Going around...

[boardpig]

I recently had a rather interesting discussion with my instructor about the going around technique. I was doing an endorsement at the time and we came across a rather slow bug smasher in front of us. On the turn to final I knew we would have to go around so, props, mix, etc forward ready for the call.
When it came, I advanced the power to an extent where the descent was arrested and I was able to maneuver off the centre line and then plan my return to the crosswind/downwind.

My right seater immediately called for full power, (which I understand) but I told him we didn’t need it. With two working engines we only needed to arrest the decent not go skyward like a rocket. When I had worked out a visual picture of the circuit etc I then added sufficient power to go where we needed. There were no obstacles to overcome and we still had about 300ft to go.
On the ground, I was told that a go around meant full power, and for the endorsement this is what I eventually did. However, I did remark that a “go around” only implies that you “go around” and therefore you only need to arrest the descent, which means you wont have to fight the trim setting as much and everything becomes much more manageable (you then apply power when you need to climb of course). I also remarked that to try full power in a higher powered twin might make the situation even worse if you instinctively push the lever all the way forward with a high nose up trim.
I’m sure there are a few views on this, can anyone tell me if I should be balls to the wall on every go around?

[carbon]

Try that in an empty B58, with only reserves....fun, but complete overkill!

Forward visibility is terrible at that sort of body angle, with (in my mind) the biggest danger being traffic in this situation.

If its not needed, why stress your nicely cooled down engines beyond what is required?

[Atlas Shrugged]

On the turn to final I knew we would have to go around so, props, mix, etc forward ready for the call.


One can't help but question why you delayed the go around that long? If you already knew that you would need to abort due preceeding traffic, what's the point (or sense) in continuing the approach to as low as 300ft?

[gas-chamber]

Your instructor needs to think outside the square a bit more. A go-around from minima during an instrument approach is usually performed at high power (depends on type whether it is full power or a slightly lower value). From greater altitudes, it really depends on what you need to get the job done safely. Ditto with re-configuring gear and flaps etc. From the minima it is usual to retract them (in case of engine failure and to ensure terrain clearance). If at or above circling minima, and VISUAL, the circling configuration can be maintained while you re-position for another go.
Why flog the engines if you don't have to? While it may be OK to run them full bore for hours on end, the sudden temperature changes going from near idle power to full throttle in a few seconds can't be good for them in the long term.

[tio540]

"near idle power to full throttle in a few seconds can't be good for them in the long term."

But that is how I take off.

[Icarus53]

I would first of all say that you appear to have maintained good situational awareness through the approach and consequently you applied sufficient power to achieve what you required at the time - this speaks well of your control and awareness.

I suggest that you do need to initiate a climb (rather than just arresting the descent), and that climb power may be appropriate (rather than take off power).

Consider the issue of the aircraft in front going around, applying full power and climbing under you, and perhaps drifting off centre line. You should still aim to get back to circuit height promptly.

Having said all of that, you should also consider future requirements. I assume that you are a VFR pilot at present?? Once you get into Instrument Approaches, you will routinely conduct G/A from low levels, in situations where your terrain clearance will only be assured by applying full power. It may be good training to get into the habit now of a standard G/A drill (Mix Up, Pitch Up, Power Up, Gear Up, Flap Up - or something to that effect) so that when you are going around from the minima in IMC on one engine with terrain problems, it is just that - a drill.

Perhaps for the moment you should look at initiating the G/A with full power, then using your strong situational awareness to determine when this is no longer required. Then you can pull back to climb or cruise power to get into the circuit.

Has anyone seen my other two cents???

Icarus

[Tankengine]

The quality of SOME [only] of our instructors is a common talking point.:bored:

You must seperate an IFR go-around in IMC to a VFR "planned" go-around babying the pax and those expensive engines!:ok:

[Dragun]

I agree with Icarus, however, you should be conducting your go-arounds/missed approaches under any circumstance in accordance with the company SOP's whose AOC you're operating under. If at your next company/school the procedure is different - then do it that way.

At the very least they should be done in accordance with the advice given for missed approaches in the aircraft flight manual.

[kiwiblue]

...going from near idle power to full throttle in a few seconds can't be good for them in the long term.

Wouldn't be too worried about the effects on the engine going power-up in that scenario... going the other way (power-down) however definitely is a potential for damage and worthy of serious consideration before dramatic power-changes are made.

[gas-chamber]

I am not suggesting don't do it if you need to do it- obviously all aero engines have to be certified to take a rapid power increase, as occurs on every takeoff or low level missed approach. I am suggesting that if a lesser power setting will give the performance required on a visual approach where only a small increase in altitude is required, why go to full power ? Thermal cycles and rapid accelerations DO ultimately have some effect on engine life. If you could run engines at a constant favorable temperature and RPM they would go on almost forever.
Invoking the SOP may not be relevant when the situation itself is non-standard, as appears to have been the case in the original posting. Airmanship was applied by the trainee and the instructor failed to appreciate that for what it was.

[Dragun]

definitely is a potential for damage and worthy of serious consideration before dramatic power-changes are made.

near idle power to full throttle in a few seconds can't be good for them in the long term

Are you guys suggesting that in every takeoff therefore, you are potentially damaging the engines? No one is saying slam the throttles open but you've got to be joking if a smooth advance of the power levers from (probably not even) idle through to full power is going to damage the engines.

Think you may be getting confused with closing the throttles quickly on continental or turbo charged engines.

As for the SOP, I'm sorry - but go-arounds are a standard procedure detailed in any airline FCOM and as far as I'm concerned, you don't get to pick and choose whether or not you follow SOP's. Teaching airmanship and judgement is worlds away from following procedure in a normal flight condition and the instructor should be following the procedure exactly as it is detailed in the flight school's documentation. Deviation from SOPs should only occur in extreme circumstances and with good cause. I fail to see how a go-around falls into this case.

[kiwiblue]

I reckon you might need to read my post again dragun, carefully. :ok:

[boardpig]

I think what I'm getting from this is that when required to follow the SOP's, thats what you should do. An operator probably wouldn't be interested in my take on it, if it difffers from standard procs.
Having said that, there are always more improved ways to do things and my take (and that of a few other learned persons also) might be one of them.
Until I can afford my own crate, I guess I'll stick to the operator SOPs.

[Dragun]

eep. Sorry kiwi :oh:

At least we're on the same page :O

[Capt Wally]

....interesting subject indeed.

Another thing to consider when in the circuit for the purposes of actually landing as apposed to bulked approaches (for the purposes of training) & that's whether or not the airframe is configured for a landing as in gear down (should it be a retract job) & full flap selected. This config requires far more power than say just gear down & perhaps approach flap or even flapless if that's the chosen config. What I tend to do is have a mental picture as to what I would do in the case of a preceeding being slower (which is almost the case most of the time for me) than myself & the likelyhood if I'm faced with having to go-around.
At the 300 ft stage AGL it's most likely that the airframe is configured for actual Ldg (which is what would be in most Co's OPS) & therefore T/off pwr would be needed followed by climb pwr after clean up. In the case of being extremely low for Eg. & go-round is required then flap should be retracted first to say an intermeadiate stage 'cause if a significant sink is experienced then the gear needs to remain down in case an actual contact is made with the rwy surface. Besides full flap usually creates the most drag.
Of course this is all predicated on having all engines available for such an event. S.E situations are far more exact as in full pwr till at a safe height.
It's horses for courses obviously & there's no exact proceedure 'cause there's no exact picture you get in yr mind time & time again. At the endorsement stage both ways should be demonstrated therefore having the candidate aware of the potential differences & results.

My opinion only of course as is everyones elses in here:)

Capt Wally:-):)

[Yusef Danet]

I feel that every go around should be taught and executed the same way. Full power/thrust, same actions in the same order.

Procedural commonality is a beautiful thing. If full takeoff/go around power is difficult to trim it's probably valuable practise for the situation where it will all be needed, such as the IMC missed approach in the dinged old Chieftain at max weight.

A CAVOK go-around due to traffic is flown exactly the same as an IMC missed approach in the jet, as it was at every semi-professional Cessna/Piper/ turbo prop outfit that's ever had the misfortune to hire me.

The stress on the engines is less than going from cold-ish idle to full power/thrust on takeoff, and if you found you hadn't got rid of all the drag during your go-around, you might find yourself a little embarrassed when in a turn your available thrust starts to turn negative.

In short: teach one manoeuvre: full power/thrust go around, do it the same every time. The more you treat it like that other common manoeuvre , the takeoff, the better. So follow up is climb power/thrust and after takeoff checklist.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Stick the spurs in and haul arse outta there I say!

At 300' the FTDK would be full flap and gear down. Your gonna need full power to convert a descent into a climb.

Do it! Practice it!

Then it you might instinctively get it right when Skippy's Dad hops out to say "Hello" - just as you flare!

Dr :8

[Sunfish]

I'm going to wade on on this even if I am a low time VFR single engine person.

Boardpig wrote:

I did remark that a “go around” only implies that you “go around” and therefore you only need to arrest the descent, which means you wont have to fight the trim setting as much and everything becomes much more manageable (you then apply power when you need to climb of course).

I respectfully suggest that the day you do have to do a go around, on a nice hot day, at somewhere near max weight, when the proverbial cow/roo/rabbit/powerline jumps out at you, then you will require full power and you will have to fight the trim.

So get used to it right now in your training and master the trim change and build up the muscles.

I had a friend who destroyed his aircraft and was lucky not to kill himself and his entire family when his new and slightly unfamiliar aircraft got away from him on a go around after he stuffed up his approach. All it takes is a few seconds if you aren't ready for whats coming. I think it was at Mataranka.

[equal]

Think you may be getting confused with closing the throttles quickly on continental or turbo charged engines.

guess i`m immune turning and burning a lycoming

[gas-chamber]

Here is a common enough scenario that shoots the full power, clean it up and go around every-time-as-per-SOP theory down. Suppose you have a circling minima of 500 ft. You have arrived off the NDB approach (or whatever) with minimum legal fuel and get visual at 500 ft - maybe a bit higher - but the cloud is most certainly solid overcast at 550 to 600 ft. Now at 300 or 400 ft on final some mug taxies onto the runway, forcing you to go-around, or maybe you just screw it up and get too high, or too far off centerline. Are you going to instinctively go into the full missed approach scenario and climb back into cloud? Bad, bad choice. Ease the power up to what is needed (probably no more than climb power on most twins due to the inertia and small height gain required), return the flaps and gear to circling configuration for the particular airplane type, and level off at 500 ft for another go.
Once you go back into that cloud you have no choice but to conduct another instrument approach with less than minimum reserves. THAT my friends is poor airmanship, and in the past has resulted in more than one pilot failing a checkride.
Now, I await the holier than thou's who would never find themselves in such a situation.

[ScottyDoo]

you will have to fight the trim.

Why would you have to fight the trim? Why not just trim out any control forces as with any other manaeouvre?

Contrary to what some people seem to think, a go-around is not a death-defying procedure.

A 10yo girl might need muscles, anyone else should be okay.

Or are you talking about an A310?

[Capt Wally]

.....gas chamber I agree with you comments you have valid pionts climb pwr would be enough in yr case as mentioned although in that situation ( the 'mug') :)one would like to believe that nobody is going to come on out onto the rwy & get in yr way 'cause at that level of crappy wx & aviating the pilot ought to be experienced enough to know yr there, not yr w/e driver who flies only VFR & is in a semi concious state most of the time:)
Oh that will get up some noses am sure, hope it does 'cause I see that ALL the time & their dangerous ! Just the other week I had to contend with a real DH who just simply had no idea of the big picture despite 2 way R/T comms, & he had a pilots license !!!!:bored:
Still it's a good subject to get pilots thinking here & that can only make things better.


Capt Wally:)

[ScottyDoo]

Can you repeat that in English, please?

Or do I need to be pissed?

[Pinky the pilot]

Scotty; I've just finished half a bottle of a good Aussie Red and I don't understand Capt Wally's post anyway, so being pissed won't help I would think.:oh:

That said, come on Wally; You can do better than that.! Your previous posts on other threads are'nt anywhere near that incoherent!! Admit that you were stirring!:=:D

[Tankengine]

Well done Gas chamber!!

A pity there are so many aeroplane drivers around and so few Pilots!;)

I once sat beside QF's [former] Standards manager as he went around in Sydney from 300' after an aircraft was too slow on the runway departing.
These "SOP only" experts would say his very gentle go-around and early left turn [so as not to be right over the guy in front - but not std!!] were unproffesional!? :ugh:

A word one of my old instructors [ex WW2] used was AIRMANSHIP!

That said, in the **** use SOPS.

[Capt Wally]

.........don't understand my post hey?..............read it when you guys are sober:) You need to read the whole thread to understand my words.
Am sure what I wrote will go straight over some heads here, that's fine like flying, there are different 'levels' for everyone !:)

Please refrain from personal attacks in here guys, I read often in here that some can't quite control their anger. If you don't understand then move on !


Capt Wally:)

[carbon]

Your post makes sense Capt W, it's just unnecessarily hard to read!:ok:

[Capt Wally]

...........ok 'carbon' TY but I am not here to 'spoon feed' everyone with ABC comments:), am sure it makes sense to those that have a similar background to myself. Remember also that the written word is the hardest form of comms. It's expressionless & emotionless .Some 'read' into articles what they want to read.


Capt Wally:)

[ScottyDoo]

No personal attack intended, Capt. W.

But as for your "levels" comment: you are so right.

The levels of English comprehension demonstrated here are very often embarrassing when it is a professional pilot in question.

[pilotshorvath]

This thread has migrated from a VFR/VMC early go-around to an IMC-at-the-minimums discussion.

Rule one: flight manual.
Rule two: SOPs.

If you are in VMC/VFR approach, then obviously it is not going to be so stressful, but i would still follow the flight manual/SOPs. Unfortunately, most FMs don't include a "getting ready on base to go around because of a slow aircraft in front" contingency.

So far many people have mentioned turbo-charged/ piston engines. As for turbo-prop/ turbine engines I would doubt anybody argues against full power/MaxCT/EPR/ITT/EGT etc (again, follow flight manual limitations)

Here is a common enough scenario that shoots the full power, clean it up and go around every-time-as-per-SOP theory down. Suppose you have a circling minima of 500 ft. You have arrived off the NDB approach (or whatever) with minimum legal fuel and get visual at 500 ft - maybe a bit higher - but the cloud is most certainly solid overcast at 550 to 600 ft. Now at 300 or 400 ft on final some mug taxies onto the runway, forcing you to go-around, or maybe you just screw it up and get too high, or too far off centerline. Are you going to instinctively go into the full missed approach scenario and climb back into cloud? Bad, bad choice. Ease the power up to what is needed (probably no more than climb power on most twins due to the inertia and small height gain required), return the flaps and gear to circling configuration for the particular airplane type, and level off at 500 ft for another go.

I hope that we are talking about day VMC here, in a cat B (300ft) or cat C or D (400ft) aircraft. Remaining visual to circle below the MDA should only happen if you can satisfy the obstacle clearance rules (ie day).

Once you go back into that cloud you have no choice but to conduct another instrument approach with less than minimum reserves. THAT my friends is poor airmanship, and in the past has resulted in more than one pilot failing a checkride.


I would be very surprised if you would fail the checkride if it was at night (refer to my paragraph on visual circling above). I also doubt that you would fail a checkride if you followed SOPs. Besides, minimum reserve fuel should include 30 minutes plus 10% of whatever your flight fuel was. That should cover you if some ?#$% should taxi onto the runway in front of you (very small probability) (and no doubt CASA/ATSB would want to talk to that individual also):hmm::bored: (plus if the Wx was forecast to be this crap you would have holding/ alternate fuel anyway)

[Feather #3]

ScottyD,

Should you ever take up flying C180/185 series, may I suggest you don't complete the famil flight without doing a go-around from a full flap landing. You may then learn about trim forces that can be required in a go-around.

G'day ;)

[ScottyDoo]

Yes I realise there are trim forces. I have a few grand up in many different types of lighty BUT every single one of them was made to be flown with one hand on your stick (or yoke), one hand on your throttle and one hand on your prong.... You fly your go-around and then you trim out the forces.

As Chopper says, harden the :mad: up!!! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unkIVvjZc9Y)

[XRNZAF]

That video is awesome.... :D

[Hank Birofski]

The question from boardpig was "I’m sure there are a few views on this, can anyone tell me if I should be balls to the wall on every go around?"

I think you made a good call Mate. From the scenario you've described a full power go around is making more work for yourself.

To give some background the mob I work for have introduced 'the discontinued approach'. An airline at a major airport had a crew perform a go around when they were within 500 feet or so of the published level off. The aircraft failed to capture the altitude (3000' or thereabouts) and they found themselves at 6000' before sorting the whole shooting match out. This resulted in some avoiding actions and in the wash up The Authority recommended a procedure to adopt when in the same situation or similar. So we adopted it...

It is simply to arrest the rate of descent, set a speed to accelerate to, take away the drag flap setting, start a gentle climb which allows you to retract the gear and clean up in turn. All very sedate and often the punters down the back aren't aware you've 'gone around'. IMHO usable from lighties to transport jets (IAW SOP's, operator approval yadda yadda yadda)

In boardpig's case I like your thought process. Maybe it gave your instructor something to think about... :ok:

[Sunfish]

Feather #3 said it Scotty, I assure you a ten year old girl is not going to be holding a C172 on go around with full flap and the aircraft trimmed to 60-65 knots - and it takes a few seconds to clean up even with electric trim and electric flaps.

[boardpig]

I should say that I've been bug splatting for a fair few years and am well aware of the "standard" teachings of the go around. I remember reading recently of an accident involving a pilot who was getting endorsed on a particular single engine aircraft that had more than power available than he had experienced in the past. (I'm sorry for the lack of detail; I'll try to dig the article out). Anyways he was allowed out on his first solo and had to go around. Using the method he had been taught as "standard" he applied full power and promptly went nose up and lost control on the aircraft.
The article in question was an investigation into the fact that he "should" have been taught that in that particular aircraft, a full power go around could result in problems in certain configurations.
I guess I'm just trying to say that each approach etc is different and the situation may require or necessitate a different response other than the standard. When on base I always imagine I'm going to have to go around, so I consider cloud base, traffic in the circuit, surrounding obstacles, weight etc and sometimes arresting the decent only, cleaning up and "going around" seems the safer option. I've even seen an occasion where pax don’t even know you've gone around, they thinks its an additional part to the scenic ;-)
Each situation is different of course.

Ready to be shot down...

[SmokingHole]

Just did the Nathan Higgins human factors course which mentions a pilot taking-off from YBAF in a bonanza with elevator trim set in the full nose-up position (15/03/81)
PIC was unfamiliar with trim position indicator and a/c was previously flown by pilot who's landing technique involved the use of full nose-up trim.
She tried to reach for the throttle to reduce power but was unable to hold the nose down with only one hand on the control column
The a/c flew the length of the runway near the stall then banked sharply, decended into trees and exploded into flames. All 5 pob escaped - pilot with serious burns.

Wasn't a case of, as one tool says, hardening up, but of knowing the A/C.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Smoka - my recollection of that prang was that the aircraft was also overloaded and out the back of the C of G - I am sure someone in here will correct me if I am wrong.

I recall the press at the time praising the pilot for her skill in crashing into a creek, which largely put the fire out!

Dr :8

PS: Can't say I have tried a full nose-up trim TO in an A36 (or the FTDK for that matter) but given the elevator forces normally associated with an A36 (compared for instance to the C210), I suspect a full nose-up trim TO would be do-able in the A36 - one handed!

[SmokingHole]

Not sure about CofG but my source says the gross weight was close to the maximum allowable. Not sure if that was under or over:E

Happy to be corrected.

[boardpig]

Just found the article, was on AVWEB a while ago. This case was a warbird but the conclusion is the same.

http://www.avweb.com/news/pelican/pelicans_perch_87_killer_go-arounds_195755-1.html

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

BP - I gotta disagree with John Deakin (nobody ever said I didn't have guts!).

I am in no doubt that there would be at least one dead horse, one dead skippy, two mangled C210s and maybe one or more dead or injured people in the last 30 years had I followed JD's advice.

Fire-wall the b*stard, I say, and learn to deal with it in a safe manner!

The Bo has some grunt but it sure as hell is not going to torque roll on me.

Dr :8

[Feather #3]

On the subject of jet performance, I'm reminded of 2 go-arounds in that little rocket, the B747-SP38.
The 1st was with me flying in the RHS and misjudged the VOR onto r/w 25 in SYD. When we broke out of the cloud layer we were far too high [both agreed we made the same assessment; optical illusion without checking the DME!:ugh:], so going around from >1,000ft wasn't a drama. I chose to use CLIMB thrust instead of G/A [the latter adequate to launch a space shuttle in the power/weight ratio of the -SP] and was criticised later by the S/O who said I should have used G/A thrust as it was a "procedure."
The second was at HNL landing on 08L as a pax around door 3 [door 4 on a full-body.] Apparently a Herc was a bit slow off the runway and they went around with full charge [much lower altitude than 1st case above.] We were pressed into our seats as the rotate and climb started. Sitting in seat thinks..."Hangon, the G/A altitude is only 2,000ft!??:uhoh:", when the power came off and we were all extended in our straps like a negative G rollercoaster as the power came right off and they pushed over! Would have suited NASA's astronaut syllabus!!:D
So, there could be a case for keeping track of the bigger picture, albeit in proportion to the excess performance available.
G'day ;)

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Acturrly, John Deakin is rather specific about go rounds for everything else-

Baby on the runway! (http://www.avweb.com/news/pelican/182130-1.html)

So your faith in your fellow Bo driver is restored, FTDK

[ScottyDoo]

a pilot taking-off from YBAF in a bonanza with elevator trim set in the full nose-up position (15/03/81)
PIC was unfamiliar with trim position indicator and a/c was previously flown by pilot who's landing technique involved the use of full nose-up trim.

A good story to learn from. But what does it have to do with going-around in a properly-trimmed aircraft?

[pilotshorvath]

ScottyDoo, :D:D:D spot on.

[SmokingHole]

“go around” only implies that you “go around” and therefore you only need to arrest the descent, which means you wont have to fight the trim setting as much and everything becomes much more manageable

what does it have to do with going-around in a properly-trimmed aircraft?

Wouldn't you say the go around was initiated while the a/c wasn't properly trimmed ie pilot considered that using full power would require greater force (probably previously not experienced) to maintain control?

[ScottyDoo]

Thanks, Shorvath...

Wouldn't you say the go around was initiated while the a/c wasn't properly trimmed ie pilot considered that using full power would require greater force (probably previously not experienced) to maintain control?

Why wouldn't the aircraft be properly-trimmed (~65kt @ 500ft/min ROD) prior to go-around?

Or did you mean not properly-trimmed for a go-around? Who pre-sets go-around trim during a landing, just in case of a go-around???

The pilot in this example above took-off in an improperly-trimmed aircraft - full nose-up trim, I gather.

I dunno, maybe youse are right and we all need to cater for the most unlikely situation possible, which might be: "finding yourself" (the way she did) at a very high-speed, with full nose-up trim applied and a very high power setting, all three pushing the nose up with greater force than you can counter, and unable to remove a hand from the yoke to trim or adjust power. Or should we just check the trim setting prior to take-off (as per training) and maintain awareness?

But as far as I'm concerned, in a go-around, you should be able to handle the forces involved (as the manufacturer intended) or you shouldn't be flying the aircraft.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Anyone got any comments on (more applicable to S/E I know...) having height up your sleeve for EFATO?
More height = more choices.

"The advantage of M/E is you can fly to where you crash."

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

"Anyone got any comments on (more applicable to S/E I know...) having height up your sleeve for EFATO?
More height = more choices."

Sorry ..... but I just can't get into this idea of max rate/angle of climb on TO, or hugging the runway in the circuit in case of an EFATO event.

If I thought there was a real chance of an engine failure on TO or anywhere else, I would never depart YTWB (in either direction) or fly SE IFR over an unknown ceiling - or TO from Cherrabah two weeks ago!

I know who flys the FTDK (me!) and I know who maintains it.

I guess if it happens and I smack in, someone can start a thread in here -

See Doc - we told you so!

Dr :8

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

If I thought there was a real chance of an engine failure on TO or anywhere else, I would never depart
There's always a chance, hence why I believe you should have that height (at least 1000' would be a sensible decision) as soon as possible (and Vy not Vx unless circumstances dictate otherwise).

[ScottyDoo]

Smoking Hole, the post I was replying to has since been removed, thus the confusion.

[Jabawocky]

Climbing out hanging off the prop is not a smart idea under most circumstances. Usually less than desired cooling, high loads on everything, and as a very wise man told me recently......sure climb over a steep angle if you need to but climb out with a bit more speed and less angle, because if the fan stops, you will stall before you recover if you are swinging of the prop. Better o have some airspeed up, be able to puch forward and actually fly the thing to the least nasty resting spot.

I think they are wise words........and if he logs in here soon I am sure you will get a more sophisticated description.:ok:

J

[Centaurus]

and the instructor should be following the procedure exactly as it is detailed in the flight school's documentation

Just make sure the flight school's "documentation" accords with the recommended procedure published by the manufacturer. Often new chief pilot or CFI's come in and go about putting their personal procedures into the company operations manual - and these personal procedures may be entirely different from those published by the manufacturer.

[PA39]

Full power should be applied on a go around....every time. If an engine fails in that stage of flight you will need every pony you can muster very quickly. You would be raising the nose to a climb attitude which means a reducing airspeed and getting closer to Vyse. You don't want to reach blue line at anything less than full grunt. Inertia is an important factor when considering a decision altitude for a go around and if applying full flap these should be delayed until that altitude has been reached. Personally my decision altitude has always been 400' in a light/medium twin. If I am convinced all is good for the landing I select full flap and below 400 I am committed. I know some use 300 but the guy would want to be pretty hot on his currency.

[Sunfish]

There is a special place in hell reserved for people who provide disinformation.
We are not talking about jets or people in twins breaking off an IFR approach.
We are talking about a single engined VFR aircraft.

The issue here is the trim change involved in the worst case scenario. That is the transition from full flap descending flight on the back end of the drag curve with minimal power, to firstly arresting the descent and then climbing away.

I don't give a rats @ss about the subtleties of IFR flight, turbine flight, jet flight , etc.

The reality is that depending on the load. C of G, flap and trim setting etc. The load on the control column in a go around will change very markedly very quickly. Add to that a yaw to the left in some aircraft under some situations.

It is simply foolish not to practice this standard and unremarkable manouvre - the go around, under the worst conditions possible, to wit a situation requiring full throttle under the worst configuration, loading and CG conditions possible.

As I said, t almost cost a mate and his family their lives, and even a C172 will exercise your muscles until you get it configured to climb.

To any students.......... don't listen to crap posted here. Do what your instructor tells you.

I speak from the experience of a stack of military (army) exercises that always finished just before the vinegar stroke.

To put it another way Sunshine, go and get your favourite aircraft, and if you haven't done it before, load it to the full aft CG and configure it for a short landing at close to max. weight and do a full throttle go around from about ten feet.

What happens next might surprise you if you have only done the "simulated" part throttle go around.

Do it balls to the wall as if you meant it.

[ALLICEDUP]

Most sensible thing said yet!

Quote from Sunfish:

To any students.......... don't listen to crap posted here. Do what your instructor tells you.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

"Do what your instructor tells you"

Ah yes, the all-knowing 300 hr TT Instructor!

[ScottyDoo]

Most sensible thing posted yet:

don't listen to crap posted here

And here's a good reason why:

full flap descending flight on the back end of the drag curve with minimal power

WTF, Fish, do you always fly your approaches on the back side of the drag curve? With an Aft CofG??

Why????????

"Minimal power" to achieve the above full-flap/back of drag curve in your lighty is actually going to a fair bit of available power. An increase to full-power for your go-around won't add that much more.

Or did you mean LOW power? This obviously is unachievable.

Anyone who advocates flying approaches well behind the drag curve in a low-powered lighty to low-experience sprogs might very well find himself in...

a special place in hell









PS: Are you saying you're an ex Army pilot?

[Sunfish]

Of course I'm not an ex army pilot, I was simply referring to people who "simulate" things the way the army used to do ie: NEWD = Night Exercise Without Darkness, TEWT = Tactical Exercise Without Troops.

...And someone is suggesting a new one ... GAWFP = Go Around Without Full Power.

And as for being "On the wrong side of the drag curve" where on the curve do you think your aircraft is flying when its a foot or so above the runway towards the end of your flare?

Being a total dumbass amateur, the Go Around is the one manoeuvre I get to practice a lot, and there needs to be no hesitation in using full power, especially on a hot day with a loaded aircraft, and you are staring at the hills coming towards you. Get used to the control forces you will have to endure until you can get the aircraft reconfigured and trimmed.

[ScottyDoo]

I see. I figured what with the references to army exercies you must've been in the bizz...

Regardless... yes, the a/c passes through the back of the drag curve after power is cut furing the flare but..

full flap descending flight on the back end of the drag curve with minimal power

...sounds like you were talking about flying down final, not floating in the flare at 1 foot.

there needs to be no hesitation in using full power, especially on a hot day with a loaded aircraft

Why make sweeping statements? What if you're at 500ft? So you apply FULL power, then get yourself in a tizz with all the over-powering control forces you seem to encounter, then trim it out, wipe your brow... and reduce power for the climb!!!!!

After take off, you reduce power, don't you?? What's the difference? After your go-around, you're at the safer end of the runway, you're posibly lighter (end of flight) and unless you go-around from 1ft above the runway, you're starting from a safer altitude. What's the drama?? :{

you are staring at the hills coming towards you

What hills? I thought you were on final approach??

Get used to the control forces you will have to endure

:rolleyes:

[Capt Wally]

....................an aircraft needs only a certain amount of thrust (power) to sustain level flt. (that maybe full pwr in a low powered craft with everything hanging out). In order to climb it's the excess thrust available that achieves that task. Full power may indeed be required depending on the exact scenario but it's not always required I believe. Like I have said earlier it's horses for courses here with every going around. Transport cat A/C have some of their performance charts predicated on SE outcomes, having all eng's operating means power to spare. That's not always the case with A/C that operate to the 1.9% climb req's. (BLW 5700 kg's)Obviously SE craft (which was the basis of the thread) operate with limited options & an early decision as to whether it's safe to go around ought to be made sooner rather than latter.
"ScottyDoo" I happen to agree with yr comments regarding "Sunfish" remarks. None of this is 'crap' it's about discussion, about learning perhaps from other pilots actual experiences, Flying is all about experience, no one knew from the Wright Bros to now unless they went out & did/tried it !

No 2 landings/appraoches/go-arounds are ever exactly the same. Plan as required for every approach.

Capt Wally:)

[ALLICEDUP]

ForkTailedDrKiller,

Great advise for inexperienced pilots, telling them not to listen to their instructor!!! If they have a 300TT instructor, this person will be supervised and checks of the student will be conducted by more senior instructors. This should find any training issues from the junior instructor.

People on here really need to realise that some of their advise to inexperienced pilot could be dangerous. I agree that some of my training may have been by inexperienced people but I definately would not have listened to some hack posting on here, BUT some will read this crap and take it on board.

Suggestions on what you do is fine but when people start say how things are to be done is to much for an online forum.

[Tankengine]

A lot of the recent posts show that there is still a long way between "airplane drivers" and Pilots!!

Your 300 hr instructor may or may not be right [in the Pa38 or whatever probably right!] but there are many differring types and different situations.

AIRMANSHIP will decide whether full power/ partial power/ fast /slow/ alive/ dead!:ugh:

Use common sense, hardly anyone else does!:eek:

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

ALLICE, the inference was not "Don't listen to your 300 hr instructor", but rather, it was "Don't have a 300 hr instructor"!

Dr :8

[Monopole]

I originally went down the Instructor route, and have always admitted that I felt my students did'nt really get value for money until I had maybe 6 or 7 hundred hours teaching.

I don't believe it is the inexperiance of hands on that is the issue, rather the way the lesson is conducted. Lets face it, straight and level is straight and level and that can be tought by anyone who has done the lesson. What does it take to be an ultralight Instructor these days? It use to be 70 odd hours.... Some big and bl:mad::mad:dy quick ultralights around these days.

My point is I suppose is that while a 300 hour Instructor lacks some big world experience, they are (should be) under direct supervision, may only fly a limited amount of time with a student before thay must fly with a more senior pilot (not a check) and has more experience then a 20 hour student.

If a student is going to argue during his training stage imagine what he is going to be like with a bit of experience whilst undergoing a boeing course.

[Chimbu chuckles]

The trouble with a thread like this is most people seem to be only capable of 'absolute' answers rather than 'qualified' answers.

The actual answer to 'full power or partial on GA?' is 'it depends'.

Historically ab initio training has been carried out in very low powered aircraft, Tiger Moths, Austers, Chipmunks, Victa Airtourers, C150/152s and more laterly sundry SAA types..some of which probably have more in common with a Tiger Moth than a C152...it could be argued these aircraft need full power on a GA close to the ground however that doesn't define an absolute answer anymore than a P51 torque roll defines the counter argument.

In the middle where most of us do most of our flying there is a vaste area of grey requiring two of the less common attributes, (prior) critical thought and common sense, to come up with a reasonable answer...an answer that depends on the aircraft and the conditions.

Too there is a need to have a good starting point...a default setting if you will...that will get you out of trouble when ****s are trumps, a surprise GA in the flare. I am going to suggest that full power unless you have a good reason for less is a good starting point.

A good reason for less might be you're flying a P51 or one of those turbine Ag aircraft with vaste HP and torque (although the Ag aircraft probably has an offset engine that cancells most of that out)...a/. you don't need full power or b/. it's application presents insurmountable control issues.

It is important that the starting point be sensible...a starting point that says I will use less than full power unless I have a good reason for full power is potentially setting up a dangerous mindset. An example of why is QF1 at BKK...the company culture was (possibly still is) idle reverse unless you have a good reason for full reverse. If the company culture was full reverse unless you have a good reason for idle reverse there may have been a different outcome.

None of the typical aircraft flown in GA (and yes I have speak from experience) present insurmountable control issues with the application of full power so that should be the default setting...unless you have a good reason for less.

The famous Cessna pitch up with application of power with full flaps is very real and particularly so with the older variants that had 40 degrees of flap available. I was initially taught what I suspect most people are taught...apply full power and hold the nose attitude while madly trimming out the forces and then retract the flaps...followed by not quite so madly trimming the other way.:rolleyes: Thankfully I flew with another instructor pre first solo who greeted my GA attempt with "Ahh Chuck, WTF are you doing?"

On the next circuit it was full power/flap up/fly aircraft/trim...a revalation....it works even better on the older 'johnson bar' manual flap Cessnas like the 180/185. I do the same thing today in my Bonanza in a GA from the flare...full power/flap up/fly aircraft/trim/gear up.

Would I use full power for a GA at 300-500'? No, probably not....it would depend.

[Sunfish]

Thank you for your measured and thoughtful post Chimbu, I think that says it all.

PS. Scotty, I wouldn't consider aborting an approach at 500 ft to be necessarily a "Go Around" but in the Warrior and C172, I was taught "Climb" = "Full power", not sure if its an ops manual thing or if its in the POH, in any case, there is no difference between 'discontinuing an approach" and a "Go Around" at 500 ft in those aircraft.

I guess we could split hairs with larger aircraft at 500 ft and set "climb Power" (eg:75% max cont. 25/2400 in some Arrows) compared to full power if one was Going Around from 50 ft. As Chuck said, it depends on the situation, however I suggest training for the worst case from the point of view of difficulty/control forces etc. is the prudent thing to do.

But again, I was taught that 300 ft is your "decision height", at which point you go to full fine and do your PUF checks, so any go around from below 300ft is going to be a full power one.

[43Inches]

The part that worried me about the original post is the idea that 300ft level in a light twin is a SAFE altitude, whilst reconfiguring. An engine failure at this point would be difficult to handle especially if gear and flaps were still extended and only medium to moderate power applied.

Whilst max angle of climb would be an excessive move I would suggest you should get a light twin back up to a safe altitude quickly. It would be a good idea to aim to use climb power or more and then if it does prove an overkill you can always reduce it, id rather have more performance than i need than be left wanting. Focus on control and performance in the early stage of the go-round, initiate climb and then worry about other factors.

As far as excessive trim forces in a twin at 300ft agl transitioning to a full power go-round I would not expect much of an issue as you should be trimmed for a higher speed than if you were at 50ft and are people stating they would not use full power from this height?

Have a go at an engine failure in the sim at 300ft at low speed and whilst you've got your head up and looking for traffic. Somtimes actually experiencing the situation may change your mind.

[A Comfy Chair]

The way you fly any manoeuvre depends on the situation!

But, if you are too close to traffic to land, there is always a possibility he is going around too.

I'd have thought that you'd want to be as high as possible as soon as possible to get away from that risk, as opposed to slowly catching him as he is on the runway. He may go around (For many reasons).

I know we're talking about light aircraft... but out of interest, have a look into the Jetstar go-around with less than full power incident recently. Makes an interesting read!

[Capt Wally]

.....this thread has been very interesting. Hopefully to the novice they have gained some insight into the traps of going around at low level.

There has been numerous thoughts on this subject, some obviously well thought out some not so, & that's just my opinion before someone gets overheated:). At the end of the day we can't all be there to offer our assitance when a novice pilot is faced with a potential dangerous situation.
I've flown for many years now, I, like everyone else in here wasn't born with a scrap of info about flying never lone going around at low level. We learn, we listen & we decide for ourselves at the end of the day as to what to do if an ugly situation does occur. there's no substitute for experience, how many times have we heard that & it's for good reasons:-)Remember we have an instructor beside us for the critical part of our flying & that's during the training phase,(not inc reacurring training) from then on we are on our own for a good part of our decision making!
I hope that some have learned to respect that not all missed approaches are going to be exactly the same, like aviation itself the variables are forever changing !:)

Capt Wally :-)

[werbil]

Cc

Spot on

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Boardpig, it amazes me that this thread has gone for over 70 posts and no one asked you if you were above or at your blue line speed at the point of going around. Your instructor would have been bashing you over the head to ensure you maintain that speed whilst even going to climb power. How close to the hard stuff dictates how serious the maneuver becomes with respect to engine out performance if you are below blue line.

[boardpig]

I'd be slightly above or at the blue line, only coming under when landing is assured. If the GA happens here (under the blue), its full power. I think the conclusion here (and one I agree with), is that each approach etc will be different. Weather, vis, wind, weight etc all need to be taken into account each time as one shoe certainly will not fit all.
Having said that, I will always follow the SOP's for the operator. But that doesnt mean I cant discuss them when we get on the ground. Many a hanger discussion has been had on these subjects, these posts are a fine example.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Agree with that statement. Got a file growing all the time with neat solutions and rules of thumb:ok:

You never ever stop learning. Sometimes I feel pretty dumb asking about things. As Dr Karl says- There is never a dumb question!

[PA39]

After 30 odd yrs in GA and as an Grade 1 Instructor and CFI I left the industry because of all the BS involved in flight training and the incorrect training procedures being passed on by inexperienced novice instructors who THINK they know what they are doing.IMHO novices are now being trained by novices who were also trained by novices. The Russ Evans', the Gordon Smiths the Jimmy Hazeltons etc etc are part of a dying breed of very experienced knowledgeable instructors, who are/were not being replaced. META is a furfie approval which gets handed to guys with plenty of money and F/A experience. It p***es me off when i read some of the comments posted because it is grossly unfair to teach a student a bad habit.....because Bad Habits are hard to break, and part reason for the Aeroplane flight reviews.

The original post indicated on this subject was that the pilot was receiving an endorsment on a type or class of twin and his question concerned the correct go around procedure. I have posted previously on what I know you must do. I had also made mention of Vyse or blue line speed. My suggestion to you is to maintain blue line plus 5 until established on final and or assured all is ok for the landing.

[j3pipercub]

Thankyou Mr Chuckles for your sensical approach and post. Well done that man.

And FTDK, don't have a 300hr instructor? You'd be delighful to share a cockpit with I'm sure. hope I don't see ya round

j3

[Tmbstory]

Pa39:

Below is a reference to a serious incident in a "going around situation".

On the 15th September 2007, I made a post (no:63) under the heading "D & G General Aviation & Questions", last 100 days, page 27, under title "The West: Plane safe after engine trouble, page 4 of 5". The heading of the item was " The Dance of the Falcon".

It certainly got my and other peoples attention.

We should all learn from the experiences of others.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

J3 - And FTDK .......... You'd be delighful to share a cockpit with I'm sure.

Yes, people comment on that - I'm a right charmer!

Dr :8