I think I cheesed off Gloucester tower yesterday for going around

[Glasswasher Man]

Hello , I am a student Pilot.

Yesterday I did two landings with my instructor, then he proceeded to taxi to the pumps to let me loose on my own. As I took off and climbed upwind, turbulence got worse. got to finals, then went around because there was an aircraft on the runway still at 300'.

On final again, went around about 400' because there was an aircraft on the runway and turbulence was bad and my profile was not good, I banged my head on the ceiling causing me to go dizzy. I called going around, and the tower said "is there a problem?" I said "aircraft on the runway", to which I was told "you could have made it you had 1/4 mile".

I thought to myself "this is too rough for me" so I called downwind to land.

Tower then rang my school and apparently asked if I was nervous!

What did I do wrong here?
Help.:ugh:

[Bullethead]

What did I do wrong here?

Nothing at all Glasswasher, if you're not happy with your approach then go around and have another go. :ok:

The fact that you made the decision to go around twice because you were not happy to continue shows that you are not prepared to take unnecessary risks and have the presence and maturity to make the correct choice.

I did one recently, a go around that is, for the same reason, an aeroplane still on the runway, and I've got over 18,000 hours and fly B767s. It still happens from time to time.

Of course I had to explain to the passengers what was going on but all you need to say to the tower is exactly what you posted. An aeroplane was still on the runway and you weren't happy to continue.

Good luck with the rest of your training.

Regards,
BH.

[liam548]

I went around on my first solo. Go around if you aint happy.The other thread showing the video of the twin coming to rest on the beech instead of the runway is proof of that!

[Genghis the Engineer]

You did nothing wrong, save perhaps not having your lapstrap done up tightly enough.

You were Captain, made a decision, the aircraft didn't get bent, therefore it was a good decision.

The tower can authorise you to land, but ultimately it's your decision and they have no right to second guess it unless they think you are bringing the aircraft into danger, which you weren't.

They'll get over it, debrief with your instructor then carry on and get your licence without worrying about this after that.

G

[rusty sparrow]

The question from the tower sounds a bit cheeky - you were the commander of the acft and you made a decision on the basis of your judgement of your capability in the circumstances.

Being pressured into making the wrong decision can be fatal.

You did the right thing

[wiggy]

Agree with all of the above...Student pilot or not, you were the aircraft Commander and for whatever reason you decided not to land...what is really important now is not to dwell on this "incident". Whatever you do, do not let ATC's comments on the R/T or their phone call influence any future decisions you have to make.

Do you happen know what your school/instructor said to ATC? ( I know what I would have said :mad:)

Oh, and you might want to consider having your harness done up a bit tighter.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Like the others, I can't see that you did anything wrong. I am curious, though, what the tower controller was thinking of. What sort of landing clearance did he give? Did he advise you of the other aircraft and give a conditional landing clearance (eg. a "land after")?

[Spitoon]

You did the right thing. As for the tower controller, well, I wasn't there but....

In the old days, many controllers also flew and could appreciate what you might be going through. Early solo or not, a bumpy day present one more challenge to deal with. As wiggy says, it would be good to know what your school said to ATC. Maybe it would be good if the school spent a bit of time working with ATC (or, at least, having a chat with the boss) to ensure that the controllers appreciate the students' side of things.

I'm afraid you'll never stop the controller saying "you could have made it you had 1/4 mile" - controllers are like that! - but hopefully he or she will do it under their breath rather than on the R/T.

But relax, its your decision - and its better to go-around once or twice when it wasn't really necessary than to persevere when its all going to pieces or to just keep putting off the decision.

[matspart3]

I'm the Head of Operations (and an ATCO and a PPL)

I'll have a chat with the team when I'm back in the office tomorrow and let you know the full story.

You definitely didn't do anything wrong by going around. Can you PM with your callsign and a rough idea of the time?

[fireflybob]

Full marks for good airmanship and command.

If you had continued the approach you might have regretted it for the rest of your life. Who cares what anyone else thinks? Being in command is not a popularity contest!

[IO540]

Good decisionmaking.

If ATC actually said "you could have made it you had 1/4 mile" they were way out of order. It is your decision.

Always keep decisionmaking in the cockpit.

[jonkil]

You did everything 100%, agree with all that has been said. You made the proper decision(s) and the aeroplane is still in service.... the amount of times we see aircraft gear (and worse) damaged by pilots who try and get it on the deck at all cost.... you made the correct call... have a talk with your instructor and both of you could have a chat with the ATCO and see what he says.

[Crash one]

The ATCO was totally out of order in my opinion. Correct me if I'm wrong but 1/4 mile is 402 metres? I have a 610kg taildragger on a 620 metre strip & I often use most of it!! You made the right decision, twice.

[eastern wiseguy]

Not the controllers job to speculate. You made your decision...well done.


EW ATCO not Pilot:ok:

[Cusco]

G-washer man: Don't beat yourself up: you made the correct decisions and you are here to prove it.

Don't ever be intimidated in this kind of situation: even though you're very early in your training you have learnt enough to deal quite correctly with a situation that was outside your comfort zone.

I do hope matspart3 is as good as his word and gets back to you with his considered analysis.

If he feels he can share it with the rest of us, so much the better.

Cusco.

[modelman]

Glos was the the first stop on my QXC about 3 ys ago.I had received 'expect late clearance to land', when on final when I could see a yellow bipe lined up.I was getting closer and closer and I decided to iniatiate a go around-I reckon you made a good decision,it is always your option to land or not, once cleared.
Well done you
MM

[Union Jack]

I think I cheesed off Gloucester tower yesterday for going around

On a lighter note, and observing that you went around twice, presumably this was a "Double Gloucester"!:ok:

Jack

[foxmoth]

I will be interested to see the final reply from Matspart3, I think all on here are off the opinion that the only fault here was ATC for his comment to you, keep up this performance:ok:

[Pace]

There is no question that you did what is right for you by going around. It depends a lot on your level of experience at how late a landing clearance you can comfortably take and especially with someone in early solo work you have to be comfortable and only do what is right for you. Anything else is asking for an accident.

Reading between the lines you mentioned that ATC asked if you were nervous and if there was a problem. You also mentioned banging your head and going dizzy.

When it is turbulent your transmit finger can bounce on the transmit button making the transmissions cut and even your voice can falter couple that with feeling dizzy and its possible that ATC picked up something in your voice and were just concerned that you were OK and didnt need any special handling.

Take it in a positive way as a good learning experience in fairly rough conditions and be pleased with the descisions you made

Pace

[BackPacker]

I said "aircraft on the runway", to which I was told "you could have made it you had 1/4 mile".

Did you make clear that you were a student pilot, on an early (first?) solo? Never been to Gloucester in particular, but I know a lot of experienced controllers at towered fields with a lot of GA traffic are very good at judging the performance of their home-based GA and will sometimes sequence traffic very close behind each other.

It's tight, but if you're at 1/4 mile final while another aircraft commences the take-off roll, it may all just come together, with you landing just as the others' wheels leave the runway. But that all depends on the relative performance of the aircraft involved, runway length and so forth. And it requires some experience (or nerves of steel) on the aircraft on final - getting a landing clearance at a mere 10' above the runway.

If you have somehow come across over the radio as more experienced than you really are, the tower may have judged your abilities a bit too optimistic. As an early (first) solo student, you definitely made the right decision, and the tower should not have expected you to be comfortable so close behind a departing aircraft, particulary not in bumpy conditions.

As for the tower calling the school, there's absolutely no harm in that. It may just have been a heads-up to the school, warning them that a student in one of their aircraft has made a go-around twice and possibly sounds a bit nervous. You would not be the first student who needs some reassuring words from a familiar, friendly and calm instructor over the radio to settle some nerves.

At the end of the day, remember ATC works for you, and not the other way around.

[FREDAcheck]

Quote:
I said "aircraft on the runway", to which I was told "you could have made it you had 1/4 mile".
Did you make clear that you were a student pilot, on an early (first?) solo?
Good point. The Tower probably shouldn't have implied criticism of a student. For a qualified PPL, well maybe he still shouldn't, but qualified pilots need thick skins. I was on short final in the US with FIVE aircraft on the runway ahead, waiting to cross an intersecting runway. I called that I was going around. Tower called back: "Not enough room for you boy? Get down there!" He was right: there was loads of room. And when I was about to touch down near the start of the runway, I got: "There's another 4 behind you, don't touch down until at least half way please."

But that shouldn't happen with a student, and in any case a pilot should never be intimidated by ATC (or anyone else) about going around if he or she (the pilot) isn't happy with the approach.

[Mark1234]

I don't know gloucester, but I'd agree with everyone AND particularly the last 2:

You're not comfortable - go around, your minimums are your perogative, don't be pressured. You may have been a bit nervous, but there's nothing wrong with that at all.

However, in a busy environment it's possible to safely stack aircraft in pretty quick and close if everyone's confortable. It's not unusual in my experience to be at 400ft(alt) on final with another a/c landing ahead of you still airborne. Just because it can be done doesn't mean you should do it though - like so many things it's a matter of judgement, and what you're happy dealing with.

[GunkyTom]

From an ATCO.

Based on what you said-You did everything right. :ok:If you aren't happy, go around. I would expect a commercial pilot to have gone around if he didn't have landing clearance at 1/4 mile. Re. the 'land after' I don't know Gloucester but looking at the rwy length, I think it is highly unlikely that the procedure is practiced there,certainly not 'land after the departing' anyway.
The ATCO shouldn't have commented on air. It is unprofessional in many ways:=. It will be interesting to see the outcome of this as it is possible the ATCO had a different take on it however, if you aren't happy- go around .

[airborne_artist]

You did the right thing - this is an old saying, and not in keeping with current CRM in multi-crew aircraft, but it works fine when you are solo:

"no stick, no vote" - and look on the bright side - you got an extra few minutes in the air :ok:

[Sam Rutherford]

If you have a chance, go to the tower and chat to the guys there. Fun, informative, and they'll be really happy to show you about.

Might encourage them to give you a fraction more 'space' next time as well!

Safe flights!

Sam.

[matspart3]

As promised, I spoke to the ATCO concerned and listened to the recordings today. I've been in touch with Glasswasher Man and, with his blessing, post the PM I sent him which is a precis of events. He PM'd me last night with some more details of the situation, which are referenced to, but fairly self-explanatory within the context. I've removed the names (to protect the innocent:): -

Originally Posted by matspart3
Hi *******

I've listened to the tapes and had a chat with **** (the Controller.)

You didn't :mad:him off!' He was just understandably concerned that, as a solo student, you'd gone around twice and that you may have a problem. In going around, you did EXACTLY the right thing and made an excellent Captain's decision.

When you said on your second go-around 'due traffic on the runway,' he simply offered the advice that 'there's plenty of room, your at three quarters (not 1/4) of a mile' as an encouragement and an explanation that the situation would have comfortably worked out, rather than a b*llocking.

He wasn't aware, of course, that your profile was not ideal, that the turbulence was affecting your flight more generally and had assumed that you weren't comfortable with the spacing. This is the crux of the issue and I'll come back to it...

At that point, he phoned **** just to ask his advice on how you were generally, to gauge whether your might be nervous or have any particular training issues affecting your performance. The conversation was very lighthearted and certainly not any form of admonishment. If *** implied that you'd upset ATC, that was definitley not the case, **** was just worried.

The 'say again' part downwind related to your position in traffic. You were following a company aircraft (GGFCA), who was joining directly onto base leg and crossing your track from right to left. After the couple of transmissions, you reported the traffic in sight, followed and landed safely.

**** has been an ATCO here for almost 10 years and he's without doubt, one of the best we've ever had. I'm very sorry to say that we're losing him very shortly to ******** airport. He's an experienced PPL and a CAA ATC and RT examiner, who is very well versed in dealing with students. His RT is sometimes quite 'short' but he assures me he wasn't ':mad: off.' Your more then welcome to come across and listen to the tapes in realtime if you wish.

In summary, the key here is communication. **** had no way of knowing that the turbulence was making your flight uncomfortable and was doing his best to offer you some assistance. As I said in my message last night, we have absolutely no problem with you asking us to 'say again' over and over again or even using plain language. Please don't be afraid to ask for help, that's exactly what we're here for.

You'd be more than welcome, and I think it would help boost your RT confidence, to come over to the Tower for a visit next time you're around. They're a friendly bunch (especially if you bring cakes and biscuits!) Drop me a line if you're interested.

Finally, if you're happy, I'd like to post a precis of this response on the PPRuNe thread, just to stop the 'armchair experts' degenerating it into an 'us vs them' argument.

Hope this helps

Glasswasher Man has responded and will be coming to the Tower soon (with Shortbread biscuits!!) thereby guaranteeing himself straight-in approaches in future! The small number of posters who immediately jumped to the conclusion that the ATCO was in the wrong might like to reconsider their comments. More generally in relation to other comments, handling upwards of 80 000 movements per annum in an 11-hour day Gloucester does use 'land after' and 'land after the departing' regularly. 7 of its 9 ATCO's has, or has had a PPL at some point and we're not averse to visitors to ATC, especially if they bring cakes and/or single malts.

[worrab]

I had to go around on my first solo too. Sweaty palms - Very nerve wracking. When I got back my instructor told me that If I'd tried to land off the first approach he'd "have b*ll*cked" me.

Sounds like you made some excellent decisions - and as is noted above, ATC were entirely content with your airmanship.

[jonkil]

There we go,
thanks for posting the synopsis of the event, it puts everything in context, as for the negative comments towards the ATCO, I don't view them that way in the context of the OP observations, most comments were in support of the student, the correct way he dealt with the situation..... well done again.

This is an excellent thread, a thread many will find useful... and not just students.... all of us.

Jon

[Gertrude the Wombat]

had no way of knowing that the turbulence was making your flight uncomfortable and was doing his best to offer you some assistance
Yes, I've discovered that ATC can help better if they know what the problem is!

First attempt to land, being blown up and down and sideways all over the shop, in something of a crosswind that I'd have coped with on its own, went around.

Asked for the into-wind runway. But although (as it turned out) I'd lined up correctly and was in the right place on final I couldn't actually see the runway! (Grass, low sun, that sort of thing.)

Another go around. I say I'll try the main tarmac runway again. ATC, assuming (because I hadn't said anything different) that my problem was the crosswind, sought to encourage me by saying that the wind had dropped a knot and come round a couple of degrees.

Me: "Oh, it wasn't really the crosswind that was bothering me, it was the turbulence over the threshold."

ATC: "Ah yes, it does that sometimes when the wind is in that direction, because of [some ground feature]. Try a higher approach and touch down some way into the runway."

Worked fine. ATC couldn't so easily have offered that advice if I hadn't told them what my problem was! (And taking three attempts to land was a wonderful first-time-in-a-light-aircraft experience for one of my passengers ...)

[Spitoon]

matspart3, good to hear the story from the other side - something that is rare on a forum like this.

I hope I wasn't one of those 'who immediately jumped to the conclusion that the ATCO was in the wrong' - but as you say in your PM, the key here is communication, and it's far too easy to misunderstand the tacit parts of a RT message (from both ends of the headset). Been there and done it myself on a number of occasions that I can recall....and probably a good number when I didn't realise how my call had been perceived.

Anyway, in this case it's nice to know there's a good outcome. Mmmmm, shortbread.

[BackPacker]

After this, he'll not only get straight-in approaches every time, but gets his own callsign too... "Shortbread One"

[2close]

Excellent decisions. Well done.

Rest assured, if you had landed when the other aircraft still had the rubber attached to the asphalt you'd have been chewed out.

I had to go around twice at EGBJ during the CPL Skills Test, owing to aircraft lined up at the threshold sitting doing nothing after being cleared for take-off, so don't beat yourself up. You did fine.

If you want to develop thick skin when dealing with ATC try a spot of training at a certain North London AD - those familiar will know where I mean!! ;) That same AD has a 200' rule - no clearance obtained by 200' AGL and around you go. At 1/4 mile (as you thought at the time) you would have been well below that.

I'm not suggesting that this should be the rule as opposed to the norm everywhere as experienced controllers can sequence GA aircraft quite tightly, although they should always be aware when student pilots are flying solo and be prepared to give some leeway.

Also, good drills on the part of the ATCO making the call to the FS to get some background info on the pilot - a fuller picture always helps.

Again, well done all.

2close :ok:

[airborne_artist]

While the ATCO can't be expected to have ESP, the weather conditions were ideal for turbulence, and his PPL experience, plus his ten years' service at the airfield might have pointed him towards turbulence being a factor in your situation.

He could have said "Shortbread One, are you experiencing turbulence on finals?", apart from anything else he could then have warned subsequent aircraft.

[VCR]

In my 10 years of flying from there I have NEVER experienced turbulence on final for 09, nor did any of the other 300 movements that day report it. It was a fairly steady wind all day. As you rightly say, I do not possess ESP!

[hatzflyer]

I was told to "expedite" my first taildragger solo landing due to a cherokee " catching you up on finals". It was also my first landing on tarmac. This was at a fly-in just after I got my PPL. I was very nervous and unhappy with the pressure and probably felt just like you did on finals.
However I made the mistake that you didn't,and carried on.
It resulted in me ground looping off the runway and going into the spectators. By a miracal no one was hurt.
The cherokee had to go round anyway,which of course is exactly what he should have done anyway and I learnt a lesson the hard way!
Believe me.You did the right thing as agreed by everyone on this post!:ok:

[GunkyTom]

To MATSPt3


Good to see both sides of the story ,it makes more sense. Re the 'land after the dep' comment', I shouldn't have assumed. I looked at your layout and based my comments on my previous airport procedures where we needed at least 2000m/2500m dependant on situation or 1500m if a/c were less than 5700kgs. I again assumed that maybe a crossed rwy 'land after the dep' might be permitted at BJ but thought your rwy lengths for two on the same rwy would not, my mistake-sorry :O

[Genghis the Engineer]

In my 10 years of flying from there I have NEVER experienced turbulence on final for 09, nor did any of the other 300 movements that day report it. It was a fairly steady wind all day. As you rightly say, I do not possess ESP!


And what seems like significant turbulence to you, is probably quite different to what seems like turbulence to a student pilot.

I notice that I seem to have experienced less and less of it over the years. Surely the climate isn't changing that quickly - but my perception of what is worth worrying about probably has.

G

[madlandrover]

It's also worth bearing in mind - for ATCOs and pilots who've been away from the training world for a while - that different schools may have different points by which a solo student MUST have a clear runway/clearance to land. For my own students it's 300' agl, not least because of the occasionally compromised climb performance of our training aircraft. It's not a committal height (we train them for go arounds right down to the flare!), but it is a point by which we would expect the student to be able to confidently continue the approach.

[BabyBear]

He could have said "Shortbread One, are you experiencing turbulence on finals?", apart from anything else he could then have warned subsequent aircraft.

Only ever heard ATC ask if there is turbulence following a previous aircraft reporting such.

A simple misunderstanding that, due to the OP being brave enough to post (and matspart investigating), we have all learned from.

I don't believe there is any need to analyse it to death in an attempt to apportion blame on either side. As I said a simple and understandable misunderstanding, nothing more.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

(we train them for go arounds right down to the flare!)
Really?? Is that all??

Route to broken nose wheel legs, that sounds to me.

I was trained that you can go around any time, even after the third bounce.

[BackPacker]

I was trained that you can go around any time, even after the third bounce.

Really? I'd love to see that.

"Okay, approach briefing. We'll approach rather high this time and make a steep, power-off descent to make the threshold. You then flare too late, bounce, stall, bounce, stall, bounce again and once we've had our nosewheel broken and our prop tips dug deep into the asphalt, I want you to go-around. Understood?"

[Mark1234]

Funny, but the man has a point - if it's looking pear shaped at any point you can give it beans and go around, you are not committed to land until you've turned off the runway.

Going around with a bent prop and broken nosewheel wouldn't be smart, but it's been done.

[BackPacker]

Sure. But there are things that you teach and things that you train.

I hope people are taught that go-arounds are possible, even after the third bounce, but I'd rather not see them trained in bouncing three times and then going around. Except in a simulator perhaps.

And as far as going around with a broken nosewheel is concerned: I've seen it done. A microlight of some sort was visiting our (controlled) field while we were running one of our charity days (flying with sick kids). He bounced on landing, broke his noseleg and went around. He then had the decency to hang around in the hold (with a dangling noseleg) while we could get all our charity flights back on the ground and while a few commercials could take off. Only then did he land and block our runway for some two hours. No injuries, except to his pride.:D

[Final 3 Greens]

MatsPart3

It was interesting to read your post and clearly the ATCO had good intentions and empathy for the student - good personal values I would say.

However, as a lesson leaned, this episode shows why standard r/t phraseology exists and the potential for misunderstanding when non standard terms are used.

On that basis, I believe that your ATCO made an error of judgment in trying to encourage a stude, although he absolutely did the right thing in contacting the flying club to get some background info.

Fortunately, the only outcome of this episode is better understanding for all and since all of us have made/will make errors of judgment, we should reflect on that and avoid being judgmental.

[Mark1234]

Sure. But there are things that you teach and things that you train.
Ah.. point taken!

[Thud105]

How on Earth does a microlight with a broken nosewheel block a runway for two minutes, let alone two hours!

[BackPacker]

That was the time it took for the accident investigators to arrive, take pictures etc. Removing the stricken aircraft was a five-minute job.

[VCR]

Final 3 Greens; Firstly, I am not MatsPart3's ATCO. Secondly, an error of judgement was not made, as the tapes confirmed. The comment passed was of a constructive nature after the subject aircraft had established the go-around, therefore I was not encouraging him to land from the approach!!! I do, however, appreciate that comments have been made from parties not privy to the recordings or having been there to see the circuit first hand.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

VCR. I was an early Poster assuring the stude that he had done nothing wrong but I was curious as to what the Controller's thoughts were; and by no stretch of the imagination was that a criticism. Maybe I've missed it in an earlier Post but what was the clearance given and was an aicraft on the runway part of the essential traffic? This is purely out of interest and please feel free to tell me to sod off and wind my neck in. I must confess that the last time I gave a "land after" (never did an "after departing") was 37 years ago with 2804 Mtrs of blacktop available.

[matspart3]

For the avoidance of any further doubt or speculation regarding this incident I can confirm that no landing clearance was issued, such was the timing of events.

On both approaches, the aircraft commenced the go-around before any final call, clearance to land, 'land after,' 'continue approach' or any other comment was made.

[Jofm5]

matspart3, vcr etl al,

I can understand both sides of your discussion, and I probably sympathise more with going around rather than the ATC response reported although I do acknowledge I have not heard the tapes.

As someone who is wanting to start to undertake their PPL (an experience flight with a fellow ppruner this weekend weather permitting will help me see if its right for me) I have many concerns and reservations about entering into the world of GA.

Whilst I would not say once I commit to it that I would be under confident, but I would most definately say that I will always be over cautious until at least the point that I am confident in my own abilities, the abilities of the plane and the confidence in dealing with the dynamic situations - even then my reading teaches me confidence is a killer.

I know if/when I commit to the PPL that if I ever get to a point where I am not 99.9% confident in a situation I will err on the side of caution and react accordingly - now I can understand that will peeve some if not all the more experienced but I would like to believe that the processes and procedures in place can cope with my inexperience.

I am not trying to rifle either sides feathers in this instance but to be honest the day if ever it comes if I am not happy with something and in my considerations are that I cannot quantify the dangers to my satisfaction I will abort and go around - it may be with hindsight and experience a non event but without that hindsight and experience you cannot make that call in an appropriate manner.

I am all for the person involved actually coming to visit you and not only discuss the event but get a perspective of what is involved with the ATC side of things - the bigger the picture you have the better judgements you can make (I just hope I get that opportunity one day).

I guess if I was to summarise it would be to say that the situation that occured has been viewed from two accutely different angles, one with experience and one gaining experience - I think there are valuable lessons to be learnt for both parties here, from an atc perspective it is probably to not apply your experience of being the pilot in the field when your not in the aircraft and from the pilots perspective to accept constructive criticsim - dont take it personally and discuss it - safety is the goal from both angles.

I dont feel either party in this were fundamentaly wrong, things could have been better on both parts reading the above - but both could learn, communicate and come out the other side with a much better understanding of all the issues involved. There is no point in pointing the finger but there is a point discussing if you glean experience from it.

Hope my tuppence worth from a non-aviator (for now !) was worthwhile :).

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

matspart3. You've added a number of big pieces to the jig saw puzzle; many thanks. :ok:

GBZ, out.

[worrab]

"I know if/when I commit to the PPL that if I ever get to a point where I am not 99.9% confident in a situation I will err on the side of caution and react accordingly - now I can understand that will peeve some if not all the more experienced but I would like to believe that the processes and procedures in place can cope with my inexperience."

Look carefully through the thread - no-one has said that the pilot did the wrong thing by going round... not even a hint. If you're ever not happy with an approach, throw it away and try again - if needs be at a different aerodrome.

As this thread shows, it's sometimes a case of perception. You may perceive that you've upset someone by an action, when in fact your airmanship is recognised and approved of.

The point of training is to give you the skills to fly safely. A significant part of this is about good decision making and having the confidence to do what is right in the circumstances. You'll develop an awareness of what's going on around you and your part in it.

I can really commend flying to you. There simply is nothing else like it. There are few things in life that require so much involvement to do well. It's challenging, but ultimately fantastically rewarding.

[Jofm5]

I can really commend flying to you. There simply is nothing else like it. There are few things in life that require so much involvement to do well. It's challenging, but ultimately fantastically rewarding.

That I can really see and I really want to participate in. My comments were meant as an observation as someone new to aviation and as and understanding as to where I would be in a similar sort of situation.

Whilst people have said its okay to go around as PIC - I was trying to say the insecurities I feel before even getting to PIC let alone being in charge of the plane. My first solo I am scared of - perhaps only cause I dont know enough now.

[VCR]

Don't be scared of your first solo; you'll absolutely love it. Feel free to be scared after you've landed! :ok:

[bookworm]

I hope people are taught that go-arounds are possible, even after the third bounce, but I'd rather not see them trained in bouncing three times and then going around.

I was going to comment that gertie didn't suggest that the exercise was demonstrated, and that you're reading a more specific meaning into "trained" than was intended. Mind you, having a good idea of who trained Gertie, I wouldn't actually put it past them when bored... ;)

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Mind you, having a good idea of who trained Gertie, I wouldn't actually put it past them when bored...
All gone, that old school of instructors, I'm afraid.

One of my favourites was the low flying lesson - "imagine you've stupidly got yourself stuck below low cloud in low visibility, right, descend and slow down, let's have some flap, that's it, now keep going low and slow".

"What about that row of trees?"

"Look at them carefully."

"Oh ... you want me to go through that gap?" (At which point I realise that this is a game he has played before at this carefully selected location.)

Through the trees.

"What about that row of pylons and wires ahead of us?"

"You can't see them yet. We're pretending we're in low visibility remember."

A bit later.

"What about that row of pylons and wires ahead of us?"

"You still can't see them."

A bit later.

"What about that row of pylons and wires ahead of us?"

"Oh, do you think you can see them now?"

"Yes I ****** do."

"Oh all right them. OK, I have control, don't try this on your own."

Full power, low speed steep turn, and you can imagine how high we weren't.