Go-arounds and buildings

[DavidHoul52]

When flying go-arounds and the club/terminal building is on the dead side is it permissible to fly over this building?

[Crash one]

If going around were to involve breaking the law regarding what buildings may or may not be flown over I would suggest that terminal buildings would be built underground. Perhaps decision height should be >1000ft, less than that you have 3 choices, land, die, go to jail.

[BackPacker]

Rule 5 (or is it 6 now) doesn't apply when landing or taking off if conforming to normal aviation practice. So I guess technically you're legal.

In practice, I would let it depend on the reason for the go-around. If it's an aircraft all of a sudden entering the runway for take-off, with me on short final, I would get off the centerline no matter what. If it's a non-flying obstruction on the runway (car, deer, disabled aircraft) I would let it depend on circumstances and other circuit traffic. If it was my own fault (balked landing) maintaining the centerline exactly, or moving to the deadside would probably be the least of my worries. Getting the aircraft configured for a climb is more important.

[DavidHoul52]

Thanks for the clarification.

[Spitoon]

If you want a pedantic answer I think you'll find that if it's an unlicensed aerodrome you could be considered to be contravening the low flying prohibitions if you flew within 500ft of the clubhouse or any other structure, person, vessel or vehicle. It would all depend whether a go-around is deemed to be 'landing and taking-off in accordance with normal aviation practice'. Given that you do it without immediately beforehand taken off or are just about to land it might be argued by some legal bod that you are not performing either a take off or landing manoeuvre and thus are not exempted from the 500ft rule.

Of course, at a licensed aerodrome you are exempt all of the low flying prohibitions if flying in accordance with normal practice for the purpose of practising approaches to landing - which normally may involve a go-around.

Pedant mode off.

[Wessex Boy]

Probably better to fly over it than into it

[DavidHoul52]

Good point!

[IRRenewal]

How low did you fly over said building? If it was 150', no good. If it was 1500', no problem.

It's not only a question of rule 5, it's also a question of airmanship. Given that the building was dead side, why did you fly over it during a go around in the first place?

[Crash one]

Shirley if the original intention was to land then rule 5 no longer applies even at an unlicenced grass strip. With the land owners permission of course.
If I overfly our strip at 200 ft to assess the result of the latest rainstorm (the clubhouse is about 80metres from the edge) am I contravening something? I think I would rather contravene than nose over in a swamp.

[Katamarino]

It's not only a question of rule 5, it's also a question of airmanship. Given that the building was dead side, why did you fly over it during a go around in the first place?

I don't know about David, but I have had it suggested to me by both my civilian and military instructors that where possible on a go-around, its good to position off to the dead-side. Especially, as mentioned before, if the go-arund was due to departing traffic!

[Whopity]

Given that the building was dead side, why did you fly over it during a go around in the first place?
On a visual go around standard practice is to turn towards the DEADSIDE so as not to overfly traffic on the runway!

[DavidHoul52]

Yes, I was just going to say that but you guys beat me to it. (It was not due to traffic on the runway but I was taught to always move on to the dead side when doing a go-around and enter a shallow climb)

[IRRenewal]

Unless the go around was executed at a (let's say) 45 degree angle to the runway because the approach was poorly executed.

[DavidHoul52]

45 degrees would get you on the deadside, yes.

[Maoraigh1]

I was taught that too.
Now I would only do so if the dead side was clear, and there was a reason for not keeping to the runway centre line. Last few go arounds have been due to people walking on to a grass runway. I try to avoid low overflying them, but even more important, avoid people walking near the runway.
At my base airfield (full ATC + Security), the runway is always accessed from the same side by aircraft. I would not go to the north side and fly low over aircraft waiting to enter the runway, even is this was the circuit dead side. I would get well clear of the runway line if the reason for the go around was an instruction from ATC due to an aircraft on the approach, with priority.
I learned to fly on Jackeroos at Thruxton, in 1964, with 8+ trainers, no radio, and no active tower. There were no grass runways - you landed on the grass to the right of the aircraft before you, unless that took you close to the hard runway, in which case you landed at the extreme left.
Going around on the dead side made sense then.

[englishal]

No it would be illegal, so therefore you must not do it..........

Come on chaps, of course you can, it is a bloody airfield so forget rule 5. Why are Brits so obsessed with the law?

Common sense....? derrrrrrrrr....................


Sorry if you are offended, but tough, the 2007 Carmenere is kicking in. ;)

[markp123]

reckon you've heard enough different oppinions, so mine would probly just be a repetition. Good question though, i thought, David.

Mark

[DavidHoul52]

Thank you!

[Final 3 Greens]

What do you mean by "flying go arounds?"

Why would you fly over a building on the deadside, rather than track slightly to the left of the centre line and climb to a safe height, before turning?????

Please tell me you are a 13 year old flightsim jock, in which case I will genuinely pat you on the back for your question,

[gasax]

I'm in the same camp as final 3 greens. It might be legal but it surely isn't smart. Most buildings are at least a reasonable distance from the runway at licensed airfields so if you're flying over the builidngs you are a long way from the runway.

So you probably could not make it back to the runway if you has to, you have more obstacles to avoid, even the most 'aerofile' types will get pi$$ed off by your actions and any other aircraft in the circuit is less likely to spot you because your track is so far from the 'circuit'.

[Say again s l o w l y]

It is not "illegal" to overfly anything, but there are time when it is sensible to do something contrary to the norm or "local procedures" might be to do something a bit different.

For example. As PIC you are sitting on the left. You are in a right hand circuit pattern. The club house is to the left in this direction and is "on the deadside".

As you go around, you move the aircraft to the right? Why? Well, you'll get a better view of the runway and climbout and that is the usual course of action at that airfield. You may have moved into the "liveside" but you can see the logic in it.

Now consider the same situation but on the opposite runway.
This time, the clubhouse is on the liveside. You are still sitting on the left of the a/c. You go around and low and behold, you move to the "deadside" to get a better view. Neither time do you have to fly over the clubhouse. Not because you aren't allowed, but because it makes sense not to.

That is certainly what you do at some strips I am familiar with Andrewsfield for example, Earls Colne being another.

[Lister Noble]

"I was just doing the hoovering "

I am trying some hovering on Monday.

Will report back after.

Lister:)

[DavidHoul52]

One would then rather step in the opposite direction to the deadside, so that the view of the runway and any aircraft departing it was the best possible from the LH seat.


Jeremy Pratt's PPL book says "Position to the deadside of the runway" but I can see that in the case of a RH circuit and where the club buildings are situated what you say makes perfect sense.

I always thought the procedure of moving to deadside was to get out of the way of aircraft behind you and also not to climb into aircraft in the circuit on the liveside.

[DavidHoul52]

That is certainly what you do at some strips I am familiar with Andrewsfield for example, Earls Colne being another.

Shouldn't it be stated in the AIP then? How was I supposed to know that?

[Say again s l o w l y]

Simple answer. You ask!

Many of these procedures are local procedures. You are right that it is a bit hooky, but when an airfield is PPR then it is the sort of thing you should be told or ask.

Going around and moving to the deadside is fine. It is the standard way of doing things. No-one should jump down your throat if you do it that way. However if you are then told "actually standard procedure here is to do blah..." then just do it. It's not because you are doing anything wrong or that anyone is having a pop at you. It's just that you aren't aware of how things are done in that particular place that's all.

No need to get knickers in a twist about it.

[DavidHoul52]

I won't - thanks.

[eharding]

Shouldn't it be stated in the AIP then? How was I supposed to know that?


David. Knickers not withstanding, as it were, I think that it would be valuable exercise for you to go away and perform some analysis on why you might perform a go-around, and what you are trying the achieve in the subsequent manoeuvring. The three example scenarios I'll give you are:

1) You go around from 3 feet above the runway because you simply aren't happy about the way things are going.

2) You go around from 500 feet because a LandRover has appeared from nowhere and parked on the centreline.

3) You go around from 500 feet because a high-performance twin has just lined-up in front of you and started rolling.

In all three examples the airfield operators call for an overhead join.

As an aside, don't get worked up about the AIP. Sod's law dictates it will be somewhere you've never heard of, let alone read the AIP entry for, that will bite you in the arse when some unexpectedly ****ty weather rolls in - and your Pooley's will have fallen under the back seat.

[DavidHoul52]

Thanks G-EMMA. Point taken. I might be back. Enjoy your breakfast while you can!

[DavidHoul52]

http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq182/DavidHoul52/DSCN3538.jpg

[DavidHoul52]

They wouldn't give me a check-out on this one!


http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq182/DavidHoul52/DSCN3539.jpg

['India-Mike]

Wot's trailing from the upper surface of the Cessna's port wing?

[DavidHoul52]

It runs on steam

[Say again s l o w l y]

Not fuel then! Or was it humid?

['India-Mike]

I'd expect to see a less localised indication of a humid day, if at all. Looks too localised, too inboard. Prob fuel then. Ops normal for a 152?

[Say again s l o w l y]

If you leave the fuel cap off, then yes it is!

If that's the case, then oops. But many people have done it before. (myself included:O)

[DavidHoul52]

well spotted

[niknak]

Forgive me for thinking logically, but, if you have to go around and you don't have to immediately avoid another a/c etc, why not treat it in the same manner as if you were taking off, i.e at what altitude would you commence the turn?
The minimum height you would normall turn is 500ft, at most airfields, (due to noise abatement etc) it's 1000ft.

Or am I missing something?:confused:

[DavidHoul52]

Most airfields I have been to you start the turn at 500 feet. Some you have to start lower in order to avoid flying over built up areas (e.g. Goodwood - I think runway 27). On takeoff that is - on go arounds it would depend at what height you started to go around. Some have a route you have to stick to (e.g. Andrewsfield, Denham too I think) so you would have to wait until you get to the turning point (is that what you mean by 1000 feet?). Not all airfields have a circuit height of 1000 ft QFE , some are lower especially if they are partially within a CTA.

Correct me if I am wrong, somebody.

[Say again s l o w l y]

Niknak. At most airfields you turn at 500 not 1000'.

Most places now have some form of noise abatement procedure, but these are often pretty ad-hoc, such as "don't fly over Farmer Browns house" or something similar.

We train people to move the aircraft to the deadside, or away from the centreline, because we are simulating an issue such as someone cutting infront, entering the runway without checking the approach or taking off in front of you or some other scenario such as that.

A simple. "I've screwed the approach, let's go around" with no other traffic within 100 miles often wouldn't require a move to the deadside, but to be on the safe side a move across gets you out of the way and allows you to have a better view of what is going on on the airfield.

Whilst you might think there is no traffic, sometimes there is. If you are sitting fat, dumb and happy in the climbout and someone in something faster decides to takeoff, then you could easily get a meeting of metal, whereas if you had moved a couple of hundred feet to the left or right, then you wouldn't have the issue.

This is less likely to be a problem on an initial take off as you are more likely to be aware of ground movements and who is about to do what.