Going around...
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
....................an aircraft needs only a certain amount of thrust (power) to sustain level flt. (that maybe full pwr in a low powered craft with everything hanging out). In order to climb it's the excess thrust available that achieves that task. Full power may indeed be required depending on the exact scenario but it's not always required I believe. Like I have said earlier it's horses for courses here with every going around. Transport cat A/C have some of their performance charts predicated on SE outcomes, having all eng's operating means power to spare. That's not always the case with A/C that operate to the 1.9% climb req's. (BLW 5700 kg's)Obviously SE craft (which was the basis of the thread) operate with limited options & an early decision as to whether it's safe to go around ought to be made sooner rather than latter.
"ScottyDoo" I happen to agree with yr comments regarding "Sunfish" remarks. None of this is 'crap' it's about discussion, about learning perhaps from other pilots actual experiences, Flying is all about experience, no one knew from the Wright Bros to now unless they went out & did/tried it !
No 2 landings/appraoches/go-arounds are ever exactly the same. Plan as required for every approach.
Capt Wally
"ScottyDoo" I happen to agree with yr comments regarding "Sunfish" remarks. None of this is 'crap' it's about discussion, about learning perhaps from other pilots actual experiences, Flying is all about experience, no one knew from the Wright Bros to now unless they went out & did/tried it !
No 2 landings/appraoches/go-arounds are ever exactly the same. Plan as required for every approach.
Capt Wally
Great advise for inexperienced pilots
ForkTailedDrKiller,
Great advise for inexperienced pilots, telling them not to listen to their instructor!!! If they have a 300TT instructor, this person will be supervised and checks of the student will be conducted by more senior instructors. This should find any training issues from the junior instructor.
People on here really need to realise that some of their advise to inexperienced pilot could be dangerous. I agree that some of my training may have been by inexperienced people but I definately would not have listened to some hack posting on here, BUT some will read this crap and take it on board.
Suggestions on what you do is fine but when people start say how things are to be done is to much for an online forum.
Great advise for inexperienced pilots, telling them not to listen to their instructor!!! If they have a 300TT instructor, this person will be supervised and checks of the student will be conducted by more senior instructors. This should find any training issues from the junior instructor.
People on here really need to realise that some of their advise to inexperienced pilot could be dangerous. I agree that some of my training may have been by inexperienced people but I definately would not have listened to some hack posting on here, BUT some will read this crap and take it on board.
Suggestions on what you do is fine but when people start say how things are to be done is to much for an online forum.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sydney
Age: 60
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A lot of the recent posts show that there is still a long way between "airplane drivers" and Pilots!!
Your 300 hr instructor may or may not be right [in the Pa38 or whatever probably right!] but there are many differring types and different situations.
AIRMANSHIP will decide whether full power/ partial power/ fast /slow/ alive/ dead!
Use common sense, hardly anyone else does!
Your 300 hr instructor may or may not be right [in the Pa38 or whatever probably right!] but there are many differring types and different situations.
AIRMANSHIP will decide whether full power/ partial power/ fast /slow/ alive/ dead!
Use common sense, hardly anyone else does!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Aust
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I originally went down the Instructor route, and have always admitted that I felt my students did'nt really get value for money until I had maybe 6 or 7 hundred hours teaching.
I don't believe it is the inexperiance of hands on that is the issue, rather the way the lesson is conducted. Lets face it, straight and level is straight and level and that can be tought by anyone who has done the lesson. What does it take to be an ultralight Instructor these days? It use to be 70 odd hours.... Some big and bl
dy quick ultralights around these days.
My point is I suppose is that while a 300 hour Instructor lacks some big world experience, they are (should be) under direct supervision, may only fly a limited amount of time with a student before thay must fly with a more senior pilot (not a check) and has more experience then a 20 hour student.
If a student is going to argue during his training stage imagine what he is going to be like with a bit of experience whilst undergoing a boeing course.
I don't believe it is the inexperiance of hands on that is the issue, rather the way the lesson is conducted. Lets face it, straight and level is straight and level and that can be tought by anyone who has done the lesson. What does it take to be an ultralight Instructor these days? It use to be 70 odd hours.... Some big and bl
dy quick ultralights around these days.My point is I suppose is that while a 300 hour Instructor lacks some big world experience, they are (should be) under direct supervision, may only fly a limited amount of time with a student before thay must fly with a more senior pilot (not a check) and has more experience then a 20 hour student.
If a student is going to argue during his training stage imagine what he is going to be like with a bit of experience whilst undergoing a boeing course.
Grandpa Aerotart
The trouble with a thread like this is most people seem to be only capable of 'absolute' answers rather than 'qualified' answers.
The actual answer to 'full power or partial on GA?' is 'it depends'.
Historically ab initio training has been carried out in very low powered aircraft, Tiger Moths, Austers, Chipmunks, Victa Airtourers, C150/152s and more laterly sundry SAA types..some of which probably have more in common with a Tiger Moth than a C152...it could be argued these aircraft need full power on a GA close to the ground however that doesn't define an absolute answer anymore than a P51 torque roll defines the counter argument.
In the middle where most of us do most of our flying there is a vaste area of grey requiring two of the less common attributes, (prior) critical thought and common sense, to come up with a reasonable answer...an answer that depends on the aircraft and the conditions.
Too there is a need to have a good starting point...a default setting if you will...that will get you out of trouble when ****s are trumps, a surprise GA in the flare. I am going to suggest that full power unless you have a good reason for less is a good starting point.
A good reason for less might be you're flying a P51 or one of those turbine Ag aircraft with vaste HP and torque (although the Ag aircraft probably has an offset engine that cancells most of that out)...a/. you don't need full power or b/. it's application presents insurmountable control issues.
It is important that the starting point be sensible...a starting point that says I will use less than full power unless I have a good reason for full power is potentially setting up a dangerous mindset. An example of why is QF1 at BKK...the company culture was (possibly still is) idle reverse unless you have a good reason for full reverse. If the company culture was full reverse unless you have a good reason for idle reverse there may have been a different outcome.
None of the typical aircraft flown in GA (and yes I have speak from experience) present insurmountable control issues with the application of full power so that should be the default setting...unless you have a good reason for less.
The famous Cessna pitch up with application of power with full flaps is very real and particularly so with the older variants that had 40 degrees of flap available. I was initially taught what I suspect most people are taught...apply full power and hold the nose attitude while madly trimming out the forces and then retract the flaps...followed by not quite so madly trimming the other way.
Thankfully I flew with another instructor pre first solo who greeted my GA attempt with "Ahh Chuck, WTF are you doing?"
On the next circuit it was full power/flap up/fly aircraft/trim...a revalation....it works even better on the older 'johnson bar' manual flap Cessnas like the 180/185. I do the same thing today in my Bonanza in a GA from the flare...full power/flap up/fly aircraft/trim/gear up.
Would I use full power for a GA at 300-500'? No, probably not....it would depend.
The actual answer to 'full power or partial on GA?' is 'it depends'.
Historically ab initio training has been carried out in very low powered aircraft, Tiger Moths, Austers, Chipmunks, Victa Airtourers, C150/152s and more laterly sundry SAA types..some of which probably have more in common with a Tiger Moth than a C152...it could be argued these aircraft need full power on a GA close to the ground however that doesn't define an absolute answer anymore than a P51 torque roll defines the counter argument.
In the middle where most of us do most of our flying there is a vaste area of grey requiring two of the less common attributes, (prior) critical thought and common sense, to come up with a reasonable answer...an answer that depends on the aircraft and the conditions.
Too there is a need to have a good starting point...a default setting if you will...that will get you out of trouble when ****s are trumps, a surprise GA in the flare. I am going to suggest that full power unless you have a good reason for less is a good starting point.
A good reason for less might be you're flying a P51 or one of those turbine Ag aircraft with vaste HP and torque (although the Ag aircraft probably has an offset engine that cancells most of that out)...a/. you don't need full power or b/. it's application presents insurmountable control issues.
It is important that the starting point be sensible...a starting point that says I will use less than full power unless I have a good reason for full power is potentially setting up a dangerous mindset. An example of why is QF1 at BKK...the company culture was (possibly still is) idle reverse unless you have a good reason for full reverse. If the company culture was full reverse unless you have a good reason for idle reverse there may have been a different outcome.
None of the typical aircraft flown in GA (and yes I have speak from experience) present insurmountable control issues with the application of full power so that should be the default setting...unless you have a good reason for less.
The famous Cessna pitch up with application of power with full flaps is very real and particularly so with the older variants that had 40 degrees of flap available. I was initially taught what I suspect most people are taught...apply full power and hold the nose attitude while madly trimming out the forces and then retract the flaps...followed by not quite so madly trimming the other way.
Thankfully I flew with another instructor pre first solo who greeted my GA attempt with "Ahh Chuck, WTF are you doing?" On the next circuit it was full power/flap up/fly aircraft/trim...a revalation....it works even better on the older 'johnson bar' manual flap Cessnas like the 180/185. I do the same thing today in my Bonanza in a GA from the flare...full power/flap up/fly aircraft/trim/gear up.
Would I use full power for a GA at 300-500'? No, probably not....it would depend.
Last edited by Chimbu chuckles; 20th Dec 2007 at 02:49.
Thank you for your measured and thoughtful post Chimbu, I think that says it all.
PS. Scotty, I wouldn't consider aborting an approach at 500 ft to be necessarily a "Go Around" but in the Warrior and C172, I was taught "Climb" = "Full power", not sure if its an ops manual thing or if its in the POH, in any case, there is no difference between 'discontinuing an approach" and a "Go Around" at 500 ft in those aircraft.
I guess we could split hairs with larger aircraft at 500 ft and set "climb Power" (eg:75% max cont. 25/2400 in some Arrows) compared to full power if one was Going Around from 50 ft. As Chuck said, it depends on the situation, however I suggest training for the worst case from the point of view of difficulty/control forces etc. is the prudent thing to do.
But again, I was taught that 300 ft is your "decision height", at which point you go to full fine and do your PUF checks, so any go around from below 300ft is going to be a full power one.
PS. Scotty, I wouldn't consider aborting an approach at 500 ft to be necessarily a "Go Around" but in the Warrior and C172, I was taught "Climb" = "Full power", not sure if its an ops manual thing or if its in the POH, in any case, there is no difference between 'discontinuing an approach" and a "Go Around" at 500 ft in those aircraft.
I guess we could split hairs with larger aircraft at 500 ft and set "climb Power" (eg:75% max cont. 25/2400 in some Arrows) compared to full power if one was Going Around from 50 ft. As Chuck said, it depends on the situation, however I suggest training for the worst case from the point of view of difficulty/control forces etc. is the prudent thing to do.
But again, I was taught that 300 ft is your "decision height", at which point you go to full fine and do your PUF checks, so any go around from below 300ft is going to be a full power one.
Last edited by Sunfish; 20th Dec 2007 at 03:26.
The part that worried me about the original post is the idea that 300ft level in a light twin is a SAFE altitude, whilst reconfiguring. An engine failure at this point would be difficult to handle especially if gear and flaps were still extended and only medium to moderate power applied.
Whilst max angle of climb would be an excessive move I would suggest you should get a light twin back up to a safe altitude quickly. It would be a good idea to aim to use climb power or more and then if it does prove an overkill you can always reduce it, id rather have more performance than i need than be left wanting. Focus on control and performance in the early stage of the go-round, initiate climb and then worry about other factors.
As far as excessive trim forces in a twin at 300ft agl transitioning to a full power go-round I would not expect much of an issue as you should be trimmed for a higher speed than if you were at 50ft and are people stating they would not use full power from this height?
Have a go at an engine failure in the sim at 300ft at low speed and whilst you've got your head up and looking for traffic. Somtimes actually experiencing the situation may change your mind.
Whilst max angle of climb would be an excessive move I would suggest you should get a light twin back up to a safe altitude quickly. It would be a good idea to aim to use climb power or more and then if it does prove an overkill you can always reduce it, id rather have more performance than i need than be left wanting. Focus on control and performance in the early stage of the go-round, initiate climb and then worry about other factors.
As far as excessive trim forces in a twin at 300ft agl transitioning to a full power go-round I would not expect much of an issue as you should be trimmed for a higher speed than if you were at 50ft and are people stating they would not use full power from this height?
Have a go at an engine failure in the sim at 300ft at low speed and whilst you've got your head up and looking for traffic. Somtimes actually experiencing the situation may change your mind.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The way you fly any manoeuvre depends on the situation!
But, if you are too close to traffic to land, there is always a possibility he is going around too.
I'd have thought that you'd want to be as high as possible as soon as possible to get away from that risk, as opposed to slowly catching him as he is on the runway. He may go around (For many reasons).
I know we're talking about light aircraft... but out of interest, have a look into the Jetstar go-around with less than full power incident recently. Makes an interesting read!
But, if you are too close to traffic to land, there is always a possibility he is going around too.
I'd have thought that you'd want to be as high as possible as soon as possible to get away from that risk, as opposed to slowly catching him as he is on the runway. He may go around (For many reasons).
I know we're talking about light aircraft... but out of interest, have a look into the Jetstar go-around with less than full power incident recently. Makes an interesting read!
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.....this thread has been very interesting. Hopefully to the novice they have gained some insight into the traps of going around at low level.
There has been numerous thoughts on this subject, some obviously well thought out some not so, & that's just my opinion before someone gets overheated. At the end of the day we can't all be there to offer our assitance when a novice pilot is faced with a potential dangerous situation.
I've flown for many years now, I, like everyone else in here wasn't born with a scrap of info about flying never lone going around at low level. We learn, we listen & we decide for ourselves at the end of the day as to what to do if an ugly situation does occur. there's no substitute for experience, how many times have we heard that & it's for good reasons:-)Remember we have an instructor beside us for the critical part of our flying & that's during the training phase,(not inc reacurring training) from then on we are on our own for a good part of our decision making!
I hope that some have learned to respect that not all missed approaches are going to be exactly the same, like aviation itself the variables are forever changing !
Capt Wally :-)
There has been numerous thoughts on this subject, some obviously well thought out some not so, & that's just my opinion before someone gets overheated
. At the end of the day we can't all be there to offer our assitance when a novice pilot is faced with a potential dangerous situation.I've flown for many years now, I, like everyone else in here wasn't born with a scrap of info about flying never lone going around at low level. We learn, we listen & we decide for ourselves at the end of the day as to what to do if an ugly situation does occur. there's no substitute for experience, how many times have we heard that & it's for good reasons:-)Remember we have an instructor beside us for the critical part of our flying & that's during the training phase,(not inc reacurring training) from then on we are on our own for a good part of our decision making!
I hope that some have learned to respect that not all missed approaches are going to be exactly the same, like aviation itself the variables are forever changing !
Capt Wally :-)
Boardpig, it amazes me that this thread has gone for over 70 posts and no one asked you if you were above or at your blue line speed at the point of going around. Your instructor would have been bashing you over the head to ensure you maintain that speed whilst even going to climb power. How close to the hard stuff dictates how serious the maneuver becomes with respect to engine out performance if you are below blue line.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From memory..
I'd be slightly above or at the blue line, only coming under when landing is assured. If the GA happens here (under the blue), its full power. I think the conclusion here (and one I agree with), is that each approach etc will be different. Weather, vis, wind, weight etc all need to be taken into account each time as one shoe certainly will not fit all.
Having said that, I will always follow the SOP's for the operator. But that doesnt mean I cant discuss them when we get on the ground. Many a hangar discussion has been had on these subjects, these posts are a fine example.
Having said that, I will always follow the SOP's for the operator. But that doesnt mean I cant discuss them when we get on the ground. Many a hangar discussion has been had on these subjects, these posts are a fine example.
Agree with that statement. Got a file growing all the time with neat solutions and rules of thumb
You never ever stop learning. Sometimes I feel pretty dumb asking about things. As Dr Karl says- There is never a dumb question!
You never ever stop learning. Sometimes I feel pretty dumb asking about things. As Dr Karl says- There is never a dumb question!
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After 30 odd yrs in GA and as an Grade 1 Instructor and CFI I left the industry because of all the BS involved in flight training and the incorrect training procedures being passed on by inexperienced novice instructors who THINK they know what they are doing.IMHO novices are now being trained by novices who were also trained by novices. The Russ Evans', the Gordon Smiths the Jimmy Hazeltons etc etc are part of a dying breed of very experienced knowledgeable instructors, who are/were not being replaced. META is a furfie approval which gets handed to guys with plenty of money and F/A experience. It p***es me off when i read some of the comments posted because it is grossly unfair to teach a student a bad habit.....because Bad Habits are hard to break, and part reason for the Aeroplane flight reviews.
The original post indicated on this subject was that the pilot was receiving an endorsment on a type or class of twin and his question concerned the correct go around procedure. I have posted previously on what I know you must do. I had also made mention of Vyse or blue line speed. My suggestion to you is to maintain blue line plus 5 until established on final and or assured all is ok for the landing.
The original post indicated on this subject was that the pilot was receiving an endorsment on a type or class of twin and his question concerned the correct go around procedure. I have posted previously on what I know you must do. I had also made mention of Vyse or blue line speed. My suggestion to you is to maintain blue line plus 5 until established on final and or assured all is ok for the landing.
Thankyou Mr Chuckles for your sensical approach and post. Well done that man.
And FTDK, don't have a 300hr instructor? You'd be delighful to share a cockpit with I'm sure. hope I don't see ya round
j3
And FTDK, don't have a 300hr instructor? You'd be delighful to share a cockpit with I'm sure. hope I don't see ya round
j3
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: France
Posts: 610
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Going around
Pa39:
Below is a reference to a serious incident in a "going around situation".
On the 15th September 2007, I made a post (no:63) under the heading "D & G General Aviation & Questions", last 100 days, page 27, under title "The West: Plane safe after engine trouble, page 4 of 5". The heading of the item was " The Dance of the Falcon".
It certainly got my and other peoples attention.
We should all learn from the experiences of others.
Below is a reference to a serious incident in a "going around situation".
On the 15th September 2007, I made a post (no:63) under the heading "D & G General Aviation & Questions", last 100 days, page 27, under title "The West: Plane safe after engine trouble, page 4 of 5". The heading of the item was " The Dance of the Falcon".
It certainly got my and other peoples attention.
We should all learn from the experiences of others.
