Going around...
BP - I gotta disagree with John Deakin (nobody ever said I didn't have guts!).
I am in no doubt that there would be at least one dead horse, one dead skippy, two mangled C210s and maybe one or more dead or injured people in the last 30 years had I followed JD's advice.
Fire-wall the b*stard, I say, and learn to deal with it in a safe manner!
The Bo has some grunt but it sure as hell is not going to torque roll on me.
Dr
I am in no doubt that there would be at least one dead horse, one dead skippy, two mangled C210s and maybe one or more dead or injured people in the last 30 years had I followed JD's advice.
Fire-wall the b*stard, I say, and learn to deal with it in a safe manner!
The Bo has some grunt but it sure as hell is not going to torque roll on me.
Dr
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Usually Oz
Posts: 732
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the subject of jet performance, I'm reminded of 2 go-arounds in that little rocket, the B747-SP38.
The 1st was with me flying in the RHS and misjudged the VOR onto r/w 25 in SYD. When we broke out of the cloud layer we were far too high [both agreed we made the same assessment; optical illusion without checking the DME!
], so going around from >1,000ft wasn't a drama. I chose to use CLIMB thrust instead of G/A [the latter adequate to launch a space shuttle in the power/weight ratio of the -SP] and was criticised later by the S/O who said I should have used G/A thrust as it was a "procedure."
The second was at HNL landing on 08L as a pax around door 3 [door 4 on a full-body.] Apparently a Herc was a bit slow off the runway and they went around with full charge [much lower altitude than 1st case above.] We were pressed into our seats as the rotate and climb started. Sitting in seat thinks..."Hangon, the G/A altitude is only 2,000ft!??
", when the power came off and we were all extended in our straps like a negative G rollercoaster as the power came right off and they pushed over! Would have suited NASA's astronaut syllabus!!
So, there could be a case for keeping track of the bigger picture, albeit in proportion to the excess performance available.
G'day
The 1st was with me flying in the RHS and misjudged the VOR onto r/w 25 in SYD. When we broke out of the cloud layer we were far too high [both agreed we made the same assessment; optical illusion without checking the DME!
], so going around from >1,000ft wasn't a drama. I chose to use CLIMB thrust instead of G/A [the latter adequate to launch a space shuttle in the power/weight ratio of the -SP] and was criticised later by the S/O who said I should have used G/A thrust as it was a "procedure."The second was at HNL landing on 08L as a pax around door 3 [door 4 on a full-body.] Apparently a Herc was a bit slow off the runway and they went around with full charge [much lower altitude than 1st case above.] We were pressed into our seats as the rotate and climb started. Sitting in seat thinks..."Hangon, the G/A altitude is only 2,000ft!??
", when the power came off and we were all extended in our straps like a negative G rollercoaster as the power came right off and they pushed over! Would have suited NASA's astronaut syllabus!!So, there could be a case for keeping track of the bigger picture, albeit in proportion to the excess performance available.
G'day
Acturrly, John Deakin is rather specific about go rounds for everything else-
Baby on the runway!
So your faith in your fellow Bo driver is restored, FTDK
Baby on the runway!
So your faith in your fellow Bo driver is restored, FTDK
Last edited by OZBUSDRIVER; 19th Dec 2007 at 01:54.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: ...
Posts: 341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a pilot taking-off from YBAF in a bonanza with elevator trim set in the full nose-up position (15/03/81)
PIC was unfamiliar with trim position indicator and a/c was previously flown by pilot who's landing technique involved the use of full nose-up trim.
PIC was unfamiliar with trim position indicator and a/c was previously flown by pilot who's landing technique involved the use of full nose-up trim.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Boggabilla
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From first post perhaps????
“go around” only implies that you “go around” and therefore you only need to arrest the descent, which means you wont have to fight the trim setting as much and everything becomes much more manageable
what does it have to do with going-around in a properly-trimmed aircraft?
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: ...
Posts: 341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks, Shorvath...
Why wouldn't the aircraft be properly-trimmed (~65kt @ 500ft/min ROD) prior to go-around?
Or did you mean not properly-trimmed for a go-around? Who pre-sets go-around trim during a landing, just in case of a go-around???
The pilot in this example above took-off in an improperly-trimmed aircraft - full nose-up trim, I gather.
I dunno, maybe youse are right and we all need to cater for the most unlikely situation possible, which might be: "finding yourself" (the way she did) at a very high-speed, with full nose-up trim applied and a very high power setting, all three pushing the nose up with greater force than you can counter, and unable to remove a hand from the yoke to trim or adjust power. Or should we just check the trim setting prior to take-off (as per training) and maintain awareness?
But as far as I'm concerned, in a go-around, you should be able to handle the forces involved (as the manufacturer intended) or you shouldn't be flying the aircraft.
Wouldn't you say the go around was initiated while the a/c wasn't properly trimmed ie pilot considered that using full power would require greater force (probably previously not experienced) to maintain control?
Or did you mean not properly-trimmed for a go-around? Who pre-sets go-around trim during a landing, just in case of a go-around???
The pilot in this example above took-off in an improperly-trimmed aircraft - full nose-up trim, I gather.
I dunno, maybe youse are right and we all need to cater for the most unlikely situation possible, which might be: "finding yourself" (the way she did) at a very high-speed, with full nose-up trim applied and a very high power setting, all three pushing the nose up with greater force than you can counter, and unable to remove a hand from the yoke to trim or adjust power. Or should we just check the trim setting prior to take-off (as per training) and maintain awareness?
But as far as I'm concerned, in a go-around, you should be able to handle the forces involved (as the manufacturer intended) or you shouldn't be flying the aircraft.
Full Power?
Anyone got any comments on (more applicable to S/E I know...) having height up your sleeve for EFATO?
More height = more choices.
More height = more choices.
"The advantage of M/E is you can fly to where you crash."
"Anyone got any comments on (more applicable to S/E I know...) having height up your sleeve for EFATO?
More height = more choices."
Sorry ..... but I just can't get into this idea of max rate/angle of climb on TO, or hugging the runway in the circuit in case of an EFATO event.
If I thought there was a real chance of an engine failure on TO or anywhere else, I would never depart YTWB (in either direction) or fly SE IFR over an unknown ceiling - or TO from Cherrabah two weeks ago!
I know who flys the FTDK (me!) and I know who maintains it.
I guess if it happens and I smack in, someone can start a thread in here -
See Doc - we told you so!
Dr
More height = more choices."
Sorry ..... but I just can't get into this idea of max rate/angle of climb on TO, or hugging the runway in the circuit in case of an EFATO event.
If I thought there was a real chance of an engine failure on TO or anywhere else, I would never depart YTWB (in either direction) or fly SE IFR over an unknown ceiling - or TO from Cherrabah two weeks ago!
I know who flys the FTDK (me!) and I know who maintains it.
I guess if it happens and I smack in, someone can start a thread in here -
See Doc - we told you so!
Dr
If I thought there was a real chance of an engine failure on TO or anywhere else, I would never depart
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Climbing out hanging off the prop is not a smart idea under most circumstances. Usually less than desired cooling, high loads on everything, and as a very wise man told me recently......sure climb over a steep angle if you need to but climb out with a bit more speed and less angle, because if the fan stops, you will stall before you recover if you are swinging of the prop. Better o have some airspeed up, be able to puch forward and actually fly the thing to the least nasty resting spot.
I think they are wise words........and if he logs in here soon I am sure you will get a more sophisticated description.
J
I think they are wise words........and if he logs in here soon I am sure you will get a more sophisticated description.
J
and the instructor should be following the procedure exactly as it is detailed in the flight school's documentation
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Full power should be applied on a go around....every time. If an engine fails in that stage of flight you will need every pony you can muster very quickly. You would be raising the nose to a climb attitude which means a reducing airspeed and getting closer to Vyse. You don't want to reach blue line at anything less than full grunt. Inertia is an important factor when considering a decision altitude for a go around and if applying full flap these should be delayed until that altitude has been reached. Personally my decision altitude has always been 400' in a light/medium twin. If I am convinced all is good for the landing I select full flap and below 400 I am committed. I know some use 300 but the guy would want to be pretty hot on his currency.
There is a special place in hell reserved for people who provide disinformation.
We are not talking about jets or people in twins breaking off an IFR approach.
We are talking about a single engined VFR aircraft.
The issue here is the trim change involved in the worst case scenario. That is the transition from full flap descending flight on the back end of the drag curve with minimal power, to firstly arresting the descent and then climbing away.
I don't give a rats @ss about the subtleties of IFR flight, turbine flight, jet flight , etc.
The reality is that depending on the load. C of G, flap and trim setting etc. The load on the control column in a go around will change very markedly very quickly. Add to that a yaw to the left in some aircraft under some situations.
It is simply foolish not to practice this standard and unremarkable manouvre - the go around, under the worst conditions possible, to wit a situation requiring full throttle under the worst configuration, loading and CG conditions possible.
As I said, t almost cost a mate and his family their lives, and even a C172 will exercise your muscles until you get it configured to climb.
To any students.......... don't listen to crap posted here. Do what your instructor tells you.
I speak from the experience of a stack of military (army) exercises that always finished just before the vinegar stroke.
To put it another way Sunshine, go and get your favourite aircraft, and if you haven't done it before, load it to the full aft CG and configure it for a short landing at close to max. weight and do a full throttle go around from about ten feet.
What happens next might surprise you if you have only done the "simulated" part throttle go around.
Do it balls to the wall as if you meant it.
We are not talking about jets or people in twins breaking off an IFR approach.
We are talking about a single engined VFR aircraft.
The issue here is the trim change involved in the worst case scenario. That is the transition from full flap descending flight on the back end of the drag curve with minimal power, to firstly arresting the descent and then climbing away.
I don't give a rats @ss about the subtleties of IFR flight, turbine flight, jet flight , etc.
The reality is that depending on the load. C of G, flap and trim setting etc. The load on the control column in a go around will change very markedly very quickly. Add to that a yaw to the left in some aircraft under some situations.
It is simply foolish not to practice this standard and unremarkable manouvre - the go around, under the worst conditions possible, to wit a situation requiring full throttle under the worst configuration, loading and CG conditions possible.
As I said, t almost cost a mate and his family their lives, and even a C172 will exercise your muscles until you get it configured to climb.
To any students.......... don't listen to crap posted here. Do what your instructor tells you.
I speak from the experience of a stack of military (army) exercises that always finished just before the vinegar stroke.
To put it another way Sunshine, go and get your favourite aircraft, and if you haven't done it before, load it to the full aft CG and configure it for a short landing at close to max. weight and do a full throttle go around from about ten feet.
What happens next might surprise you if you have only done the "simulated" part throttle go around.
Do it balls to the wall as if you meant it.
Last edited by Sunfish; 19th Dec 2007 at 12:12.
Most sensible thing said yet!
Most sensible thing said yet!
Quote from Sunfish:
To any students.......... don't listen to crap posted here. Do what your instructor tells you.
Quote from Sunfish:
To any students.......... don't listen to crap posted here. Do what your instructor tells you.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: ...
Posts: 341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most sensible thing posted yet:
And here's a good reason why:
WTF, Fish, do you always fly your approaches on the back side of the drag curve? With an Aft CofG??
Why????????
"Minimal power" to achieve the above full-flap/back of drag curve in your lighty is actually going to a fair bit of available power. An increase to full-power for your go-around won't add that much more.
Or did you mean LOW power? This obviously is unachievable.
Anyone who advocates flying approaches well behind the drag curve in a low-powered lighty to low-experience sprogs might very well find himself in...
PS: Are you saying you're an ex Army pilot?
don't listen to crap posted here
full flap descending flight on the back end of the drag curve with minimal power
Why????????
"Minimal power" to achieve the above full-flap/back of drag curve in your lighty is actually going to a fair bit of available power. An increase to full-power for your go-around won't add that much more.
Or did you mean LOW power? This obviously is unachievable.
Anyone who advocates flying approaches well behind the drag curve in a low-powered lighty to low-experience sprogs might very well find himself in...
a special place in hell
PS: Are you saying you're an ex Army pilot?
Of course I'm not an ex army pilot, I was simply referring to people who "simulate" things the way the army used to do ie: NEWD = Night Exercise Without Darkness, TEWT = Tactical Exercise Without Troops.
...And someone is suggesting a new one ... GAWFP = Go Around Without Full Power.
And as for being "On the wrong side of the drag curve" where on the curve do you think your aircraft is flying when its a foot or so above the runway towards the end of your flare?
Being a total dumbass amateur, the Go Around is the one manoeuvre I get to practice a lot, and there needs to be no hesitation in using full power, especially on a hot day with a loaded aircraft, and you are staring at the hills coming towards you. Get used to the control forces you will have to endure until you can get the aircraft reconfigured and trimmed.
...And someone is suggesting a new one ... GAWFP = Go Around Without Full Power.
And as for being "On the wrong side of the drag curve" where on the curve do you think your aircraft is flying when its a foot or so above the runway towards the end of your flare?
Being a total dumbass amateur, the Go Around is the one manoeuvre I get to practice a lot, and there needs to be no hesitation in using full power, especially on a hot day with a loaded aircraft, and you are staring at the hills coming towards you. Get used to the control forces you will have to endure until you can get the aircraft reconfigured and trimmed.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: ...
Posts: 341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see. I figured what with the references to army exercies you must've been in the bizz...
Regardless... yes, the a/c passes through the back of the drag curve after power is cut furing the flare but..
...sounds like you were talking about flying down final, not floating in the flare at 1 foot.
Why make sweeping statements? What if you're at 500ft? So you apply FULL power, then get yourself in a tizz with all the over-powering control forces you seem to encounter, then trim it out, wipe your brow... and reduce power for the climb!!!!!
After take off, you reduce power, don't you?? What's the difference? After your go-around, you're at the safer end of the runway, you're posibly lighter (end of flight) and unless you go-around from 1ft above the runway, you're starting from a safer altitude. What's the drama??
What hills? I thought you were on final approach??
Regardless... yes, the a/c passes through the back of the drag curve after power is cut furing the flare but..
full flap descending flight on the back end of the drag curve with minimal power
there needs to be no hesitation in using full power, especially on a hot day with a loaded aircraft
After take off, you reduce power, don't you?? What's the difference? After your go-around, you're at the safer end of the runway, you're posibly lighter (end of flight) and unless you go-around from 1ft above the runway, you're starting from a safer altitude. What's the drama??
you are staring at the hills coming towards you
Get used to the control forces you will have to endure