Ok - this one I'm going to need explaining.

dream Land At last!!
 

This was the reason for the original post. I couldn't understand why a simple instruction to turn away was beyond a pilots capability. I have now improved my understanding thanks to the "mostly" informative replies.

Spey, it wasn't. At least 2 calls had to be repeated after no response, and after the initial go-around instruction he replied "GBB maintain centreline". As the go-around is to the deadside he would have been clear of the inbound. maintaining centreline means that no2 has nowhere to go in the event he breaks off. Therefore the ADC moves him out the way by turning to the North. He had 40 seconds from the initial go-around instruction and 30 seconds from the instruction to turn North before he turns.

I have been reflecting on this accident as one does sometimes.

The report does not, I think, comment on the adequacy of the stall warning system in the aircraft. Psychologists have established that the first sense which tends to go when humans (pilots) become overloaded is the sense of hearing. Part of CRM training with the airlines these days highlights this fact since a pilot may become so engrossed in the task that he fails to hear the other pilot making a comment on the operation. (In which case, digressing slightly, said monitoring pilot may have to touch flying pilot to break his pattern and draw attention to what is going on).

Aircraft which have insufficient aerodynamic warning of stall must be fitted with (serviceable) artificial stall warning systems. All the C150/152 type aircraft I have flown are fitted with a "reed" system which will sound as the stalling angle of attack is approached. The efficacy of this system sometimes varies between individual aircraft. Maybe it's time to review the stall warning systems fitted to light aircraft and/or install some other warning system such as a warning light or a louder klaxon of some description.

So in summary my simple questions are:- a) Did the stall warning system operate but (more significantly) b) was the pilot aware that the system was giving a warning?

PS Mods - another thread on this accident running on Private Flying - maybe a case for merging threads?

Having had to talk too many student pilots around the circuit I would beg to differ and I still say the priorities regarding going solo are wrong, more emphasis on experience and less on going solo would help everyone out it isn't a game about who can do it the quickest , although reading many forums that is exactly what goes on..
However ComJam perhaps you would really care to explain the statement about who decides who goes around and who doesn't, that one doesn't make any sense to me. Yes Pilot initiated go arounds we understand but there are also ATCO initiated go arounds and they don't tend to be given simply because we feel like them they are for reasons of safety .

ComJam

Also bit puzzled as to this response..... who's job do you think it is to send aircraft around in a situation when a go around is needed??

How can you possibly write that when this whole thread originates from a fatal accident in which a student was sent solo by an instructor and was unable to deal with what arose?? :confused: The relative responsibilities of student, instructor and ATC are at issue.

Bookworm:

1) 20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing

2) You can't foresee every eventuality

3) This is what happens when SOP's and written orders / memorandum (please refer to the AAIB report to see what I'm referring to) are not adhered to.

You're barking up the wrong tree with this one, with regards to instructor responsibilities I fear.

It is. And, of course you can't. But it's 20:20 hindsight, examined with the proper respect given to those who didn't have the benefit of it, that allows us to learn and improve the way we do things. And that makes it even more important not to use hindsight to attribute blame.

If we don't examine the evidence we have and re-evaluate the procedures after accidents like this, we're not doing a good job of managing safety. That doesn't mean that things have to change every time there's an accident, but it's right to consider the questions raised, and I don't think your dismissal of the relevance of the issue of student solo is warranted.

Magp1e,

This was not my post, think it was MikeJ in post #81:

However, after the reply "GBB maintain centreline" if that is not what was required why didn't the controller instruct the pilot to go around deadside - ie follow a normal pocedure?

I am concerned that the idea of breaking off traffic on finals on a non-standard routing seems to be accepted as a fairly ordinary situation. It would be interesting to know if the two ATCOs who are both pilots have done this either under instruction or voluntarily whilst flying, or as a matter of routine whilst controlling and therefore created a mindset that this is safe as nothing has gone wrong before. It is well known that standard procedures, including checklists, are developed so that safety is not compromised. Unfortunately it is human nature to take shortcuts and not follow procedures when the end benefit is not immediately apparent. In this way the new 'shortcut' becomes the accepted way of operating, after all, it worked OK like that last time so it must be safe. Inevitably this comes back to bite.

With general reference on this thread to having solo students identify themselves some way on the RT, how about asking controllers who are UT to let pilots know that they are not qualified and operating under supervision? :) There are documented cases in the UK where UT controllers have contributed to incidents and the screen has been unable to react in time. What about a controller who has just qualified and might be operating solo for the first time? How many hours before we as pilots are absolutely certain he/she is ready to deal whatever may arise on his shift?

SS,

There is a fundamental difference in the way PPLs and ATCOs are trained to the point where they are let loose on their own.

At all times when ATCOs are under training, there is the instructor sat right next to them, on whose ATCO licence the trainee is operating. I can only speak for Heathrow, but this training period lasts for around a year before the trainee ATCO goes 'solo' and operates on his own licence. Obviously, units which are less complex and less busy will have shorter training periods. And trainees are only put forward for their validation board (SRG-run examination) when a pass in the said examination is as close to guaranteed as possible. The preparation for this would have included many ATC simulator exercises (at units where a sim exists of course) involving emergency after emergency, unusual situation after unusual situation, and many, many scenario discussions and theory questions. Very often the SRG-approved Unit Training Plan will entail familiarisation flights with based airlines, visits to agencies such as the Airfield Fire Service, Police, possibly flights in the local police helicopter etc etc.

I went solo in a 152 at EGNX after four hours.

Slightly different.

Spey,

Sorry for the mis ident....I'm still none the wiser though....Yes, it was a non-standard call but why is asking a pilot to climb and turn (the basics of flying a cct) an unusual event? Surely a controller can expect ANY pilot to perform this maneouvre...If not, then should he be solo?

How about the two, presumably fully qualified, ATCOs who between them managed to make an complete and utter horlicks of co-ordinating the approach and landing sequencing of two aircraft at what could only be considered a quiet backwater of an airport?. Hopeless.

OK lets see you try that with a 747 at 300ft on final approach - after all you are only

Climbing and turning in approach configuration with full drag flap and low speed at low height is not something that is part of flying a normal circuit. Have you ever tried it - if not I suggest you ask an instructor to take you up and demonstrate - but do it starting off at a safe height. :)

However, executing a go-around by applying full power, controlling the pitch up (in a 152) removing drag flap, stabilising the climb attitude and trimming off the resultant stick forces, accelerating to safe speed to clean up remaining flaps, whilst flying over a cleared area (ie the aerodrome and climbout lane) is the basis of normal circuit flying. Now try adding a turn into this and it is easy to see how the situation can quickly become unsafe.

I haven't read the transcript, if placed in a similar situation I would more than likely if i was to have broken off the approach by the student ( I am not saying I would or not I wasn't there) I would have sent them around and asked them to turn as soon as able to the north or south, using the words "when safe"" or "when able to do so" either one of them. That of course may not have helped in this scenario as we are talking about an extremely inexperienced young boy who may have blindly followed ATC instructions rather than sorting his aircraft out first.
We cannot unfortunately know the level of experience unless someone tells us, we can hazard a guess and the way he handled the backtrack instruction would have sent red warning lights flashing before my eyes. When I suggested again on another forum that perhaps a local instruction advising when someone is inexperienced is passed with the book out instructions I was told I was nanny state by PPLs so I guess it is very hard to win.

A little over 10 years ago AOPA, supported by GATCO and the RAeS suggested to the CAA's SRG that civil flying training schools adopt the military R/T call-sign prefix "Tyro" to indicate to ATC (as it does in the military) that the pilot is a student and thus inexperienced.


SRG was not minded to accept the suggestion ~ clearly, its neddies felt that they knew best. :hmm:

Without rereading the transcript, I understood that there was a changeover of controllers between the point of departure and point of approach. The instructor did say when booking out that this was the lad's second solo but it is not clear whether that information was passed on.

A call-sign of "tyro" would plug that particular hole in the cheese.

Cheers

Whirls

I have often wondered on the reluctance of accepting TYRO as part of standard RTF. Yes it is one extra word but if aware we are dealing with a low hours student before we issue any instructions it may in the scheme of things save time.

Chilli,
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.

SS
That is EXACTLY what happend a MAN when a Dash8 Departing 24L lost a donk on t/o.
ALL a/c on finals [including a Virgin B744 at 1.5 mile final were instructed to go around....NON-STANDARD, ie to the South. Result, APC were [extremely] busy for a time, but the Dash staggered round the circuit and landed safely.:ok:
And your point is.........:confused:
watp,iktch

Chiglet - confirm please then that the B744 was instructed to 'just take a left turn and fly south' followed 30 seconds later by 'Virgin x just to confirm turn southbound now'? Note - no instruction to go around.

Somehow I seriously doubt that this was the way the incident you refer to was handled. If it was then I would have major concerns about the standard of ATC at MAN.

Incidentally, have you read the AIB report?

ShyTorque
True, this was not a jet following and it doesn't hold water in this situation so I apologise. I was merely trying to illustrate that whatever the reason an ATCO gives a go around instruction and then amends it, he/she has a bloody good reason to do so. Just interested in your view from either side of the mike.
As someone earlier pointed out. This traffic was IFR on a visual approach. If it went around, on returning to radar it could well ask and be fully entitled to a RIS or even a RAS. The workload of the Radar Controller would probably have gone throught the roof (lots of primary returns around the airfield) to provide the required seperation. I believe possible TRM was already at work here by the TWR controller not wanting the IFR to go around, therefore unneccesarily increasing the workload.

Having been involved in such discussions, although not a neddy myself, the difficulty is knowing what to do wih this information. Tyro works well for first solo - but maybe not for the last solo nav ex the day before getting a licence (the following day the pilotwould still be inexperienced by many measures but not using the callsign prefix/suffix). That assumes it would be used for all pre-licence flights - what other criterion should be used? And how much more careful should a controller be when dealing with an inexperienced pilot?

At any airfield where initial flight training/GA goes on the controllers should be alert to a pilot who is possibly getting overloaded. In reality, this applies anywhere because we are all human and we can all get overloaded - pilots and controllers alike. Lots of experience gives us something to fall back on but it is no guarantee that we'll not 'loose the picture'. If there are signs that a pilot is having some difficulty, I would expect a controller to pick up on those signs and either offer help or modify the controlling techniques - this applies anywhere (although what the controller might do will differ greatly depending on the circumstances). Just as I would expect a controller who is showing signs of getting overloaded to be helped to manage the situation. I've no doubt I'll be accused of living in cloud-cuckoo land, but that's what I would expect and it's what I have seen on what I would describe as good ATC watches/units. Not wishing to get emotive here but livesare at stake as this accident shows. To sum up the last few lines, 'Tyro' might help in a small number of instances but its value will soon be lost - far better that controllers have a better appreciation of what its like to fly an aeroplane (and v.v.).

Which leads on to another point. On first reading of this thread i was tempted to bemoan the fact that controllers no longer get much flying training and suggest that this played a part in the events. But then I read in the report that both of the controllers on duty had PPLs. It's hard to work out why they did not pick up on the clues that were so obviously there in retrospect but clearly more flying training is not the answer! Likewise, it's easy to be wise in retrospect but the report notes that the SATCO, working in the support position, noticed that the aircraft was low and slow - but the report does not suggest that he/she did anything as a result of this observation.

Ultimately the tradgedy is that someone died before we start analysing how it could happen. The original post sought views on the AAIB report's recommendations. The report, which is surprisingly well presented in comparison to many others that deal with ATC involvement, sadly falls into the same trap as many others in its recommendations.

One recommendation is that 'It is recommended that London Southend Airport includes information relating to the notification and handling of flights by inexperienced solo pilots in its Part 2 of the Manual of Air Traffic Services. - that's good, so it won't happen again at Southend. Although we will have to guess just what the AAIB hopes the 'information relating to the notification and handling of flights by inexperienced solo pilots' will achieve, let's hope that the stuff they put into the MATS Part 2 is more than 'try not to do anything non-standard to inexperienced pilots'. But why is this not a recommendation addressed to all airports to review the usefulness of notifying 'solo traineee pilots' when booking out or whatever and to review the guidance/training that is provided to controllers for handling such flights? And if AAIB can't make that recommendation directly to the airports, how about through the CAA?

I've already expressed my views about appending Tyro or student to the callsign - but I'm a bit dubious about the advice that AAIB would like to see put in the MATS Part 1. That should be common sense......surely?

But the one I really have trouble with is 'The Civil Aviation Authority should amend MATS Part 1 so that, with the exception of issuing instructions to go?around, controllers shall not issue instructions that would require an aircraft in the final stages of approaching to land to deviate from its expected flight path unless exceptional overriding safety considerations apply.'. Quite apart from the fact that this accident resulted from what was essentially, if badly communicated, instruction to go around, this limits many controlling techniques which, if used sensibly, can make life easier for pilots and controllers alike. How far out should this rule apply? Does it stop me instructing an aircraft to make a long way round turn onto final or, heavens to Betsy, an orbit on final approach? Even this latter I've used on many occasions, with the agreement of the pilot - admitedly only with pilots that are obviously experienced, and never with a pilot that is known to be inexperienced or shows signs of being unsure of how to follow instructions or slow to respond to the RTF. But do we really need yet another knee-jerk reaction that takes away controlling techniques that are perfectly sound and safe when used correctly? Maybe the best approach would be to include some of this TRM and awareness stuff in TRUCE.

Single Spey
 

Why the reference to 747?...Why don't I refer to a go around at EGLL with heliroute traffic and wx avoidance on the other RW...it's irrelivant but if you haven't tried it.....

Exactly my point! If the pilot is unready for this, why is he going solo?

Yup true, "If the pilot is unready for this, why is he going solo?" i know air law is done prior to solo but perhaps some multiple choice flight proficiency exam should be introduced on the day of solo to cover all aspects and eventualities that may occur on the flight?av84

I think it's safe to say that most controllers already know who the inexperienced pilots are, just by the way they use the r/t and the equipment flown, they learn to have a certain suspicion about wayward pilots. I think in the US we were required to identify ourselves as a student pilot.

Vector801

Has absolutely no bearing on this incident, but there is no full entitlement to either in any situation you can ever dream of. The radar parts of ATSOCA are always subject to various conditions, such as controller workload, weather, clutter, etc.

At the airport where I work, we have a good system with the training organisations. On taxi, POB is advised. 1 + 1 means 1 student, 1 instructor. POB 1 , student only. They all advise us of first or second solo circuits. When possible, I try not to give the training flight anything non-standard for the first circuit of a sortie, allows trainee to get the ducks all in a row.

We also invite them to bring their new students over for a visit. Things I like to stress is that standard phrases help, but if you cannot remember them, use plain language. If we give you an instruction that you do not understand or cannot safely comply with, talk to us. It is better to sound like a goose than have it proven.

Sending first aircraft around is not common, but sometimes with all the best will in the world to let the first on final to use the runway, it can be the best / safest option.

magp1e

I see from your profile that you are an ATCO -an it worries me that you seem to miss the fundamental point that the pilot was not instructed to go around - which he would have been trained for - but was instructed to 'just turn north' and then 'turn north now' - neither instruction of which constitutes standard practice for an aircraft to execute a missed approach or go around.

As I said, if you seem to think that this is something any pilot can do as it is part of a normal cct, then as an ATCO why don't you try asking a 747 to do this ('just turn north' and then 'turn north now') at 300 ft on final approach and see what response you get.

Alas, I wish this was true, but 40 years in ATC, civil and military, has taught me it's not!

The only indication that ATC will have is the pilot's R/T delivery and how he/she sounds. I've known student pilots who sound proficient and extremely confident on the R/T - but this is no indication as to their experience and ability. Equally, I've known qualified PPLs who sound as though they're on a 'first solo' and who remain nervous about using the R/T for months, sometimes years after they have qualified.

Apart from local ATC arrangements with based flying schools & clubs such as have been described, the only sure-fire way of ensuring that ATC knows that a pilot is a solo student and so has probably limited experience and ability, is by the use of an R/T call-sign prefix.

This is especially valuable for LARS units where ATC can be providing a service to a multitude of transit aircraft, many of which will be unknown to the controller(s) involved.

The procedures that have been implemented at Southend following this fatal accident are fine - provided that ATC knows the pilot is a student PPL - which will work for the based organisations, and for any visiting aircraft that has been booked in for a 'qualifying cross-country'; but not for any visiting flight where the pilot's status is not communicated to ATC.

What amazes me is that there should be any debate in the civil world about adopting the "Tyro" call-sign prefix, which is a tried and tested system that works extremely well in military flying. Surely, to not do so is just a no-brainer...? :ugh:

CAP493 has it,
whilst we can identify some inexperienced pilots we can't pick them all up. One 16 year old who did his first solo the day after his 16th birthday was so competent on the RT he could have been flying for BA, then I have had guys with years of experience who trip over words which makes them appear incompetent whereas they are simply not good on the radio.
We were always supposed to be informed prior to them speaking to us of QXCs but we weren't and then you would be working traffic thinking this guy is useless only to get a call later on asking how so and so did as they were on their QXC, if we had known it can explain a lot. Whilst in the majority of cases it wont change how you control in some cases it will.
Lets face it most units wont put up a first solo if they know they are going to have to orbit, so why do we expect them to be able to handle flying within a complex traffic environment on a second solo?
As airports which previously were quiet backwaters who no longer are still handle GA for flight training this does need to be tackled, I will bang on about it but someone needs to be far more experienced in all things flying before they do their solo, stop thinking of it as important at an early stage , not driving solo or controlling solo doesn't affect the confidence of drivers or ATCOs so why would it be different for pilots ?
And lets have more communication between ATC and flying schools regarding the pilots experience level , Tyro is the obvious word to use.

At Aberdeen we have a system of codes on the strips to show what kind of pilot is flying in club aircraft.
Green-Instructor,
Amber-Qualified PPL
Red-Student solo.
This system has worked well for many years.Also the CFI asked ATC not to issue any instructions to orbit,or slow low turns.If we have to sent Cessnas around,then straight ahead until the aircraft is well up and climbing.
It's a long time since I flew,but when I regained my PPL,I had to do 2 hours of stall-spin awareness.Some of the most valuable flying going.I wonder if this poor kid had this before his solo circuits.
I have had a similar situation in an old 150,which had 40 flap.Told to go around from 200 ft,as a 757 was slow rolling.I had 40flap down,and I said to the Tower controller who was my Watch Manager that I'm happy to do a land after the departing.No he told me to go around.What a handful trying to get it to 10 flap.Then he told me to break left:mad:The old Cessna did not have a flap detent,just a toggle and watch the flap running on the pillar.There you all the same situation that the kid faced.He perhaps forgot to put the carb heat in as well,so he would have no chance of climbing.
Lessons,
Well perhaps a start is that you could send Cessna around earlier,and give them a chance to get out the vertically.If its a late go-around then avoid any instruction that involves turning low in the go-around.

Single Spey

There is a fundamental point being missed here. If I give an instruction to an ac to turn left onto North now (even if he is finals at 300ft), I expect him to configure the ac before commencing the maneouvre (ANC), that is taken into account when I give the instuction...

He was instucted to go-around, but gave the wrong response "maintain centreline", hence the ammended instruction.

Please don't get me wrong. He was put in a very difficult position, and the instruction would have been a "surprise" to anyone. The point is that your 747 pilot would have dealt with it, the poor boy couldn't, which returns us to the question, was he allowed to go solo too early ?

Same at Edinburgh minus the amber.
Simple system, indicated on bookout, works a treat and no extra R/T time :D

As indicated though whilst a local solution is fine in the circuit it doesn't help when they leave the circuit and go cross country.
A national system alleviates that issue. I am all for flying clubs on booking out advising the experience but as a unit where we get many training cross country flights and qualifying ones we often haven't a clue they are trainee pilots.

:hmm:

Way down south of the green and greasy, when a student was sent on his first solo, his instructor usually kept a watchful eye on the circuit. This was normally done either from the tower or sitting in another aircraft on the ground, radios ON.
The point being that the student's instructor, not necessarily the man who had checked him out for the first solo flight, was always within eyeball range and communication for the duration of this first great event. Most made sure that the student was afforded the same watchful protection for the first couple of circuits of the first consolidation period thereafter, or asked a fellow instructor to do the honours.
This was not difficult to achieve even at quite large and busy airports and, whilst giving reassurance to the student, was much appreciated by the ATCOs, whose brief perhaps does not really include the responsibility of looking after someone else's pupil.:)

Magp1e,
Quite obviously, the average 747 captain would have flown many thousands of hours and if he couldn't cope with an ATC instruction he would have known from experience gleaned and would have told ATC so. If not he had no business sitting in either seat! The point is, would a 747 pilot ever be asked to complete this type of manouevre for another, faster, aircraft on finals, behind? If not, what's the difference? I very much doubt it; the second aircraft would have been given speed control, or given extra track miles, or a combination of both, which could also have been applied in the case of this accident.

As I previously stated, the average student on a second solo has very little spare capacity to cope with the unexpected and can easily get distracted from the basics of handling the aircraft. (Ask the average 747 captain, who would have once been in that position himself)! It's for this reason that the RAF has, for many years, had a Duty Instructor in the tower at flying training bases, to act as an ATC liaison and to be immediately on hand to advise solo students if necessary.

It appears that this young chap was sent solo in accordance with the normal CAA PPL syllabus and was reportedly a good student, so the answer to your question "was he allowed to go solo too early?" would appear to be NO.

Perhaps he tried to. About 30 seconds passed between the original go-around instruction and the turn to the north, which seems to have been made after the controller's confirmation of the instruction.

I don't think you can draw any such conclusion. The amended instruction was issued in an attempt to resolve the conflict, not because the readback was incomplete (which it was, but that's hardly surprising since the original phraseology was highly non-standard).

Sorry but you are wrong - he reported number one (as advised by ATC) and was instructed to

"golf bravo bravo roger and er maintain runway centreline but go around er circuit height one thousand feet there's fast traffic behind to land"

which was amended to

"er golf bravo bravo disregard that just take a left turn and fly north I'll you back in very shortly".

Just what does 'I'll call you back in very shortly' mean? And having been told to disregard the 'circuit height one thousand feet' what heightt was he expected to maintain? The height he was at when he turned? So he is now turning off the final approach, away from the airfield at a critical stage of flight, at a strange height, over a built up area with no clear idea what to expect next. Should he climb against the apparent instruction to just turn north? How long is 'very shortly'? Where will he be expected to re-intercept the glidepath and at what range from the airfield? It is for precisely these reasons that standard procedures are used with standard phraseology so that pilots (and controllers) instinctively know what the situation is and what is expected of them.

As a related aside, take a shufti at P12 of this weeks flight.

See any similarities?

pb

Shy Torque - Bookworm -Single spey

I take on board your points. I agree the RT used was non-standard and could have confused the pilot.

But...What you are agreeing through your statements is that he was incapable of responding to the situation in a safe manner. So should he have been solo?

Yes I have seen a 747 go around from 300ft albeit for a different reason than there was landing traffic behind, tho' I don't know why we keep bringing up the 747!