360s vs Go-Arounds

[phantomwray]

There is this other student pilot that I know who seems to have been taught that when he's on final if there is traffic on the runway necessitating a go-around, he does a 360 instead. The particular aerodrome he did this at was uncontrolled. Is this the right/safe thing to do, or is an overshoot and subsequent go-around the proper thing to do, which is the way I've been taught?

BTW, I live in Canada.

Thanks!

[DownIn3Green]

A 360 on final? That'll work until this clown tries it and meets another aircraft head-on.

A go-around would be my choice in the situation you have described.

[OzExpat]

I agree with DI3G. A most unsafe practice. The pilot of an aircraft behind this bloke will certainly not expect anything other than a go-around. I think he needs to plan his approach better. If there's traffic ahead that's likely to take a while to get clear of the runway, I'd slow down a bit earlier than usual, maybe extend my downwind leg a bit. Then slow down to my final approach speed a bit earlier.

These are the sorts of things that other pilots would do. If this doesn't work, a go-around is the only safe option. And it makes it easier for everyone to know where everyone else is, so that you can slot in for another try.

Quite apart from anything else, by making a 360 on final approach, he's effectively making his own poor judgement someone else's problem.

[scanscanscan]

And the correct route and tracks for the visual goaround if not published at this airfield are?

[phantomwray]

And the correct route and tracks for the visual goaround if not published at this airfield are?

I'm not sure what you mean exactly. I've never heard of "route and tracks for the visual goaround" before. Could you clarify please?

[pigboat]

phantom I think what 3scan means is what are the published go around procedures for this particular airport. Do you climb out straight ahead, turn left or right, are there special terrain avoidance procedures, etc. Whatever procedure applies, make sure you announce your intentions on the MF.
I agree with Oz that a go around is the best option in this situation. If you happen to be in a retractible, you'll need great gobs of power in the landing configuration, just to maintain straight and level in the turn. There is also the added temptation to tighten the turn from base to final, and we all know what that can lead to.

[phantomwray]

There are no published go-around procedures for this aerodrome that I am aware of. It is just a small 3000 foot runway at some small town. The only source I have is the Canada Flight Supplement and I've looked at major airports like CYYZ (Toronto) and they don't have published go-around procedures either. (Yes, yes, I know that the big ones likely do, but they aren't published in the CFS.) Are such things applicable to GA VFR flight? If so, how come I've never heard of them?

[scanscanscan]

I was interested in the goaround track as I was reading a Canadian publication called "From the ground up" many years ago(1964) and I believe they qouted two Captain styles, a Capt Fumble and a Capt Prune!
Anyway as a student pilot you were supposed to try and be like the smart guy, although I always felt the scruffy,smoking, no tie, dirty shoe type,Capt Fumble was a bit closer to home.
The correct route according to Prune, was to turn right onto an up wind leg,so as to be able to observe the airstrip on your left and keep the offending traffic in sight, then fly the cross wind leg, then the downwind, then the base leg,etc.
Of course all at an uncontrolled airport with no other laid down procedures or moose problems!
I do not know if this info is of any use to you guys, but it gave me something to do on the occasions that I needed it.
Cheers.

[ 19 December 2001: Message edited by: scanscanscan ]

[phantomwray]

Interesting... That book, "From the Ground Up, Millennium Edition" is the book my flight school has given us to study, but the publishers seem to have taken out the two Captain's that you mention. It would have been more interesting if they were left in. Oh well.

The procedure you describe about flying parallel to the runway but offset so that the other traffic can be kept in sight, then proceeding with the rest of the circuit is what I have been taught anyways.

There was one time when I was flying solo circuits just after I had started flying solo that I had messed up my spacing in the circuit. (This was at a controlled airport) I had crowded the traffic in front of me and the controller told me to go-around, but instead of proceeding straight ahead to complete the crosswind leg, he told me to head directly for the crosswind-downwind leg intersection so I could be resequenced into the circuit traffic. It was a good lesson for me in airmanship.

Thanks for all the discussion guys!!

[Squawk 8888]

Phantom, the procedure is:

1. Full power, climb attitude.

2. Adjust heading to fly parallel to the runway just to the right of it. This gives you a clear view of the runway and any departing traffic, and also means that if you overtake anyone you'll do so on the right, per the CARs.

3. Climb to circuit height, making a turn 1 mile beyond the end of the runway.

4. Turn downwind 1 mile beyond the crosswind turn.

Unless otherwise indicated in the Canada Flight Supplement, circuit height is 1000 feet AGL and all turns are to the left. This info will be in the PRO section of the aerodrome entry, for example the entry for Toronto City Centre states, "Rgt hand circuits rwys 06, 08 & 15".

I strongly recommend you review "Exercise 17- the Circuit" in your Flight Training Manual and discuss it with your instructor. It should clear up any confusion you may have.

[DB6]

Well I don't know about Canada, but I don't imagine it'll be that different to the UK. If you cock up your approach you go around i.e. transition to the full power climb and clean up, turning slightly onto the deadside (to keep the runway in view) and fly around the circuit again. It is not generally necessary to specify a visual go-around procedure unless there are special circumstances e.g. no deadside. I cannot think of a circumstance when it would be at all beneficial to do a 360 on final; as has been pointed out the aircraft will be in final approach configuration with flaps and gear down, loads of drag and already much nearer the stall speed than normal, a situation that will be exacerbated by applying bank. To try a 360 near the ground without cleaning up would be dangerous to say the least - if the aircraft does stall at that height it will very likely be fatal - and in the time it takes to clean up and then get into final approach config again you might as well have gone round the circuit again anyhow.
I have never heard of anyone doing it in the UK and would go as far as to say that anyone doing it (assuming somebody else saw them) would get a massive bollocking at the very least.

[ 19 December 2001: Message edited by: DB6 ]

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Some trivia:

From the Ground Up was written by Sandy A MacDonald and in the early fifties he referred to two types of pilot. Captain Wise and Flatspin Fumble. The message was good airmanship makes for Captain Wise, poor airmanship is Flatspin Fumble.

Mind you there were other things in From The Ground Up in those days that are no longer there such as the Radio Range for navagating and Celestial Nav to name a couple.

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

[scanscanscan]

Thank you chaps for the detailed sorting of the circuit and the Ground up publication.
Got it nearly half right, as usual!
Now who was Pilot officer Prune?
Was he of WW2 uk military vintage?