"Go around, not below 450 feet"

[rich_g85]

Hi all,
Another RT-related question (which I will pose to my instructor), but thought I'd gather some thoughts from you guys too.

PPL student, on my second solo circuit consolidation flight. On the base leg the Tower tells me "just to warn you, this one may be to go-around as we've got the surface & light inspection going on." Me: "roger."

On final, "G-xx go around, not below 450 feet". Me: "Going around, G-xx"

Climbing away I wasn't sure if I was expected to continue the approach to 450 feet and then go around if no landing clearance received, or go around straight away.

Looking back, I'm sure I did the right thing by going around immediately, just looking to get your views & opinions.

I will also take a look in CAP413 now. :)

Thanks.
Rich

[PapaNovGolf]

Not sure if procedures are that different with the UK, but if I got that from ATC, I'd be taking that to mean a go-around AND not to descend below 450ft until further advice. So I'd initiate a normal go-around and fly the circuit once more, and make the usual radio calls from the downwind leg to see if Tower would issue another set of instructions to facilitate your full-stop or T&G. :ok:

[Another_CFI]

Rich,

See CAP413 Chapter 4 para 1.10.

If the controller had required you to go around immediately he/she would have used "G-CD Go around I say again go around. Acknowledge".

With the phraseology that was used the only requirement was that when you went around you did so not below 450ft therefore what you did was perfectly acceptable. On the other hand had you wished to continue the approach for practice you were free to do so provided that when you did go around you did not descend below 450ft.

[Pontius]

Rich, just ask ATC mate, they're just normal humans and the radio is there to be used. "Can I continue the approach to 500' and then go-around or do you want me to go-around now". In the time it took you to ask that and for them to reply, even if they wanted you to discontinue the approach immediately, it would have only made a few feet difference and certainly not something that would effect the blokes working on the ground.......that is, of course, assuming you're not doing you PPL training in an F-18 :)

There's certainly a time to use absolutely correct RT phraseology, equally there are certain rules that need to be known off-by-heart but in a situation like this, just keep it simple and do just what you'd do if you weren't in an aircraft :ok:

[mm_flynn]

You did the right thing.

You could have, if you wished, continued your approach to 450 feet and then executed the go-arround. However, it was a perfectly sensible decision to go around at the point you did. In this situation the controller is not going to issue a landing clearance or a lower Not Below altitude following his decision to instruct you to go around.

[Pace]

He was basically telling you to go around and in the go around not to decend below 450 feet as simple as that :D

Pace

[BackPacker]

If the controller had required you to go around immediately he/she would have used "G-CD Go around I say again go around. Acknowledge".

Controllers don't issue go-around instructions on a daily basis. I would assume that the controller, particularly since he warned you about the go-around possibility already anyway, simply forgot or deliberately neglected to add "I say again, go-around, acknowledge". But that doesn't really alter the meaning of the instruction.

Also, what the "not below 450 feet" means, probably depends on the context. If your circuit height is 1000 feet and you just started your descent, he may have meant that it would be OK for you to continue your approach to 450 feet, at which point you needed to start the go-around. But if the circuit height would've been lower, or you were already significantly into your descent, it may have been an instruction about the altitude for the subsequent circuit. In other words, go-around immediately, climb to at least 450 feet and fly your circuit at at least that height.

Anyway, you did the right thing by going around. The rest is just semantics and I'm sure that if anything was unclear in the context, you two would've cleared that up right there and then. I've had a go-around instruction a few months ago, which did not include a circuit altitude, and at my home base we can fly the circuit at 500', 1000' and 1500' depending on ATC instructions. So I simply told them I would be climbing to 500' and they agreed. (I knew the circuit at that altitude was free anyway.)

[Jan Olieslagers]

Two points puzzling me:
-) the controller not having stated whether his "not below 450ft" was AGL or AMSL, how was the pilot to know?
-) some responses see a difference between "going around" and "going around immediately" , a difference I fail to imagine. Surely, if told on final to "go around", one makes sure not to descend any further, then adjusts configuration (flaps, power...) then climbs to circuit altitude or as appropriate, and at any rate flies the circuit as published - i.e. continue straight over the runway until turning into crosswind leg?

[Human Factor]

Many moons ago (at a UK airfield) when I was training, it was not uncommon for VFR traffic to be operating on runway 04 with IFR training traffic simultaneously flying the ILS/NDB to runway 22. Frequently you'd hear go-around not below x feet, opposite direction traffic.

[172driver]

Sounds pretty straightforward to me: go around and don't descend below 450'.

[mad_jock]

I would have taken it as continue apparoach but go-around before you reach 450ft. Its actually quite a common clearance when your doing instrument training.

[Pace]

Jan

The guy was on his second solo! I presume the controller knew that and didnt want him doing a low go aroumd so gave him a base of 450 feet.
He would have been on QFE for circuit work.

The other possibility being a helicopter departing and that clearance given.

Pace

[Big Pistons Forever]

It seems to me that flight training and private aviation is obsessed with the "rules" of RT and heaps chastisement on anybody who says one word that is different from the RT "Bible". Yes one should learn and endeavor to use the proper phraseology, but not at the expense of effective communication.

Rich g85 made IMO a very fundamental error. He/she acknowledged a transmission they did not fully understand. This is never a good idea. As a student pilot RT instructions may come up that may leave you flummoxed. The best thing to do is to fess up immediately. So in this case an appropriate reply would have been;

"do you want me to go around immediately or descend to 450 feet and then go around ?"

If you are really unsure about what ATC wants simply say

"I do not understand what you want me to do".

Yes it is a bit embarrassing but far better that than an airprox, or worse because you did the wrong thing while trying to sound like a BA 747 Captain on the radio.

[Fuji Abound]

Things must be slow I cant believe we have found 12 different things to say about a simple question. ;)

I can understand the reason for the question but shirley it is common sense -

go around - we all know what that means,

not below - dont go below the specified height.

Simples

Another circumstance you will hear something simillar is join left base (or whatever) not below x feet. So join but dont descend below the specified height as there may be someone else there.

Restrictions like this are simply to stop you running into to someone below.

It really has got to be that simple hasnt it!

(Edited to add: yeah it is a bit slow today and really just wanted to join in with everyone else by thinking of something else to say!!)

[reportyourlevel]

UK tower ATCO here. The restriction comes from the fact that aircraft intending to touch and go (or make a low pass) but can't because of an aircraft or vehicle on the runway may be cleared to make a low approach not below 400 feet above threshold elevation. For aircraft operating on QNH, we have to add 400' to the threshold elevation and round up to the nearest 50' (e.g. threshold elevation of 72' means go-around not below 500' QNH). The controller should know if you're using QFE or QNH and will pass the appropriate instruction. You should also be informed of the reason for the restriction, and they should be warned about you.

In the case you quote, I would argue that the phraseology used by the tower is ambiguous at best. I like to save the "go-around, I say again go-around" phrase for when I really need it, so it carries more authority and urgency. For your situation, I would use this phraseology:

G-CD cleared low approach runway 26 and go-around, not below 450 feet, vehicles on the runway.

This conveys the same information but in a more routine manner and it makes clear what you can and can't do (i.e. continue your approach but go-around without going below 450'). Hopefully that helps a bit, and explains where the numbers come from.

[Jan Olieslagers]

Thanks for a reply from one who should know - but, as has happened before, it only leaves me more bewildered. How could any tower ever issue a "clear for a low approach" (whatever a low approach might be, I never of such a beast?) to a plane on final? Wasn't I taught final is where the approach ends and the landing begins?

Sorry to talk like being stupid and/or a foreigner - I certainly feel like both!

[Whopity]

As Pace said, pretty simple and straight forward.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Rich g85 made IMO a very fundamental error. He/she acknowledged a transmission they did not fully understand. This is never a good idea. As a student pilot RT instructions may come up that may leave you flummoxed. The best thing to do is to fess up immediately. So in this case an appropriate reply would have been;

"do you want me to go around immediately or descend to 450 feet and then go around ?"
However to go around, at any point, for any reason, is always an option and is never wrong. The best answer may have been to initiate an immediate go-around and then ask for clarification safe in the knowledge that he wasn't going around too late.

[reportyourlevel]

How could any tower ever issue a "clear for a low approach" (whatever a low approach might be, I never of such a beast?) to a plane on final? Wasn't I taught final is where the approach ends and the landing begins?

I think it comes about for instrument training flights as we give a discount on the fees if they don't touch the runway. I presume this is similar at other airports.

We normally clear (instrument) training aircraft for a low approach and go around (without any restrictions) and the results can be quite different. People on initial instrument sorties normally go around from their minima, but the military jet trainers often get almost all the way down to the tarmac (maybe only ten feet above). I suppose it depends a bit on how brave you are!

Sorry to talk like being stupid and/or a foreigner - I certainly feel like both!

No need to apologise!

[n5296s]

Controllers don't issue go-around instructions on a daily basis

At Palo Alto on a fine weekend they issue them on a hourly basis. Doesn't help that they have trainees there who frankly are fairly seriously behind the tower (is that the equivalent of being behind the airplane). But even when the controllers are on top of things, you get noodles who land then dawdle the full length of the runway oblivious to traffic on short final, and so on.

[Whopity]

The altitude would be left to the pilot's discretion.The 450 feet stated is a safety factor because work is going on on the runway. There will be local instructions to the effect that aircraft are not to descend below that height under those coinditions.

The pilot is cleared to continue but with the proviso of not below.... PLAIN and SIMPLE.

[Spitoon]

A low approach and go-around is used in the UK to give a (hopefully) unambiguous indication to both the pilot and controller of what will happen. It's used to describe an approach which is intended will not continue to a landing or touch and go - i.e. won't hit the ground. There are a variety of reasons that this is done - as reportyourlevel says, it can save on airport charges, other reasons include that it's quicker than alternatives and also, when training for an IRT, it is practice for a manoeuver that will need to be flown on the test.

The 400ft limitation was introduced after an aircraft did a very low approach and go-around and scared the bejeebers out of some people working on the runway. The instructions to UK controllers are:

Missed Approach Restrictions

If the runway in use is occupied by aircraft or vehicles, an approaching aircraft shall not be cleared to carry out a missed approach procedure which includes a descent below 400 feet above the threshold elevation. When the missed approach instruction is restricted to 400 feet or above the pilot is to be informed of the aircraft or vehicles on the runway.

The runway in use shall be kept clear of aircraft and vehicles if an approaching aircraft is likely to descend below 400 feet above the threshold elevation.

[Jan Olieslagers]

Well, that's another vocabulary issue cleared. Certainly I see the same thing happening, often at EBAW where a lot if IFR training is done. Usual R/T there is "OO-xyz" final", answered with "OO-xyz cleared for the missed approach, report reaching 1500"

In the context of IFR training, I can also see the difference between "going around" which was going to happen anyway, and "going around immediately" which may be understood as "do not descend any lower, otherwise continue as intended".

[rich_g85]

Hi all,
Thanks for all the replies - varied and interesting as I expected. :)

To Big Pistons Forever - you're probably right, I should have clarified the instruction there and then. Indeed I would have done so if there was ambiguity. In this case, I could only do one thing - go around.

I'm not afraid to ask a controller for confirmation though. In fact the same flight after landing I was cleared to cross runway 26 via G1. As I approached the hold, the red stop bars were illuminated and I could see a landing light on a few miles out on the approach. So I called the tower and just asked him to confirm my crossing clearance. No worries there.

I certainly wasn't trying to sound like a 747 captain on the radio - I'll admit I take pride in my RT and always try to sound professional, but ultimately all I wanted to do was complete the circuit detail and get myself and the aircraft back on the ground safely.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Hi all,
Thanks for all the replies - varied and interesting as I expected. :)

To Big Pistons Forever - you're probably right, I should have clarified the instruction there and then. Indeed I would have done so if there was ambiguity. In this case, I could only do one thing - go around.

I'm not afraid to ask a controller for confirmation though. In fact the same flight after landing I was cleared to cross runway 26 via G1. As I approached the hold, the red stop bars were illuminated and I could see a landing light on a few miles out on the approach. So I called the tower and just asked him to confirm my crossing clearance. No worries there.

I certainly wasn't trying to sound like a 747 captain on the radio - I'll admit I take pride in my RT and always try to sound professional, but ultimately all I wanted to do was complete the circuit detail and get myself and the aircraft back on the ground safely.

A very good attitude to have towards this issue :ok:, good luck with the rest of your training :)

[Slap Landing]

Hi everyone

At a military airfield with our weird and stange procedures, during the ATSOCAS update we reviewed our 'land, roll, overshoot' phraseology which became 'land, touch and go, low approach' to fall inline with CAP413.

Frequently at my aerodrome I have to issue clearances such as 'clear low approach not below 200ft, 3 on for departure' or such like. (200ft QFE is also the lowest procedure minima for precison approaches to both of our runways)

A normal low approach means that an aircraft has the use of the full length of the runway descending as low as the pilot wishes without actually putting wheels on it. Its a go-around on runway centreline in effect.