Originally Posted by
Centaurus
Did the investigator ask each SOAR instructor what procedure they taught ? You can bet some adhere to the manufacturer's published procedure while others have their own personal ideas. If there was no such advice in the POH why didn't CASA airworthiness notice this when the Bristell was approved for student training?
Seems to me the ATSB report missed the opportunity to check the standardisation of go-around procedures by simply asking all the flying school students at Soar and not just a sample. Understandably, much of the ATSB report was about administrative failings of SOAR operations. It is just a pity that more attention was not paid to the actual aircraft handling side of the accident.
I cant comment on the Vixen, I was put on the Bristell from the start. However what I was taught is almost the same as the POH. I was taught - Full power, Pitch for 66, Trim as necessary (if you were trimmed for approach you really needed to trim ASAP, I could imagine this had an effect on the situation). Once speed was stable and clear of obstacles, remove first stage of flap, Pitch 66, Trim and same process once stable remove last stage of flaps (standard approach was 2 stages of flap).
POH is as follows;
Balked Landing (Go around) 1. Throttle - full power (max.5800 rpm) 2. Wing flaps - extend as needed 3. Trim - adjust as needed 4. Wing flaps - retract at height of 150 ft after reaching 120 km/h (65 KIAS) 5. Trim - adjust 6. Repeat circuit pattern and landing