Chilli,
Agree with the slowing down, but probably worth clarifying here that, although IFR, it was actually carrying out a visual approach, not an ILS and was joining right base.
Yes, thank you, the other aircraft actually has not too dissimilar a minimum approach speed to the Cessna ahead; that is why I quoted the information about the joining / following type of aircraft’s performance.
Vector 801, Sorry for the slow response to your post requesting answers from me in particular – a few folk have already responded in my absence on my behalf, by the looks of it. I’ve been away from home.
I found your questions a little strange due to the context you give. Surely we were not discussing jet traffic. I certainly wasn’t doing so and it isn’t pertinent to this accident. The second aircraft was a single turboprop GA aircraft with a minimum final speed only about 10 to 15 kts faster than that of a Cessna 150. Secondly, the accident took place at Southend, not Cardiff.
Nevertheless, YES I would fully expect any student pilot to be fully competent to carry out a go–around by the time of first solo, in fact this is a syllabus pre-requisite, for obvious reasons. However, a normal go-around involves initially climbing straight ahead, then offsetting onto a parallel track the dead side to allow any other aircraft the safe use of runway track, including another aircraft either taking off, or coming in from behind, as per your “number two on finals also going-around” scenario. The next part of the manoeuvre is to fly upwind, maintaining parallel to the runway, normally at circuit height or still climbing to it. The third part is to assess when it is safe to turn crosswind and enter the downwind leg, with other aircraft in sight and with ATC assistance for spacing if necessary. An aircraft going around and still climbing straight and not yet having crossed to the dead side, could be turned early onto the crosswind leg instead, ahead of the next inbound aircraft. If necessary, the second, faster go-around could extend up wind to gain better circuit spacing, allowing the first to continue onto a normal, second circuit, hopefully to land without further ado.
Most students on first or second solo are still flying very much “by numbers” and easily run out of capacity when faced with something unexpected, such as an unusual turn into an unfamiliar position in relation to the airfield. An overloaded student may make the most basic of errors so a standard missed approach is much safer because the student will have practiced it. I find it highly worrying that an ATCO might have no sympathy for, or understanding of, this situation.
Was mine one of the posts you found “shocking and puzzling”? Surely the AAIB report is published in the public domain where it can be discussed so others can learn from it; it appears that most contributors to the thread were doing just that, in reply to the original poster's question.