Go Around vs. Over Shoot
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi again Alphaalpha:
Thanks for your reply and please understand that it is not my desire to embarrass you or anyone else here, my only reason for asking is to discuss the safe operation of aircraft.
There was some doubt in my mind as to exactly what you had described in your first description of the go around in the Cessna 310. With regard to the practice of single engine go arounds during training there is no operational reason why these exercises should not be carried out at an altitude sufficient to recover should the airplane depart from controlled flight. Say for instance four or five thousand feet above ground.
Arguably the most common loss of life in twin engine airplanes is due to engine failures and loss of control during the initial take off and climb out segment. A large precentage of such accidents are due to pilot error. Regardless of how poor the performance of any given light twin may be with an engine out there is no reason to depart controlled flight and roll over and make a lawn dart out of it.
Now I agree that the 310 lightly loaded has sufficient single engine climb performance to safely perform a go around and climb to a safe altitude, providing you start from a densitity altitude that allows sufficient climb performance.
I do however have some discomfort with the instructor allowing the situation to deteriroate to the point where the stall warning was sounding with gear and flaps down, from four hundred feet you in all likelyhood wouldnt have a prayer of recovery once it departed controlled flight.
My reason for going into all this discussion is simply because there is this missconseption among the great majority of pilots that their instructors are real experts and their teaching methods are beyond reproach, sadly in many cases this is not true.
One of the most frustrating and discouraging aspects of the business I am in is the low level of flying skills and understanding of flight that I observe among what should be qualified pilots.. .Re training is far more difficult than training as the habits and preceptions of how to fly are in most cases very difficult to erase.
May I add the comment that almost without exception I find the military trained pilots to be far superior in flying skills and knowledge of aerodynamics than civilian trained pilots. That of course is due to the quality of their instructors and the fact that money is not the same consideration generally speaking.
Anyhow I do appreciate your reply and trust that you take my comments as trying to help not hinder.. .: <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> . .................. .
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no.
Thanks for your reply and please understand that it is not my desire to embarrass you or anyone else here, my only reason for asking is to discuss the safe operation of aircraft.
There was some doubt in my mind as to exactly what you had described in your first description of the go around in the Cessna 310. With regard to the practice of single engine go arounds during training there is no operational reason why these exercises should not be carried out at an altitude sufficient to recover should the airplane depart from controlled flight. Say for instance four or five thousand feet above ground.
Arguably the most common loss of life in twin engine airplanes is due to engine failures and loss of control during the initial take off and climb out segment. A large precentage of such accidents are due to pilot error. Regardless of how poor the performance of any given light twin may be with an engine out there is no reason to depart controlled flight and roll over and make a lawn dart out of it.
Now I agree that the 310 lightly loaded has sufficient single engine climb performance to safely perform a go around and climb to a safe altitude, providing you start from a densitity altitude that allows sufficient climb performance.
I do however have some discomfort with the instructor allowing the situation to deteriroate to the point where the stall warning was sounding with gear and flaps down, from four hundred feet you in all likelyhood wouldnt have a prayer of recovery once it departed controlled flight.
My reason for going into all this discussion is simply because there is this missconseption among the great majority of pilots that their instructors are real experts and their teaching methods are beyond reproach, sadly in many cases this is not true.
One of the most frustrating and discouraging aspects of the business I am in is the low level of flying skills and understanding of flight that I observe among what should be qualified pilots.. .Re training is far more difficult than training as the habits and preceptions of how to fly are in most cases very difficult to erase.
May I add the comment that almost without exception I find the military trained pilots to be far superior in flying skills and knowledge of aerodynamics than civilian trained pilots. That of course is due to the quality of their instructors and the fact that money is not the same consideration generally speaking.
Anyhow I do appreciate your reply and trust that you take my comments as trying to help not hinder.. .: <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> . .................. .
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: united kingdom
Posts: 355
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Cat Driver:
No problem at all with your comments. We all make mistakes and do things that are sometimes stupid, sometimes embarrassing. In this particular case, the stubid/embarrassing thing was the briefing or my understanding of it. I'm quite happy to share my mistakes with others. That way we all learn something.
The lesson of this thread is, I think, that the safe procedures for cleaning-up in a go around situation differ from a/c to a/c and a low level engine out go-around is a critical situation which you can not afford to get wrong.
So far as practicing at low level is concerned, I really don't have the experience to comment. I'm happy to accept your view.
Thinking about my story a bit further, you should maintain blue-line speed down the approach until you commit to land, shouldn't you. So I was at blue line at the start of the g/a. Since the stall warner sounded, I must have lifted the nose too high and allowed the speed to decay before the a/c was cleaned up. This means I made two mistakes: trying to climb at the expense of speed AND raising the flaps full up in one go.
<img src="redface.gif" border="0"> . .Regards
No problem at all with your comments. We all make mistakes and do things that are sometimes stupid, sometimes embarrassing. In this particular case, the stubid/embarrassing thing was the briefing or my understanding of it. I'm quite happy to share my mistakes with others. That way we all learn something.
The lesson of this thread is, I think, that the safe procedures for cleaning-up in a go around situation differ from a/c to a/c and a low level engine out go-around is a critical situation which you can not afford to get wrong.
So far as practicing at low level is concerned, I really don't have the experience to comment. I'm happy to accept your view.
Thinking about my story a bit further, you should maintain blue-line speed down the approach until you commit to land, shouldn't you. So I was at blue line at the start of the g/a. Since the stall warner sounded, I must have lifted the nose too high and allowed the speed to decay before the a/c was cleaned up. This means I made two mistakes: trying to climb at the expense of speed AND raising the flaps full up in one go.
<img src="redface.gif" border="0"> . .Regards
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to the NTSB and the AOPA, most twin pilots lose the airplane during a single engine approach and landing phase of flight.
Interesting. You would think the SE Take-off/departure would be number one.
Interesting. You would think the SE Take-off/departure would be number one.
Moderator
If I may amplify a comment of Cat Driver's, similarly tongue in cheek .. four or five thousand feet for OEI missed approach practice is a good idea ... allows for a cup of coffee while the aircraft progressively descends on one engine to a much lower height where there might be a semblance of excess thrust to arrest the descent .. should this coincidentally occur at an altitude higher than the ground ... then that is a GOOD THING.
On a serious note .. the quality of instructors is critical, regardless of their origin.
I had the very good fortune to submit to the tender mercies of a couple of very experienced (and no longer with us) old greybeards (they must have been all of 45-50 .. I was around 17 at the time) for my initial training (a long time ago). As the RAAF was paying (some of the older Oz pilots might remember the now long defunct ATC scholarship scheme) they saw no reason to be other than (nicely) merciless (ruthless?). The end result was a course of 10 or so which progressed very rapidly and learnt a great deal...
I cannot speculate regarding the overseas experience but here, in Australia, I see much evidence that the sort of instructor typically encountered in the 60s (competent, gruff and grizzled) has, to an uncomfortable degree, been superseded by the "be nice to the student" style significantly driven by the commercial imperative of "the student might go someplace else for the next lesson".
One consequence of this sort of situation, I suspect, is that mediocrity begets mediocrity and the overall (GA instructor) industry standard here has, for good or bad, gone somewhat downhill over the past 20-30 years .. this is not to suggest that there are no superb instructors about .. there most certainly are ... but there are also a great many mediocre examples of the beast.
On a serious note .. the quality of instructors is critical, regardless of their origin.
I had the very good fortune to submit to the tender mercies of a couple of very experienced (and no longer with us) old greybeards (they must have been all of 45-50 .. I was around 17 at the time) for my initial training (a long time ago). As the RAAF was paying (some of the older Oz pilots might remember the now long defunct ATC scholarship scheme) they saw no reason to be other than (nicely) merciless (ruthless?). The end result was a course of 10 or so which progressed very rapidly and learnt a great deal...
I cannot speculate regarding the overseas experience but here, in Australia, I see much evidence that the sort of instructor typically encountered in the 60s (competent, gruff and grizzled) has, to an uncomfortable degree, been superseded by the "be nice to the student" style significantly driven by the commercial imperative of "the student might go someplace else for the next lesson".
One consequence of this sort of situation, I suspect, is that mediocrity begets mediocrity and the overall (GA instructor) industry standard here has, for good or bad, gone somewhat downhill over the past 20-30 years .. this is not to suggest that there are no superb instructors about .. there most certainly are ... but there are also a great many mediocre examples of the beast.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yxcapt:
Hadn't really given it much thought but it is probably because the a/c is configured for climb and is usually accelerating whereas on a landing it is generally the opposite.Hmmm.
Anyhow, practice go arounds in light piston engine twins can get out of hand real fast if you are only using one engine to fly it, easy to correct most mistakes at altitude however can be dangerous near the ground.
Just reinforces my own opinion about feathering just to have a look at the prop stopped. It flys the same in simulated feather with the option of using the 0 thrust engine immediately should you need it.
When someone wishes to see / practice an actual feathering unfeathering sequence I get a ground power unit and we feather / unfeather parked on the ramp or sitting in the hangar.
No danger involved in doing it that way.
Can't wait for spring so I can go back to work instead of giving myself a keyboard lobotomy on pprune. <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
...............
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no.
Hadn't really given it much thought but it is probably because the a/c is configured for climb and is usually accelerating whereas on a landing it is generally the opposite.Hmmm.
Anyhow, practice go arounds in light piston engine twins can get out of hand real fast if you are only using one engine to fly it, easy to correct most mistakes at altitude however can be dangerous near the ground.
Just reinforces my own opinion about feathering just to have a look at the prop stopped. It flys the same in simulated feather with the option of using the 0 thrust engine immediately should you need it.
When someone wishes to see / practice an actual feathering unfeathering sequence I get a ground power unit and we feather / unfeather parked on the ramp or sitting in the hangar.
No danger involved in doing it that way.
Can't wait for spring so I can go back to work instead of giving myself a keyboard lobotomy on pprune. <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
...............
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no.
Moderator
There is one consideration which favours at least a look at a feathered landing for training familiarisation. On a prop aircraft with significant (as in lots of) power, the drag of the (asymmetric) operating engine during the flare as the throttles are closed can be a surprise on the first exposure.
Apart from that I concur with the view that ill-considered practice (in all its forms) can kill you far more consistently than the less frequently occurring situation for which you were practising in the first place.
Apart from that I concur with the view that ill-considered practice (in all its forms) can kill you far more consistently than the less frequently occurring situation for which you were practising in the first place.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John-T:
About ten years ago I sold a flight training school with six fixed wing aircraft and one R22 helicopter for the simple reason that I could no longer accept the frustration of trying to operate a flight school with the robots the Government forced me to hire. For instance I put a J3 cub on line for those who wished to learn on a conventional gear airplane, guess what, only one instructor would fly it. The rest were convinced that it was just to difficult to train on.
I have reached the conclusion that flight instruction should be split into two camps. Schools that train airline crews to operate todays modern computerized aircraft and a seperate class of school with more flexibility in the methods of instruction. By that I mean the school can be free to choose their own curriculum free of the rote learning, dumbed down to the lowest common demoninator enforced teaching methods that the government insists on now.
This would allow for a choice of training for the student as there is definately a difference in flying between airlines and recreational flying.
When I learned to fly I had to first become an airplane mechanic before they allowed me to fly. ( Cubs and Stearman crop dusters ) <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> beyond doubt that gave me a great advantage during my ensuing years and also allowed me to seamlessly shift into the glass cockpit era of todays world.. .The one thing I am still not comfortable with is landing the A320 in a stromg x/wind, my brain and hands and feet want me to fly it like a DC3, unfortunately a DC3 it ain't.
Looking foward to meeting all you down under guys and gals hopefully in about a year from now.
By the way Melbourne is blocked for a four day inspection on the airplane.
. .................. . The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no.
About ten years ago I sold a flight training school with six fixed wing aircraft and one R22 helicopter for the simple reason that I could no longer accept the frustration of trying to operate a flight school with the robots the Government forced me to hire. For instance I put a J3 cub on line for those who wished to learn on a conventional gear airplane, guess what, only one instructor would fly it. The rest were convinced that it was just to difficult to train on.
I have reached the conclusion that flight instruction should be split into two camps. Schools that train airline crews to operate todays modern computerized aircraft and a seperate class of school with more flexibility in the methods of instruction. By that I mean the school can be free to choose their own curriculum free of the rote learning, dumbed down to the lowest common demoninator enforced teaching methods that the government insists on now.
This would allow for a choice of training for the student as there is definately a difference in flying between airlines and recreational flying.
When I learned to fly I had to first become an airplane mechanic before they allowed me to fly. ( Cubs and Stearman crop dusters ) <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> beyond doubt that gave me a great advantage during my ensuing years and also allowed me to seamlessly shift into the glass cockpit era of todays world.. .The one thing I am still not comfortable with is landing the A320 in a stromg x/wind, my brain and hands and feet want me to fly it like a DC3, unfortunately a DC3 it ain't.
Looking foward to meeting all you down under guys and gals hopefully in about a year from now.
By the way Melbourne is blocked for a four day inspection on the airplane.
. .................. .
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cat-
The engine out go-around in a light twin just aint possable 99% of the time anyway. I do attempt to demostrate this at about 2000 ft AGL. If the student is lucky, he'll maintain altitude at the bottom of the final descent. Most descend well below the simulated field elevation.
Most prop manufacture recommend not feathering props on the ground and have the Tech put it back in the fine pitch position when needed. I guess if your in a King Air with those pratts you could feather and unfeather all day!!
John T. makes a good point. Landing with a prop feather the airplane will float without the drag. It's hard to simulate the feathered prop. Zero thrust is safer, but it is not minimum drag like the feathered prop will be.
I don't advocate engine out/prop feathered landings during training. If it happens, it happens but if the student really screws it up you have to save your butt by either adding (attempt SE go-around) or reducing power (and keep it up right befor you hit). In either case your screwwed!
A thought on the Old Grey beards. I was tought to really fly an airplane from a WWII P-51 Ace, Harold(Spence)Spencer. I had 2000 hours when I first flew with him. I learned more from him in the 2 years I worked for him than from anyone else before or after him. God rest his soul.
The engine out go-around in a light twin just aint possable 99% of the time anyway. I do attempt to demostrate this at about 2000 ft AGL. If the student is lucky, he'll maintain altitude at the bottom of the final descent. Most descend well below the simulated field elevation.
Most prop manufacture recommend not feathering props on the ground and have the Tech put it back in the fine pitch position when needed. I guess if your in a King Air with those pratts you could feather and unfeather all day!!
John T. makes a good point. Landing with a prop feather the airplane will float without the drag. It's hard to simulate the feathered prop. Zero thrust is safer, but it is not minimum drag like the feathered prop will be.
I don't advocate engine out/prop feathered landings during training. If it happens, it happens but if the student really screws it up you have to save your butt by either adding (attempt SE go-around) or reducing power (and keep it up right befor you hit). In either case your screwwed!
A thought on the Old Grey beards. I was tought to really fly an airplane from a WWII P-51 Ace, Harold(Spence)Spencer. I had 2000 hours when I first flew with him. I learned more from him in the 2 years I worked for him than from anyone else before or after him. God rest his soul.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yxcapt:
The engine I was referring to is a P&W, however it is a P&W 1830 radial and of course the feathering is done by an electrc feathering motor producing 1400 psi oil pressure to feather and unfeather the prop. So all we need is electrical power and we can feather / unfeather without running the engine.
We also have another slight edge we do not need to call a tech. as there are only three of us in our company and we are all both pilots and the mechanics so except for unusual problems that require a DAR we do everything ourselves.
This has been a good discussion and we should continue to seek others opinions, because none of us know very much in the grand scheme of things.
............
. . The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no.
The engine I was referring to is a P&W, however it is a P&W 1830 radial and of course the feathering is done by an electrc feathering motor producing 1400 psi oil pressure to feather and unfeather the prop. So all we need is electrical power and we can feather / unfeather without running the engine.
We also have another slight edge we do not need to call a tech. as there are only three of us in our company and we are all both pilots and the mechanics so except for unusual problems that require a DAR we do everything ourselves.
This has been a good discussion and we should continue to seek others opinions, because none of us know very much in the grand scheme of things.
............
. .
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no.
Moderator
Amen to that ... the older I get .. and the more I learn .. the more I realise that there is far, far more to know than I had previously imagined.
How I survived being a young pilot is quite beyond me ....
How I survived being a young pilot is quite beyond me ....
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cat-
I have very little round engine all of it in 2 single engine airplanes (UPF-7 & SNJ). Back when most of my friends and myself where building time, I got lucky and started flying turbins. There is one airplane I really want to fly, the DC-3. Someday.....
John T & Cat-. .Like you, I cant beleave I survived my early years. Between bad employiers and the dumb decisions I've made, I truely wounder how I got to be where I am today. As long as we keep learning we know we are alive.
Thanks
I have very little round engine all of it in 2 single engine airplanes (UPF-7 & SNJ). Back when most of my friends and myself where building time, I got lucky and started flying turbins. There is one airplane I really want to fly, the DC-3. Someday.....
John T & Cat-. .Like you, I cant beleave I survived my early years. Between bad employiers and the dumb decisions I've made, I truely wounder how I got to be where I am today. As long as we keep learning we know we are alive.
Thanks
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yxcapt:
The DC3 is truly a pilots delight, what you fly usually is determined by when you upgraded. I just happened to start flying for an airline during the DC3 era so put I in about five thousand hours in them. But the hands down best airplane from a Jesus look what Ive got my hands on machine has to be the Catalina. Just something about the beast that nothing else I have flown can come close to. I hate to sound insulting but a turbo prop or a jet just dosen't have that certain sound and romance of a big radial.
As soon as the weather gets flyable over the North Atlantic I have to move a Cat from London to Virginia Beach, and it just ain't like rocketing up to FL390 and monitoring a multi colored video game. We have no radar, no anti ice and the world moves below us about 120 knots on a good day.
Do you remember the good old days when Fed Ex started with Beech 18's?
Oh hell I have to go to bed.
................ . The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no.
The DC3 is truly a pilots delight, what you fly usually is determined by when you upgraded. I just happened to start flying for an airline during the DC3 era so put I in about five thousand hours in them. But the hands down best airplane from a Jesus look what Ive got my hands on machine has to be the Catalina. Just something about the beast that nothing else I have flown can come close to. I hate to sound insulting but a turbo prop or a jet just dosen't have that certain sound and romance of a big radial.
As soon as the weather gets flyable over the North Atlantic I have to move a Cat from London to Virginia Beach, and it just ain't like rocketing up to FL390 and monitoring a multi colored video game. We have no radar, no anti ice and the world moves below us about 120 knots on a good day.
Do you remember the good old days when Fed Ex started with Beech 18's?
Oh hell I have to go to bed.
................ .
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: A PC!
Posts: 594
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you are going around to fly a visual circuit I would have thought that it would still make sense to fly your standard go-around procedure.
You will have a standard G/A for instrument (missed) approaches, so why not fly this for the practice and kill two birds with one stone? Then, if your normal visual circuit requires a different configuration, you have loads of time as you turn downwind to get set up.
I have never seen the point in making up alternative procedures when you probably have standard procedures which will do the job perfectly well.
You will have a standard G/A for instrument (missed) approaches, so why not fly this for the practice and kill two birds with one stone? Then, if your normal visual circuit requires a different configuration, you have loads of time as you turn downwind to get set up.
I have never seen the point in making up alternative procedures when you probably have standard procedures which will do the job perfectly well.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: united kingdom
Posts: 355
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cat--. .Re your London - USA in a Cat (now I understand your 'handle')
Do you need a co-pilot?. .No, I cam't say that. Do you need a 'helper????'
Sounds great fun and, from previous posts on this thread, we have some things to discuss.
Regards
Do you need a co-pilot?. .No, I cam't say that. Do you need a 'helper????'
Sounds great fun and, from previous posts on this thread, we have some things to discuss.
Regards
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAT-
Sounds like hard work, but fun as all get out! I help out at the EAA in Oshkosh. When not working, you can find me listening to the war birds start, taxi, take-off....what noise!! Personal favorite P-51 fly-bys.
I don't remember Fed-Ex Beeches. I do recall their Falcon 20s. My old boss was asked to join them as a pilot & examiner very early on (he was one of the first to fly the 20). He thought the company wouldn't last fly boxes in jets and turned them down. I think he still kicks himself about that call.
In the CAT, how much flying time and how many fuel stops. Do you have any old Pan American ghosts flying that route with you?
Sounds like hard work, but fun as all get out! I help out at the EAA in Oshkosh. When not working, you can find me listening to the war birds start, taxi, take-off....what noise!! Personal favorite P-51 fly-bys.
I don't remember Fed-Ex Beeches. I do recall their Falcon 20s. My old boss was asked to join them as a pilot & examiner very early on (he was one of the first to fly the 20). He thought the company wouldn't last fly boxes in jets and turned them down. I think he still kicks himself about that call.
In the CAT, how much flying time and how many fuel stops. Do you have any old Pan American ghosts flying that route with you?
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yxcapt:
Our routing will be.
North Weald England to Prestwick Scotland 2.5 hours.
Prestwick - Keflavik Iceland 6.5 hours.
Keflavik - Narsarsuaq Greenland 6.5 hours
Narsarsuaq - Goose Bay NFLD. 6.0 hours
Goose Bay - Virginia Beach 11.0 hours
We do a lot of this type of flying and even though the Cat will fly 20 hours non stop, for single engine safety reasons we try to keep our legs within a reasonable take off all up weight.
The South Atlantic route was a case where we departed Dakar 5,000 pounds over gross alowable with a ferry permit. The first six to eight hours we are flying two single engine airplanes in one , if we lose an engine we will end up landing on the ocean, not a pleasant thought.
Take a look at our web site and some pictures of some of the places we fly.
<a href="http://www.pbyflighttraining.com" target="_blank">www.pbyflighttraining.com</a>
................. . The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no.
Our routing will be.
North Weald England to Prestwick Scotland 2.5 hours.
Prestwick - Keflavik Iceland 6.5 hours.
Keflavik - Narsarsuaq Greenland 6.5 hours
Narsarsuaq - Goose Bay NFLD. 6.0 hours
Goose Bay - Virginia Beach 11.0 hours
We do a lot of this type of flying and even though the Cat will fly 20 hours non stop, for single engine safety reasons we try to keep our legs within a reasonable take off all up weight.
The South Atlantic route was a case where we departed Dakar 5,000 pounds over gross alowable with a ferry permit. The first six to eight hours we are flying two single engine airplanes in one , if we lose an engine we will end up landing on the ocean, not a pleasant thought.
Take a look at our web site and some pictures of some of the places we fly.
<a href="http://www.pbyflighttraining.com" target="_blank">www.pbyflighttraining.com</a>
................. .
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,085
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the US, and now in many other countries, a go-around is when you abort the landing, an overshoot is when you run off the end of the runway.
Overshoot: (1) To abandon landing and make fresh approach; in US called missed approach or go-around; (2) To land too far across available landing area and make uncontrolled excursion into region beyond; (3) To exceed desired IAS, alt or other flight condition
