Go Around vs. Over Shoot
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Oz
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Go Around vs. Over Shoot
In a go around in an aircraft with retractable gear we retract the gear before the flaps.
However my question is in relation to conducting an overshoot at a large airport. Say you fly the approach as normal, when you start your climb out it is possible that you may have a couple of kilometres of runway remaining to land on if you had a engine failure.
Would you do a normal go around, retract the flaps but leave the gear down, or leave the flaps and gear down?
However my question is in relation to conducting an overshoot at a large airport. Say you fly the approach as normal, when you start your climb out it is possible that you may have a couple of kilometres of runway remaining to land on if you had a engine failure.
Would you do a normal go around, retract the flaps but leave the gear down, or leave the flaps and gear down?
Guest
Posts: n/a
L: This is one thing I try to implement; Pilot judgment, or pilotship as we like to call it. When we hone the skills of the student, he should be able to make that call according to his training of not only rules and procedures to follow, but also in pilot skills.
Personally I would retract the flaps to the amount a positive climb could be established, then the gear. It's better to have something to land on, right? Premature retraction of the landing gear could result in great humiliation!
Personally I would retract the flaps to the amount a positive climb could be established, then the gear. It's better to have something to land on, right? Premature retraction of the landing gear could result in great humiliation!
If you are flying the approach and overshoot for training purposes, then you are simulating a failure to get visual. In this case there is no point leaving the gear down as you can't land on a runway you can't see!
To leave the gear down "becuase in this case we can see the runway" is negative training.
To leave the gear down "becuase in this case we can see the runway" is negative training.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I beleave the procedure would be Flaps up (to the position recommended by the manufacture) followed by the gear (at a positive rate). Flaps up to get rid of the drag and preserve lift, coordinate with pitch to stop descent, follow with gear up (+roc) just incase aircraft sinks slightly (assuming close to ground) Rather roll the wheels slightly rather than re-skin the belly. Then climb to get away from the ground. Here in the states you are supose to track to the right of the runway after the go around. Lining back up might be tough at this point.
Why did you go around? Aircraft on runway? Might hit it. Bad approach? Do you really have the aircraft under complete control now?
If the engine does quit and you have to land it, you may be better off with the gear up. If you land on something other than pavement, having the gear up reduces the chances of the airplane flipping over. Even on pavement the airplane will slide nicely. Their are design consideration built into the fuselage for gear up landings.
Its good to think about what could happen and what you might do if and when it happens. That way you have already formulated a plan!
Why did you go around? Aircraft on runway? Might hit it. Bad approach? Do you really have the aircraft under complete control now?
If the engine does quit and you have to land it, you may be better off with the gear up. If you land on something other than pavement, having the gear up reduces the chances of the airplane flipping over. Even on pavement the airplane will slide nicely. Their are design consideration built into the fuselage for gear up landings.
Its good to think about what could happen and what you might do if and when it happens. That way you have already formulated a plan!
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you are less than a couple of miles (km)(Nm) finals. Gear down and configured. Why would you overshoot/go-around/miss?. .If you're staring at almost 10,000 feet of runway...land.. .If for some reason at mins you aren't visual...I think you'd prefer to . .1.) Set thrust/power and smoothly rotate your a/c to a positive deck angle, then call for; . .2.) Flap retraction. If you have 3 or 4 notches of flap, retract from 4th to 1st. then with a positive rate of climb. .3.) Select Gear Up.
Does that fit?. .Cheers and Happy Flying!. . <img src="wink.gif" border="0">
Does that fit?. .Cheers and Happy Flying!. . <img src="wink.gif" border="0">
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why not do it like the big boys/girls and put the power on, pitch it to a climb attitude, retract flaps from max drag to a setting which will ensure the warning horn won't blow, then retract the gear. Complete remainder of flap clean-up at safe altitude and speed. Whether one should wait for a positive rate of climb before retracting the gear depends on whether the aeroplane has the kind of performance to climb with gear still dangling, but you at least need to be sure you are not going to impact the ground before retracting gear as it does a lot to absorb crash forces.. .Retracting gear before getting rid of the landing flap will result in a most distracting warning horn on many types. Also, once you learn to do it one way, hopefully you will always be able to repeat it, whereas having different sequences for slightly different scenarios may cause confusion.. .If the flaps are at an intermediate setting, retracting them one stage before retracting the gear maintains the K.I.S.S. and won't do any harm if your speed is near where it should be.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TB 20 is one!
Extraction from POH:
GO-AROUND. .Smoothly apply full power. .Airspeed 76/81 KIAS
When climb rate is positive. .Landing gear lever UP. .Flaps “TAKE OFF”. .Airspeed 90 KIAS. .Flaps “RETRACTED”. .Climb at 95 KIAS
This is why it is important to read the POH and to know the correct procedure.
There was an article in an Australian magazine last month on this very subject. I shall try to find it tonight (which is mu birthday)! And post it.
Regards
NAP
Extraction from POH:
GO-AROUND. .Smoothly apply full power. .Airspeed 76/81 KIAS
When climb rate is positive. .Landing gear lever UP. .Flaps “TAKE OFF”. .Airspeed 90 KIAS. .Flaps “RETRACTED”. .Climb at 95 KIAS
This is why it is important to read the POH and to know the correct procedure.
There was an article in an Australian magazine last month on this very subject. I shall try to find it tonight (which is mu birthday)! And post it.
Regards
NAP
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Oz
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I feel I may not have made my question clear enough. The purpose of doing an overshoot is to practise a day VFR approach at a large airport (in my case Perth) without having to pay the landing fee. So there is no real reason that we cannot land on the runway. This is a common exercise amongst the flying schools that operate out of Jandakot.
In a real go around situation, the procedure is to retract the gear first to get rid of all the drag they produce with out any lift benifit, then once a positve rate of climb is established retract the flap in stages.
Thanks for all the replies everyone <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
In a real go around situation, the procedure is to retract the gear first to get rid of all the drag they produce with out any lift benifit, then once a positve rate of climb is established retract the flap in stages.
Thanks for all the replies everyone <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: united kingdom
Posts: 355
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting topic, which made me think.
I did multi training on a C310 about three years ago and was taught: gear first then flaps. Gear transits slowly and you want to start reducing drag asap. (As an aside, I did gear first then flaps ALL the way up -- from 30 degrees -- on a single engine go around, to the music of the stall warner, the aircraft still sinking, speed probably less than than blue-line and the ground approaching. Instructor put the nose down, swearing softly, and we recovered at about 50 to 100 feet agl. So I learned that the C310 procedure is gear up, flaps to 15 degrees, achieve climb, retract flaps fully, achieve blue line. This is valid for single engine or two engines, I think)
Then two years later I did a (single engine) IR in a Piper Arrow. Go around training was: power full, pitch already full fine, flaps up one notch on the 'handbrake', positive rate of climb, gear up, flaps up fully. This worked very well for the Arrow. The mnemonic was FGF(F).
I suppose the summary is: Know your aeroplane, its' performance and the FM/POH. Fly the aeroplane. Any go around close to the ground in IMC and especially SE MUST MUST be flown correctly.
Be Safe.... .Regards
I did multi training on a C310 about three years ago and was taught: gear first then flaps. Gear transits slowly and you want to start reducing drag asap. (As an aside, I did gear first then flaps ALL the way up -- from 30 degrees -- on a single engine go around, to the music of the stall warner, the aircraft still sinking, speed probably less than than blue-line and the ground approaching. Instructor put the nose down, swearing softly, and we recovered at about 50 to 100 feet agl. So I learned that the C310 procedure is gear up, flaps to 15 degrees, achieve climb, retract flaps fully, achieve blue line. This is valid for single engine or two engines, I think)
Then two years later I did a (single engine) IR in a Piper Arrow. Go around training was: power full, pitch already full fine, flaps up one notch on the 'handbrake', positive rate of climb, gear up, flaps up fully. This worked very well for the Arrow. The mnemonic was FGF(F).
I suppose the summary is: Know your aeroplane, its' performance and the FM/POH. Fly the aeroplane. Any go around close to the ground in IMC and especially SE MUST MUST be flown correctly.
Be Safe.... .Regards
Just another number
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 1,077
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't call "overshooting" in the US, or they'll send the fire trucks to the far end of the runway. 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.
Airclues
Airclues
Moderator
Perhaps I am just a nervous Nellie ... but I get rather twitchy reading of tales involving retracting the gear in light twins (with abysmal performance capabilities .. especially OEI) at the initiation of low level missed approaches ... and then waddling around scant feet above the ground with the wheels tucked away .. maybe I am just getting old ...
.. the thought of permitting oneself to be in the situation where an OEI missed approach is even a possibility from low level is not appealing in the slightest .. whatever happened to adopting a rather higher bottom line height below which the OEI missed approach is not an option ? .. or don't people do that these days ?
[ 02 February 2002: Message edited by: john_tullamarine ]</p>
.. the thought of permitting oneself to be in the situation where an OEI missed approach is even a possibility from low level is not appealing in the slightest .. whatever happened to adopting a rather higher bottom line height below which the OEI missed approach is not an option ? .. or don't people do that these days ?
[ 02 February 2002: Message edited by: john_tullamarine ]</p>
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alphaalpha:
I am quite interested in how you got into the pucker factor during your single engine go around in the 310.
Why did you ( or your instructor ) not use both engines to arrest the rate of sink and recover airspeed before you got so close to the runway?
I, like John T. get really nervous when I read about training flights conducted with such narrow tolerances allowed for safe flight.
I just cannot imagine when anyone would attempt to go around on one engine in a light piston engine twin at such a low altitude.
There is no way I would go around in a light piston engine twin with one feathered once I got down to decision height, far better to land in 0/0 weather than try to go around.
Or to put another way why would you get yourself in such a perdicament in the first place?
..................... .
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no.
I am quite interested in how you got into the pucker factor during your single engine go around in the 310.
Why did you ( or your instructor ) not use both engines to arrest the rate of sink and recover airspeed before you got so close to the runway?
I, like John T. get really nervous when I read about training flights conducted with such narrow tolerances allowed for safe flight.
I just cannot imagine when anyone would attempt to go around on one engine in a light piston engine twin at such a low altitude.
There is no way I would go around in a light piston engine twin with one feathered once I got down to decision height, far better to land in 0/0 weather than try to go around.
Or to put another way why would you get yourself in such a perdicament in the first place?
..................... .
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
Cat Driver:
First let me say I am not an instructor, but the guy who did my multi training is very experienced (also trains instructors) and I have great confidence in him.
I have gone back and read my notes written after each training session. In my earlier post my failing memory has probably caused me to exagerate the height at which we recovered. The go around was started at our agreed commital height, 400 ft agl, so I should think the lowest height reached was 200 ft agl.
As soon as the stall warner started, the instructor lowered the nose and the aircraft accelerated. I do not remember he or I applying full power on the 'failed' engine. It was not feathered, but was set to produce zero thrust, so it was available immediately, if required.
The C310 has good engine-out performance and will climb at nearly 500 fpm at sea level at max weight when flown correctly. We were light, so once blue-line speed was achieved, even at 200 ft agl, there was no problem.
Concerning your paragraph 'I just cannot imagine why anyone would go around on one engine in a light twin at such a low altitude.' Engine-out go arounds are in the training syllabus -- see R D Campbell's 'Flying Training Multi engine rating' book page 179 where he describes the excercise of going around on the approach starting at or above commital height. Clearly the whole excercise would have been carried out at a greater height if we had been flying something like a twin Commanche at near max weight.
Was it dangerous? No, I don't think so. Did I learn a lesson? Yes, definitely. Was there anything more to learn? Yes, need to fully understand the procedure - in this case, the need to retract flaps to only 15 degrees in the first instance. I don't think I will never ever make that mistake again.
Hope this helps.. .Regards
First let me say I am not an instructor, but the guy who did my multi training is very experienced (also trains instructors) and I have great confidence in him.
I have gone back and read my notes written after each training session. In my earlier post my failing memory has probably caused me to exagerate the height at which we recovered. The go around was started at our agreed commital height, 400 ft agl, so I should think the lowest height reached was 200 ft agl.
As soon as the stall warner started, the instructor lowered the nose and the aircraft accelerated. I do not remember he or I applying full power on the 'failed' engine. It was not feathered, but was set to produce zero thrust, so it was available immediately, if required.
The C310 has good engine-out performance and will climb at nearly 500 fpm at sea level at max weight when flown correctly. We were light, so once blue-line speed was achieved, even at 200 ft agl, there was no problem.
Concerning your paragraph 'I just cannot imagine why anyone would go around on one engine in a light twin at such a low altitude.' Engine-out go arounds are in the training syllabus -- see R D Campbell's 'Flying Training Multi engine rating' book page 179 where he describes the excercise of going around on the approach starting at or above commital height. Clearly the whole excercise would have been carried out at a greater height if we had been flying something like a twin Commanche at near max weight.
Was it dangerous? No, I don't think so. Did I learn a lesson? Yes, definitely. Was there anything more to learn? Yes, need to fully understand the procedure - in this case, the need to retract flaps to only 15 degrees in the first instance. I don't think I will never ever make that mistake again.
Hope this helps.. .Regards