the hardest.

[Julian]

Echo the sentiments...go around is from 0.1mm upwards :o)

The other thing to remember is that you are probably in the worst position you can be - low and slow - so although must act quickly, make sure you dont do anything stupid. Chuck tried to get this point across in his thread.

As my instructor on my PPL always said all those years ago

"Treat every approach you make as a potential go around"

I have always stuck by his advice since!

J.

[IO540]

The #1 rule is keep the decisionmaking in the cockpit.

ATC are there to assist but they cannot override the above.

It's much easier and much safer to go around when at say 300ft or higher than when on the runway. Personally, therefore, I go around if I am unhappy about previous landing traffic getting out of the way. One should never commit to a landing unless the runway is clearly clear, and once committed to a landing I always land.

Putting the effort into a decent landing is always safer than putting the effort into a late go-around.

A go-around from the runway is hazardous because one doesn't know how much runway is left, and there is a high workload with getting rid of the landing flap, etc.

[Ivor_Novello]

Not all runways are 2200 meters tarmac.... and I wouldn't rely too heavily on the brakes of the average training aircraft.
So yeah there's no limit to how low one can go around, sometimes it can be with all wheels down having realised you won't stop before the fence ;)

And I would say that sometimes ATC will have to override the cockpit decision making. Runway incursions are not unheard of and sometimes angle/slope/sunglare don't make them too easy to spot.

Ivor

[foxmoth]

Remember that large a/c go around from 200' agl on an ILS, and in reality they can actually dip below this in the process...

Not quite correct, from a CATII or III approach you can be going around from much lower than this - right down to touchdown in fact, often in the SIM on a practice LVO you may be going around below 50' and the aircraft may touch the runway during the GA.

[Blues&twos]

Lufthansa, Hamburg anyone?

[Julian]

And I would say that sometimes ATC will have to override the cockpit decision making.

Whilst ATC can request you to go around the final decision will still be yours, you may not be able to GA for some reason. If you can then you should, as you say, ATC may have seen something you haven't!

J.

[Put1992]

Or because they thought, just like you did, that the aircraft in front would take the middle exit?

But the aircraft was told to vacate at the very end of the runway

[Lasiorhinus]

once committed to a landing I always land.


:eek:

With respect, that's a very dangerous mindset.

Once you've committed to the landing, and you suddenly realise your wheels are still up, it is prudent to go-around.

Four horses suddenly run onto the strip in front of you... go around.

Landing into a setting sun, you suddenly realise the shadow in the runway is not the shadow of a tree, but the aircraft that landed before you with a flat tyre and ground-looped... go around.

Until your aircraft is on the ground and slowed to taxi speed, you must always be prepared to go around. It matters not whether you're flying a microlight or a 747 - consciously refusing to go around below a certain limit is a dangerous attitude, and greatly increases your chance of bending something, one day.

[Chilli Monster]

Upon being forced to commit a go around on my previous solo flight (still had to pay the landing fee) I was wondering if I should have gone earlier.

From a flight safety point of view this concerns me - would you care to name and shame? I have no problem with charging for training go-arounds as that's the intent on arrival. However, being charged for a go-around due to what is effectively a blocked runway is a different matter and this has to stop NOW

One should never commit to a landing unless the runway is clearly clear

Have you never had a "Land After"? That's a landing without a "vacated" runway (I hate the use of the word "clear" in this context for obvious reasons, and we might as well get the terminoogy right)

and once committed to a landing I always land.

I agree with Lasiorhinus, a dangerous mindset. Once the decision is made to land then fair enough, you continue with it, however you should never really be commited to landing until the nose wheel touches the ground. Up until that point every approach is a potential go-around.

A go-around from the runway is hazardous because one doesn't know how much runway is left, and there is a high workload with getting rid of the landing flap, etc

Of course you know how much runway is left - aim to touchdown in the TDZ everytime and it becomes pretty self evident, and not too difficult to work out. Correctly executed and trained for the workload for a go-around is no different to that on take off.

[bjornhall]

With respect, that's a very dangerous mindset.

Depends on where one's commit point is, doesn't it? Not wise to go around when there's not enough runway remaining to do so.

Chilli Monster, why would you be committed just because the nose wheel is on the ground? There may still be plenty of space to reject.

[Chilli Monster]

why would you be committed just because the nose wheel is on the ground?

Because at that point, being a good pilot who keeps his nose wheel off as long as possible, it takes less distance to stop than it does to get airborne again :) If you have to reject the landing due to an obstruction then at that point you're going to hit it if you try and get airborne again.

From an ATC point of view also, I wouldn't dream of sending an aircraft around from the "nose wheel on" position if I judged the speed slow enough to make acceleration and take-off unsafe - and if the aircraft has been landed properly then that is the more likely possibility.

[bjornhall]

Ok, good answer!

[Put1992]

would you care to name and shame?

Not really, as they do a very good job the rest of the time. :)

I have no problem with charging for training go-arounds as that's the intent on arrival. However, being charged for a go-around due to what is effectively a blocked runway is a different matter and this has to stop NOW

I completely agree. Although I would not personally feel obliged to fly by money, if it has come to the point where some pilots may be forced into flying into potentially dangerous situations due to the cost, then that is a complete cheat.

Perhaps I should expand on the situation a bit more.

In total, there were 3 aircraft orbiting downwind, for a landing A320. 2 of which were PA28's, one was me, a C152. The first PA28 landed without incident, then what was in my first post happened.

Obviously, I cannot complain about the bigger aircraft. Heck, It can be fun at times. But the first PA28 joined the circuit late downwind, so I was wondering if ATC could not have sent him for an overhead join due to the situation?

Really not sure about the above comment though :p:p

Cheers

Put

[fireflybob]

Notwithstanding all the excellent advice here, especially from my erudite and esteemed fellow aviator Chilli Monster, I quite liked the Military training rule to ab initio students which was if the runway was not clear at 200 ft solo or 100 ft dual (cos instructors know what they are doing - ahem!) then you go around. I find this useful to teach at airfields without ATSU where, as we all know, it is not permitted to land unless the previous a/c has vacated (not going to go into the definition of vacated on this thread!).

Different case though when ATC issue a "Land After" but even then it's up to the following pilot as to whether he feels it prudent to continue to a landing.

[Lasiorhinus]

Depends on where one's commit point is, doesn't it? Not wise to go around when there's not enough runway remaining to do so.

Chilli Monster, why would you be committed just because the nose wheel is on the ground? There may still be plenty of space to reject.

If you're on the runway, and at a point where there is not enough runway remaining to lift off again, yet still at a speed where a go-around is possible, you will very quickly find that you do not have enough runway left to stop in, either.

(I'm assuming you're not using arresting equipment).

More than likely, if there isnt enough runway remaining to lift off again, you'll be at a speed slow enough to have considered the landing complete, and be taxiing. High speed taxi, perhaps, but still taxiing.

If you're putting your commit point this far down the landing, you're putting yourself in danger from the opposite end of the diagram - contemplating the possibility of going around after the landing is complete. To take this to the extreme, imagine you've landed, taxi off the runway, and as you approach the clubhouse, a dog runs in front of you. "Going around!", you call, as you firewall the throttle.:{ (Dont actually try this - it will end in tears).


I presume most of you are familiar with the concept of V1 in large aircraft operations. For a balanced field, V1 is the speed of an aircraft as it accelerates, from which will take the same distance to either continue to accelerate, rotate and climb to 35 feet, or to brake and come to a complete stop.

A similar speed occurs during the landing roll, for any aircraft.

When approaching and landing, at high speed it will take considerably less distance to accelerate and climb to 50 feet (you may already be above 50 feet) than it would to stop - depending how fast you are, you may need a few kilometres to slow to landing speed, touch down, and then slow to a complete stop. Conversely, at very low speed, such as walking pace, you will require very little distance to bring the aircraft to a complete stop, but many hundreds of metres to accelerate and climb to 50 feet.

There is a speed, however, when the distance required to either stop or go will be exactly the same. As far as I am aware, this isn't actually designated anywhere, but should be relatively easy to calculate or determine, given an afternoon with calm wind and a couple of friends. For argument's sake, lets call this speed VG. (Vitesse Go-around, for those playing at home).


When landing, you will certainly be above VG all the time you are airborne. After touchdown, but still travelling faster than VG, it is still prudent to go around, in the case of an obstruction on the runway ahead of you, because you will need less distance to fly away than you would to stop. At or below VG, you should always stop, because you will need significantly more distance to execute the go-around.

So here is your point after which you are committed to land - a speed that will vary depending on aircraft and weight. It might be wise to add a buffer of perhaps ten knots to VG, using the logic that if a collision were unavoidable, its better to hit at ten knots than a hundred knots.

[Chilli Monster]

Although I would not personally feel obliged to fly by money, if it has come to the point where some pilots may be forced into flying into potentially dangerous situations due to the cost, then that is a complete cheat.

It has happened in the past, hence the Strasser initiative for airfields not to charge for diversions.

Really not sure about the above comment though :p :p

What do you not understand?

[bjornhall]

Lasiorhinus, just to be certain; are you talking about something that pertains to real world aviation, or rather how to have fun with your POH and your calculator on a rainy evening? ;)

[IO540]

As has been stated, it depends on where one's commit point is.

If

Four horses suddenly run onto the strip in front of you

[my bold] (which is in any case damn unlikely to be unexpected since one normally has a nice aerial view of the whole area all the way down the final) then one is going to go straight into them, isn't one?

Sorry Lasiorhinus but if you want to play with semantics you need to do it right ;)

The only choice one then has is whether to hit them at say 50kt with the engine off, or at say 60kt with the engine running flat out (and needing a shock load inspection etc).

Obviously if there is a new obstruction and there is clearly plenty of runway then one would take off again.

You would not commit to a takeoff unless 100% sure it's going to work so why advocate committing to a takeoff (the go around) in some tight situation?

Following the point where all wheels are on the ground, the time window in which a go-around is possible but a stop is not is very short indeed.

But in most situations one is better off on the runway at say 40kt (a typical spamcan speed a few seconds after touchdown) and slowing down nicely because the weight is on the wheels, and having directional control from the nosewheel (which is also firmly on the ground) even if this means driving off the runway to avoid the new obstacle, than trying to accelerate from 40kt to 70kt within a rapidly diminishing available distance which, if misjudged, will result in a well wrecked plane.

The difference in energy to be dissipated in a crash is huge between 40kt and 70kt.

Bush flying is bound to be different but in the normal UK/European context of runways not being surrounded by bush full of hidden horses, one is better off hanging onto the go-around option right up to the touchdown point, and then concentrating on a landing.

Again it's different in big crosswind situations esp. on taildraggers where one may have to go around from a later point if the plane turns out to be directionally uncontrollable.

[Final 3 Greens]

it takes less distance to stop than it does to get airborne again

Please would you supply a definitive reference from the POH to support this assertion.

A PA28 would suffice as the type for this purpose.

[IO540]

Come on F3G you know it depends on the decision point...

[Put1992]

What do you not understand?

Really not sure about the above comment though :p:p

Which was

so I was wondering if ATC could not have sent him for an overhead join due to the situation?
:)

[Chilli Monster]

Ahhh. Yes, overhead join would have been a better option but there is a tendency at ATC airfields to concentrate on either base or downwind joins. Knowing where you are talking about now (thanks) I think that's probably re-inforced by the proximity of CAS. It's a mindset thing where you forget there are more ways to skin a cat.

[SNS3Guppy]

Because at that point, being a good pilot who keeps his nose wheel off as long as possible, it takes less distance to stop than it does to get airborne again


Keeping your nosewheel off can produce negligible benifits; aerodynamic braking is effective at higher speeds, but merely keeping it off as long as possible doesn't serve any particular purpose, may reduce ground directional control, and doesn't make one a "good pilot." Regardless, whether the nosewheel (or tailwwheel) is on the ground or not has no real bearing on the reasonablness of executing a go-around or touch and go as the case may be.

If you touch down and find that something has caused a directional control issue, a runway incursion is happening, or something else occurs which requires a go-around, you're going faster on the runway at an earlier point than you would during a normal takeoff. If you have room to takeoff you have room to go around. The normal takeoff will see you much farther down the runway, much slower, with less obstacle clearance than a go around, assuming you perform a touchdown in the touchdown zone.

When landing, you already have significant energy. You're at flying speed. You have control. Your engine is powered up. You should be mentally cocked and ready to go fly again.

I've seen animals enter the runway (deer, skunk, horses, horses with riders, vehicles, etc). I've seen aircraft that reported as holding short, suddenly enter the runway. I've seen wake turbulence that required an immediate go around. I've seen runways that appeared solid suddenly become not so; mud or ice that fell through. I've had gear problems or brake problems or aircraft problems that required a go-around. I've had landings which bounced or didn't go according to plan, which were best handled by quickly going around.

I've been instructed by ATC to go around when information known by ATC wasn't known to me; I didn't know the hazard, but ATC from their vantage point could see it,and I went around.

Numerous reasons could exist for going around. Being prepared to do it at any time is a must.

Don't get caught up in the mentality that it's better to go off the end. It's not.

Don't get caught up in the mentality that you don't know how much runway you have available, or if you can go around. You had better know. There should be no question. You're the pilot in command. Know.

If you're going to go off the end when stopping, you've already made very serious mistakes, and the subject of going around is really irrelevant.

[Henry Hallam]

I'm reminded of the classic tale...

Tower "N12345 number 2, cleared to land"
Student "Cleared to land, N12345"
...
Tower "N12345 landed traffic has a flat tire, go around"
Student "er roger N12345"
Tower "N12345 the runway is blocked, GO AROUND"
Student "roger"
Tower "N12345 THERE IS AN OBSTRUCTION ON THE RUNWAY, GO AROUND NOW!!"
... student lands bang on the numbers, slows to a fast taxi and goes around the obstructing aircraft

[PlasticPilot]

Commercial aspects aside, I can't recall any circumstances were going around can be a bad choice. The price for it is a longer flight time, and may be more traffic in the circuit...

But if for any reason you don't feel like it'll be fine, you can interrupt the approach any time. Even if there was enough space to land behind the preceding A/C, the additional stress generated by your un-ease can have safety relevant impact.

You can go around as many times as you want, but you can't fail that many landings...

[corsair]

Safe height to go around? Well I once hit the ground so hard that I decided to go around from the bounce. Guess that's pretty low. :hmm:

[Final 3 Greens]

Can GA be a bad choice ?

I suppose, at the risk of being pedantic, there are some circumstances where it could be a bad choice, e.g.

- you do not have enough fuel to complete another approach

- you do not have enough performance to clear an obstacle in the climb out path

However, on balance, the principle that a go around is a safe and often wise option is a good one :ok:

[SNS3Guppy]

Now certainly yes, there are exceptional times when going around isn't a wise idea, and you've cited some of them. An engine-out approach in a light twin, for example; you're better off in most cases landing in the grass alongside the runway if you have to than trying to take it around on one engine.

An engine-out in a single is another obvious one.

Flaps stuck at 40 in your Cessna 150, probably not your best bet. Yes, rare circumstances can occur in which you can't go around, but they are rare.

I once had three deer materialize out of nowhere at a dead run on the runway as I was preparing to land a J-3 cub. I pushed up the power, the engine failed, and I went back to landing again. It does happen. Again, just not that often.

I've used airstrips in box canyons and other such locations which were true one-way strips; land one direction, take off the other, no possibility of a go-around. Again, exceptional circumstances, not at all the norm.

One more good reason, among many, to land where one is supposed to on the runway; landing far down the runway eliminates valueable stopping or "going" distance, and limits one's options.

This also highlights one of the important reasons why it's often best to continue a takeoff when one has a problem than to reject at high speed. When one rejects, one is tryin to lose energy with much of the runway behind, and to manage the airplane from a position of accelerating faster and faster, to trying to stop. Conversely, when one elects to live with the problem, take it airborne, and come back for a landing, one has several big advantages working in one's favor. Chief among those is the opportunity to take the time to work the situation out. It also gives one the opportunity to have the full runway ahead, instead of behind, and to approach the landing from a stable, controlled, slowing condition, better configured to stop.

This should be kept in mind when deciding whether to reject the landing and go airborne again. When one elects to go-around from on the runway, one already has energy and speed in one's favor. it's not at all the same as trying to accelerate from a dead stop during a takeoff; one is already going fast.

One should have done ample touch and go's (bumps and circuits in the UK, I believe) by the time one gains one's certification that it's second nature.

[Piper.Classique]

Only once?



Safe height to go around? Well I once hit the ground so hard that I decided to go around from the bounce. Guess that's pretty low. :hmm:Some of my bounces when I was learning to fly the cub I could just set up a new approach :}

Seriously, though, unless it's a one way strip or you are flying a glider, there are precious few times when it is impossible. I have converted a few glider pilots to powered aircraft and it is actually quite hard to persuade them not to try salvage a bad approach but to take another try at it. It's mindset and primacy again, what you learn to do first tends to stay with you

[stocker]

Dont know about horses but up here in Bonnie Scotland we always have to consider deer and sheep on a lot of the runways, including some licenced ones.
Many of our island airfields are particularly prone to migrating birds leaping up from the undergrowth at you on short finals.

I make every approach ready to commit to a GA and landing without incident is a bonus.

[corsair]

Only once?

All the others I considered to be a touch and go. This one was a spectacular at least 10 to 15 feet in the air. That particular 150 was an aerobat with spring steel legs. It was a truly magnificent bounce and a testimony to the strength of the little Cessna.

I've had one or two low go arounds from ATC. One I remember really annoyed me because it was very low, just at the pre flare stage. I felt that if I was a student pilot, it could easily have resulted in a low level stall with tragic results. I felt it was a poor call on the part of the controller.

[mm_flynn]

If you touch down and find that something has caused a directional control issue, a runway incursion is happening, or something else occurs which requires a go-around, you're going faster on the runway at an earlier point than you would during a normal takeoff. If you have room to takeoff you have room to go around. ...

While I agree that during the touchdown and shortly after all of the above is true and one should be prepared to Go Around, there is definitely a point where this is no longer true. CM's point in the landing roll (i.e. where you have decelerated to the point where the nose wheel would fall to the ground ) or alternatively the point where you have established directional control and commenced deceleration are sensible points where, 'stay on the ground' is a better option (for light GA pilots flying in 'normal' environments once you are below about 70% of Vr your distance to stop is likely to be less than your distance to clear an obstacle)

Don't get caught up in the mentality that it's better to go off the end. It's not.

I have certainly read a number of fatal accident reports associated with a botched go around from the ground run and very few serious incidents associated with rolling off the end. I can think of almost no event that could happen post my decision point above where you would be better off going around (horses on the field, runway incursion, etc, are all either immaterial in that you will stop before them or have dramatically reduced your TORA so where you are relative to a normal takeoff is irrelevant).


If you're going to go off the end when stopping, you've already made very serious mistakes, and the subject of going around is really irrelevant.

Quite agree with the first half- but why compound one cr@p decision with potentially another (that is a late decision to take-off again).

[modelman]

Put1992

I know where you fly and how you pay for landing fees (not direct to tower),are you assuming that you are being billed in this circumstance even though you iniated the go around.After all,you went around on safety reasons,not because you made a cod's of the approach.
Not worth a major inquiry over the few pounds involved but you can always ask the tower (maybe when you next book out)
You made a good decision though:)

As far as the OHJ is concerned,as you know the circuit height is 1000' aal and CAS is at 1500',so OHJ's not common there I believe.

MM

[SNS3Guppy]

I can think of almost no event that could happen post my decision point above where you would be better off going around (horses on the field, runway incursion, etc, are all either immaterial in that you will stop before them or have dramatically reduced your TORA so where you are relative to a normal takeoff is irrelevant).


A bull entered the runway at a remote location on the Navajo reservation one night; I didn't have time to stop and had too much energy, but not enough to continue a takeoff. I applied full power, applied full flaps, pitched up over the bull in ground effect, came down on the other side, continued to gain speed, and lifted off prior to the ambulance at the other end. Lacking electricity and standard runway lights, we marked the ends of the airstrip with the ambulance, and it was the silhouette of the bull that caught my attention.

You do not necessarily have to stop before an incursion; going may be your only option.

Others have stated they'd rather hit the object at a lesser speed, exit the runay at a lesser speed, etc. Why hit it at all? Your best option may very well be to go.

CM's point in the landing roll (i.e. where you have decelerated to the point where the nose wheel would fall to the ground ) or alternatively the point where you have established directional control and commenced deceleration are sensible points where, 'stay on the ground' is a better option (for light GA pilots flying in 'normal' environments once you are below about 70% of Vr your distance to stop is likely to be less than your distance to clear an obstacle)


The nosewheel "falling" to the runway is entirely irrelevant and meaningless in determining when one should no longer consider doing a go-around. That point in time marks no particular distance remaining or consumed, nor is it relevant to the ability to accelerate to flying speed, nor clear subsequent obstacles.

Quite agree with the first half- but why compound one cr@p decision with potentially another (that is a late decision to take-off again).


Because if you've landed far enough down the runway that you're going to roll off the end by attempting to get stopped, you'd better get going and try it again. Stopping obviously isn't going to work for you; get back in the air and put more runway in front of you.

See this happening; don't wait until you've rolled off the end to make the decision. Any go-around requires a certain degree of timliness. One cannot go beyond the point of no return, having rolled off the runway and caught fire, before deciding to go. When one is landing one is obviously not putting it down in the touchdown zone, then it's time to go...give up trying to stop...just go.

One should have the runway planned out. If it's a four thousand foot runway, know that half way down that runway, you've only got two thousand feet. Know what you can do with two thousand feet. No guessing required. Look at the runway as you approach it, or as you enter the pattern to land on it. Note the half way point. Note the touchdown zone, and how to identify it as you approach it. Just as you should always do when taking off, you should plan out the runway when landing; know where you'll be capable of rejecting the takeoff; plan it mentally in accordance with a runway light, distance marker, taxiway or runway access, bush, tree, patch of bare ground, whatever.

A good rule of thumb when picking a runway for landing is to pick one in which you can stop and takeoff again...if it's not long enough to land, stop, and takeoff from that position on the runway, then go find another runway. With that length in mind, you don't run out of a place to go-around when landing. Try it, some time.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

SNS3Guppy I absolutely love Bull stories about flying airplanes, keep e'm coming. :E :ok: :ok:

[Chilli Monster]

The nosewheel "falling" to the runway is entirely irrelevant and meaningless in determining when one should no longer consider doing a go-around. That point in time marks no particular distance remaining or consumed, nor is it relevant to the ability to accelerate to flying speed, nor clear subsequent obstacles.

Tell you what then - let's take 2 identical aircraft (PA28 or similar) and land them towards an obstacle 400 metres away. At the point I lower the nose and brake to a stop (not before) you apply power and see if you miss the obstacle.

It might not have any "relevance", but as a rule of thumb it's going to work pretty well for me (and pretty badly for you I suspect :E )

Make it more interesting - pair of Citations, obstacle 1000m into the runway. Want to play "Spool Up Roulette"? :\

A good rule of thumb when picking a runway for landing is to pick one in which you can stop and takeoff again...if it's not long enough to land, stop, and takeoff from that position on the runway, then go find another runway.

Are you for real? I've never read such $hit in all my life. Must tell all the other guys operating Citations, Lears, Challengers, Hawkers, Beech Jets etc into Cannes that they shouldn't be going in there according to you.

[Final 3 Greens]

Tell you what then - let's take 2 identical aircraft (PA28 or similar) and land them towards an obstacle 400 metres away. At the point I lower the nose and brake to a stop (not before) you apply power and see if you miss the obstacle.

I've operated a PA28RT from a 490m runway (Leicester 04/22), 2 adults, 2 kids, standing start and made it out very easily.

What speed are you lowering the nose? Or put it another way, how long does a PA28 take to accelerate to Vr from a standing start? Rather longer than from 30-40 knots and certainly more than 90 metres, I would hypothesise.

Or is your obstacle the Eiffel Tower?

By the way, if can you show me the POH chart to support your assertion, I might change my view.

BTW, I could also stop in 400m.

For the avoidance of doubt, I am a competent, "average Joe" PPL.

[Chilli Monster]

F3G - I've operated my TB20 off the same runway. However, that's not the scenario. The scenario is to land, decelerate to a speed probably adjacent to stall and then see what uses less distance - stopping or accelerating back to take off speed.

There are no performance charts for such a scenario (which you well know), though no doubt if one was written I suspect the results would bear out that stopping (especially if you're confident in your brake perfomance) will use the less distance than going around from that point.

That should be self evident.

[mm_flynn]

A bull entered the runway at a remote location on the Navajo reservation one night; I didn't have time to stop and had too much energy, but not enough to continue a takeoff. I applied full power, applied full flaps, pitched up over the bull in ground effect, came down on the other side, continued to gain speed, and lifted off prior to the ambulance at the other end.

Assuming we are talking about a situation where you had significantly decelerated from touchdown, and hadn't touched down with boat loads of excess speed (i.e say 70% Vso ) - I suspect if the manoeuvre hadn't been successful the NTSB report would be questioning why a choice was made for a pretty extreme flight vs. minor bent metal. Sky Gods and Bush pilots may want to go for such choices, not me - and I know that is my choice.


F3G,

If you get the accelerate-stop distances and the takeoff distance charts for a twin you can find the speed where stop is better than go.

The scenario Chilli is painting is
1 - you land at Leiester and slow to say 40 kts
2 - A van drives on to the runway at the 400m point
3a - Do you continue to stop - Which as you have said is 'easy' within the runway before the van - cause you know you can land in 400 m

OR

3b - do you, 250 meters down the runway 40 kts (assuming Vr = 60) and slowing, with full drag flaps, hit the gas and go for a ground effect pop over of the van (or even better a takeoff!). If you believe in the rule of thumb that 'if you are not at 2/3Vr by 1/2 way down the runway then you should reject the takeoff' - why go when you would reject this situation if you were starting from the ground?

[Put1992]

As far as the OHJ is concerned,as you know the circuit height is 1000' aal and CAS is at 1500',so OHJ's not common there I believe.

Ah ok, thanks for the info MM :ok:


What speed are you lowering the nose? Or put it another way, how long does a PA28 take to accelerate to Vr from a standing start? Rather longer than from 30-40 knots and certainly more than 90 metres

That is a very fair point. Although let's say you fly from a very short strip, and you float a fair way down the runway on the flare. In the potential, and I use the term loosely, panic, of it all, you can't assume a low hours student is going to be immediately familiar with how much room he has to play with, that is appropriate to his aircraft. Thus why accidents happen.

Im sure you've all had the feeling of just wanting to be on the ground again? (to remain sane:E)

Cheers

Put

[Final 3 Greens]

So you touch down and decelerate to a speed adjacent to the stall in an Archer (49 knots), release one stage of flaps and add full power.

The aircraft will be accelerating strongly and can lift at 55 knots if need be (although 60 would be preferable) - how long does it take to add 7 knots compared to shedding 49?

I just think that the scenario is daft for a PA28 and the data doesn't exist in the POH, so its a matter of opinion.

If this really happened, my choice of whether to stop or go would be more influenced by runway type/contamination. e.g. wet short grass or dry tarmac.

That is a very fair point. Although let's say you fly from a very short strip, and you float a fair way down the runway on the flare. In the potential, and I use the term loosely, panic, of it all, you can't assume a low hours student is going to be immediately familiar with how much room he has to play with, that is appropriate to his aircraft. Thus why accidents happen.

Understand your point, but are you saying that the stop or go is more risky?

At this stage, the aircraft is effectively out of control if the pilot does not know the options available, another reason (to quote SNS Guppy) why it is important to put the aircraft down in the right zone.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

In propeller driven aircraft, I've had 40 or 50 engine failures over the years,


Several thousand birdstrikes, but only a few have resulted in damage.


I applied full power, applied full flaps, pitched up over the bull in ground effect, came down on the other side, continued to gain speed, and lifted off prior to the ambulance at the other end.

That looks like someone who should maybe quit while they are ahead, because maybe the next time they won't miss the ambulance.

[Final 3 Greens]

pitched up over the bull in ground effect

The burning issue is how do you get a bull into ground effect?

[mm_flynn]

So you touch down and decelerate to a speed adjacent to the stall in an Archer (49 knots), release one stage of flaps and add full power.

The aircraft will be accelerating strongly and can lift at 55 knots if need be (although 60 would be preferable) - how long does it take to add 7 knots compared to shedding 49?

Using some reasonable acceleration and deceleration derived from my POH, at mid weight, accelerating from 46 - 55 takes 2 seconds, vs 8 seconds to stop - so you are almost right.

HOWEVER, it takes 230 ft to accelerate, allow 1.5 sec to realise you have the problem, reconfigure, get the power on - is another 100ft, and then assume a 6% climb gradient is another 100 ft to clear a 6 foot obstruction and you are now 430 feet from decision point at 65 kts, In the 8 seconds to stop you will have rolled 380 ft.

So you can see even pretty early in the landing roll the physics say stop. There are of course many reasons around aircraft control (bouncing, lateral track, directional instability, surface condition, brake functionality, etc.) early in the landing that would mean go around is the right choice. Hence my logic of once you have established braking effectiveness and directional control the go around is discounted.

[IO540]

That looks like someone who should maybe quit while they are ahead

"Quit while you are still losing" is the phrase I use :)

[Put1992]

Understand your point, but are you saying that the stop or go is more risky?

My point was that it obviously depends on the situation, and a low hours student may not have correct judgement in deciding.

Cheers

Put

[SNS3Guppy]

In propeller driven aircraft, I've had 40 or 50 engine failures over the years,


Several thousand birdstrikes, but only a few have resulted in damage.


I applied full power, applied full flaps, pitched up over the bull in ground effect, came down on the other side, continued to gain speed, and lifted off prior to the ambulance at the other end.

That looks like someone who should maybe quit while they are ahead, because maybe the next time they won't miss the ambulance.


Well, chuck, I'm sitting in Liege waiting out my rest time before continuing on around the world...neither the company, nor myself feels I should quit. Seems I just keep on passing those pesky checkrides, and here I am flying professionally. You? How about you mind your own business.

You rise up every once in a while with a little vitriol to swat down...are you somehow threatened by other participants here...does it tip your throne, or something?

Are you for real? I've never read such $hit in all my life. Must tell all the other guys operating Citations, Lears, Challengers, Hawkers, Beech Jets etc into Cannes that they shouldn't be going in there according to you.


I haven't flown into Cannes, but I've flown several of the aircraft you cited...but it's not particularly relevant to this discussion which primarily involves Part 23 light airplanes. In the aircraft you cited, in general, once the thrust reversers have been deployed, you're going to stop. Light propeller driven aircraft powered by piston engines don't have spool times to consider, or near the complexity of a turbojet airplane. Very much apples to oranges.

I said nothing about going into Cannes. However, as you brought it up, do YOU fly any of the aircraft you cited...and do YOU fly them into Cannes?

Seeing as you brought it up...with Cannes being a 5,200' runway, chances are very good that one can get one's warrior down in that distance, stopped, and take off again...which is just what I said before. Think.

[Chilli Monster]

SNS3 - yes, C550, non thrust reverser equipped, C560, thrust reverser equipped, both into Cannes.

And the type of aircraft doesn't matter - you inferred it's always better to go-around no matter what your speed, no matter what the obstruction. That has been shown to be a possible bad decision in certain scenarios. (I notice you don't disagree with either of the "comparison" scenarios I posted).

You also stated that you shouldn't operate an aircraft from ANY runway from which you couldn't land, stop, then take off again - again, if we all took that rather simplistic, non educated, non calculated approach then the number of airfields / strips many people would operate out of would cease to be viable, and is a completely unrealistic approach to flying.

I wish I had the luxury of 6000ft plus every time - it isn't always going to be the case. I've operated a PA28 onto a grass runway where the LDA is only 341 metres - now in your eyes that's a no-no, but the book says it's possible, and I've proved it is by doing it. Once you lower the nose-wheel you're stopping, the go-around ceases to be an option. It does however remain so up until that point (I think I'm proving the case again, something you've not actually managed in your postings).

You see, for all your pontificating about runway lengths that's not the crux of the matter here. It doesn't matter if the runway is 10000ft long - because if you get an obstruction in front of you at the 1500ft point, as you touch down, then that's how long your runway is - what lies beyond the obstruction has the same relevance as fuel in the bowser or sky above you - $od all :\

As others have said - quit while you're behind.

[Final 3 Greens]

Using some reasonable acceleration and deceleration derived from my POH

Its always good to see a test pilot posting here:ugh:

HOWEVER, it takes 230 ft to accelerate, allow 1.5 sec to realise you have the problem, reconfigure, get the power on - is another 100ft, and then assume a 6% climb gradient is another 100 ft to clear a 6 foot obstruction and you are now 430 feet from decision point at 65 kts, In the 8 seconds to stop you will have rolled 380 ft.

Well logic isn't your strong point is it? if the decision to go/reconfigure takes 1.5 seconds, then the same should apply to the stop decision, since a normal landing won't require the type of braking necessary to stop a PA28 in 380 feet.

So a go decision will see one clear a 6 foot obstacle after 430 feet?

Chilli Monster set a distance of 400m, which is 1313 feet - now which part of "clear it easily" are you having trouble understanding?

Likewise stopping in less than 1313 feet won't be a problem.

How many hours do you have in PA28s?

The scenario as set is so easy as to be daft and any experienced PA28 driver will know that without resorting to a calculator.

[SNS3Guppy]

you inferred it's always better to go-around no matter what your speed, no matter what the obstruction.


No, I did not. Try again.

You also stated that you shouldn't operate an aircraft from ANY runway from which you couldn't land, stop, then take off again


No, I did not. Is it your attention span or reading comprehension that is lacking, here? I stated it's a good rule of thumb. Whereas this is a private pilot forum for pilots primarily dealing with light, single engine airplanes...it's a good consideration at many airfields; most in fact.

Lets face it. If you land on a runway that's long enough to take off again once you've come to a complete stop, then going around at any point in the landing just isn't a problem.

If you're caught with an object that intrudes on the landing distance, then the entire disucssion is pointless.

[moggiee]

I was just wondering why they did not tell me to go around, when it was clear, even from then, that I was not going to make it.

Cheers
Because ultimately, it's YOUR decision to make.

They gave you "continue" because they were hoping that the other aeroplane would clear promptly enough to allow them to upgrade to "land". However, if you don't get that clearance in sufficient time, then it's really up to you to decide that it's time to give up and go around.

[Put1992]

Because ultimately, it's YOUR decision to make.

Fair enough

Put

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Well, chuck, I'm sitting in Liege waiting out my rest time before continuing on around the world...neither the company, nor myself feels I should quit. Seems I just keep on passing those pesky checkrides, and here I am flying professionally. You?

Actually I retired about two years ago having spent most of my life flying. I decided that when I turned 70 it was time to retire from flying and enjoy what ever years I have left doing things I never had the time to do when I was in the flying business....

.....if nothing else I can look back on an accident free career with no violations against my licenses.

Does that answer your " and you " question?




How about you mind your own business.

This is an open forum for people to comment on and I find your experiences to be rather interesting SNS3Guppy.



You rise up every once in a while with a little vitriol to swat down...are you somehow threatened by other participants here...does it tip your throne, or something?

Not in the least, what you percieve to be vitriol I see to be a sense of wonder at all your adventures and I also am thankful that I missed a lot of that exciting stuff.

[bjornhall]

Just read yet another, fairly standard accident report of the "it's not too late to go around" variety...

When the decision to abort the landing was made, there was insufficient distance remaining for the aircraft to accelerate to lift-off speed. A perception of sufficient airspeed due to the high groundspeed may have been a factor. The aircraft went over the embankment in an aerodynamically stalled condition with the nose gear retracting and the main gear still extended but unlocked. (my bold)

As so often in these cases, no amount of number crunching would have done them any good whatsoever, since the numbers they would use would not be the right ones (but checking the windsock to note the tailwind would have been good). However, had they accepted the overrun rather than trying to make a late go-around, they'd both be alive.

I think this thread has overlooked lack of situational awareness as a cause of whatever puts you in the situation of having to decide whether to stop or go. "You shouldn't have lost it in the first place" or "by comparing the data from ten differerent POH tables with some guesswork and a few pages of calculations we can easily tell that..." are equally useless by then. However, "hitting a tree hurts less at 16 kts on the ground than at 60 kts and 30 ft up" remains valid.

http://www.tsb.gc.ca/en/reports/air/2006/a06p0036/a06p0036.asp

[Chilli Monster]

Is it your attention span or reading comprehension that is lacking, here? Ahh, the personal attack. Well known retort by someone who's backed into a corner and losing.

Having read both your original answer and the thread preceeding it several times over (I refer you to my original point regarding the difference between "decision" and "commital" and what may be the better option after commital) may I suggest it's not my comprehension that's at fault here?

[kevmusic]

Some really late go-arounds here - and some approaches that should have been! :eek:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=nmkX8ZCoiAo&feature=related

[fireflybob]

However, "hitting a tree hurts less at 16 kts on the ground than at 60 kts and 30 ft up" remains valid.

Exactly! Kinetic energy varies with the SQUARE of the speed so if you double the speed you quadruple the energy that has to be dissipated!

As my dad used to tell me with respect to forced landing without power - better to hit the far hedge at taxi speed rather than the near hedge at flying speed!

[SNS3Guppy]

Ahh, the personal attack. Well known retort by someone who's backed into a corner and losing.



Perhaps that's your problem here. You percieve the discussion as a contest. You feel free to do all the winning you like.

One should never be unprepared to go around, whether at 300' on the visual approach to a long runway, or once on the ground. What exactly one does at any given point will depend on the specific circumstances as they play out in real time.

By all means, place that in your crack pipe, and smoke it.

[Piper.Classique]

One should never be unprepared to go around, whether at 300' on the visual approach to a long runway, or once on the ground. What exactly one does at any given point will depend on the specific circumstances as they play out in real time.It looks to me like we have changed the emphasis here from a height to go-around to a 'distance remaining' to go-around. Assuming that the data is available, yes this can be calculated. What can't be calculated at a strange airfield is how far along the runway you are at any given point in the landing. I am trying to remember where it was that I saw distance marker boards at the 25, 50, and 75 percent points of the runway. useful thing, that. As I recall it wasn't a particularly short runway. In any case, the 'mobile' obstruction is rather a different case to the landing that goes sour or the too high/hot approach.
It would be nice to always have a runway long enough to stop and take off again but in the real world we don't always have that.
I know this is a private pilot's forum, but it isn't necessary to assume that we are all incompetent and can't do landing and take-off distance calculations. I once spent a hot afternoon on a private strip amusing myself calculating the distances required for the club fleet on a fly in (short strip with a fairly steep slope over the centre third, quite flat at the approach end, then the slope up, and less slope for about the last third). Land uphill (downwind on that day), take-off downhill. Not many handbooks give all the data you need for that sort of situation. Quite a nice place to fly from with the right sort of aeroplane. Our club instructor was having a hard time converting the club pilots to the use of a oneway strip. I finally came up after a lot of interpolation and some use of the imagination with a distance to clear 15 metres after safety factors, that looked a good deal shorter than the poor little robin was actually achieving over the trees at the end of the strip.

Ok, to get back to my point. he was in a no go-around possible situation on landing once he was down to the flare at the earliest possible touch-down point, as the slope exceeded his maximum angle of climb. If he landed long, and touched down on the rather gentle up slope at the far end he could probably have climbed away, as the climb out path beyond the end of the runway was fairly clear. I was flying a different aircraft that flew slower, could approach a good deal steeper over the obstacles on approach, and had the power weight ratio to allow a climb even up the slope. Same distance available in both cases.
So shall we quit the sniping and get back to encouraging people to use their brains and think about what they are doing, at the airfied they are at, in the aircraft they fly?