Going around...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Going around...
I recently had a rather interesting discussion with my instructor about the going around technique. I was doing an endorsement at the time and we came across a rather slow bug smasher in front of us. On the turn to final I knew we would have to go around so, props, mix, etc forward ready for the call.
When it came, I advanced the power to an extent where the descent was arrested and I was able to maneuver off the centre line and then plan my return to the crosswind/downwind.
My right seater immediately called for full power, (which I understand) but I told him we didn’t need it. With two working engines we only needed to arrest the decent not go skyward like a rocket. When I had worked out a visual picture of the circuit etc I then added sufficient power to go where we needed. There were no obstacles to overcome and we still had about 300ft to go.
On the ground, I was told that a go around meant full power, and for the endorsement this is what I eventually did. However, I did remark that a “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 (you then apply power when you need to climb of course). I also remarked that to try full power in a higher powered twin might make the situation even worse if you instinctively push the lever all the way forward with a high nose up trim.
I’m sure there are a few views on this, can anyone tell me if I should be balls to the wall on every go around?
When it came, I advanced the power to an extent where the descent was arrested and I was able to maneuver off the centre line and then plan my return to the crosswind/downwind.
My right seater immediately called for full power, (which I understand) but I told him we didn’t need it. With two working engines we only needed to arrest the decent not go skyward like a rocket. When I had worked out a visual picture of the circuit etc I then added sufficient power to go where we needed. There were no obstacles to overcome and we still had about 300ft to go.
On the ground, I was told that a go around meant full power, and for the endorsement this is what I eventually did. However, I did remark that a “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 (you then apply power when you need to climb of course). I also remarked that to try full power in a higher powered twin might make the situation even worse if you instinctively push the lever all the way forward with a high nose up trim.
I’m sure there are a few views on this, can anyone tell me if I should be balls to the wall on every go around?
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australis
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Try that in an empty B58, with only reserves....fun, but complete overkill!
Forward visibility is terrible at that sort of body angle, with (in my mind) the biggest danger being traffic in this situation.
If its not needed, why stress your nicely cooled down engines beyond what is required?
Forward visibility is terrible at that sort of body angle, with (in my mind) the biggest danger being traffic in this situation.
If its not needed, why stress your nicely cooled down engines beyond what is required?
On the turn to final I knew we would have to go around so, props, mix, etc forward ready for the call.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: in them thar hills
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your instructor needs to think outside the square a bit more. A go-around from minima during an instrument approach is usually performed at high power (depends on type whether it is full power or a slightly lower value). From greater altitudes, it really depends on what you need to get the job done safely. Ditto with re-configuring gear and flaps etc. From the minima it is usual to retract them (in case of engine failure and to ensure terrain clearance). If at or above circling minima, and VISUAL, the circling configuration can be maintained while you re-position for another go.
Why flog the engines if you don't have to? While it may be OK to run them full bore for hours on end, the sudden temperature changes going from near idle power to full throttle in a few seconds can't be good for them in the long term.
Why flog the engines if you don't have to? While it may be OK to run them full bore for hours on end, the sudden temperature changes going from near idle power to full throttle in a few seconds can't be good for them in the long term.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Wherever the hotel drink ticket is valid
Posts: 281
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would first of all say that you appear to have maintained good situational awareness through the approach and consequently you applied sufficient power to achieve what you required at the time - this speaks well of your control and awareness.
I suggest that you do need to initiate a climb (rather than just arresting the descent), and that climb power may be appropriate (rather than take off power).
Consider the issue of the aircraft in front going around, applying full power and climbing under you, and perhaps drifting off centre line. You should still aim to get back to circuit height promptly.
Having said all of that, you should also consider future requirements. I assume that you are a VFR pilot at present?? Once you get into Instrument Approaches, you will routinely conduct G/A from low levels, in situations where your terrain clearance will only be assured by applying full power. It may be good training to get into the habit now of a standard G/A drill (Mix Up, Pitch Up, Power Up, Gear Up, Flap Up - or something to that effect) so that when you are going around from the minima in IMC on one engine with terrain problems, it is just that - a drill.
Perhaps for the moment you should look at initiating the G/A with full power, then using your strong situational awareness to determine when this is no longer required. Then you can pull back to climb or cruise power to get into the circuit.
Has anyone seen my other two cents???
Icarus
I suggest that you do need to initiate a climb (rather than just arresting the descent), and that climb power may be appropriate (rather than take off power).
Consider the issue of the aircraft in front going around, applying full power and climbing under you, and perhaps drifting off centre line. You should still aim to get back to circuit height promptly.
Having said all of that, you should also consider future requirements. I assume that you are a VFR pilot at present?? Once you get into Instrument Approaches, you will routinely conduct G/A from low levels, in situations where your terrain clearance will only be assured by applying full power. It may be good training to get into the habit now of a standard G/A drill (Mix Up, Pitch Up, Power Up, Gear Up, Flap Up - or something to that effect) so that when you are going around from the minima in IMC on one engine with terrain problems, it is just that - a drill.
Perhaps for the moment you should look at initiating the G/A with full power, then using your strong situational awareness to determine when this is no longer required. Then you can pull back to climb or cruise power to get into the circuit.
Has anyone seen my other two cents???
Icarus
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sydney
Age: 60
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The quality of SOME [only] of our instructors is a common talking point.
You must seperate an IFR go-around in IMC to a VFR "planned" go-around babying the pax and those expensive engines!
You must seperate an IFR go-around in IMC to a VFR "planned" go-around babying the pax and those expensive engines!
I agree with Icarus, however, you should be conducting your go-arounds/missed approaches under any circumstance in accordance with the company SOP's whose AOC you're operating under. If at your next company/school the procedure is different - then do it that way.
At the very least they should be done in accordance with the advice given for missed approaches in the aircraft flight manual.
At the very least they should be done in accordance with the advice given for missed approaches in the aircraft flight manual.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Wherever I Lay my Hat...
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by gas-chamber
...going from near idle power to full throttle in a few seconds can't be good for them in the long term.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: in them thar hills
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not suggesting don't do it if you need to do it- obviously all aero engines have to be certified to take a rapid power increase, as occurs on every takeoff or low level missed approach. I am suggesting that if a lesser power setting will give the performance required on a visual approach where only a small increase in altitude is required, why go to full power ? Thermal cycles and rapid accelerations DO ultimately have some effect on engine life. If you could run engines at a constant favorable temperature and RPM they would go on almost forever.
Invoking the SOP may not be relevant when the situation itself is non-standard, as appears to have been the case in the original posting. Airmanship was applied by the trainee and the instructor failed to appreciate that for what it was.
Invoking the SOP may not be relevant when the situation itself is non-standard, as appears to have been the case in the original posting. Airmanship was applied by the trainee and the instructor failed to appreciate that for what it was.
definitely is a potential for damage and worthy of serious consideration before dramatic power-changes are made.
near idle power to full throttle in a few seconds can't be good for them in the long term
Think you may be getting confused with closing the throttles quickly on continental or turbo charged engines.
As for the SOP, I'm sorry - but go-arounds are a standard procedure detailed in any airline FCOM and as far as I'm concerned, you don't get to pick and choose whether or not you follow SOP's. Teaching airmanship and judgement is worlds away from following procedure in a normal flight condition and the instructor should be following the procedure exactly as it is detailed in the flight school's documentation. Deviation from SOPs should only occur in extreme circumstances and with good cause. I fail to see how a go-around falls into this case.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SOP's
I think what I'm getting from this is that when required to follow the SOP's, thats what you should do. An operator probably wouldn't be interested in my take on it, if it difffers from standard procs.
Having said that, there are always more improved ways to do things and my take (and that of a few other learned persons also) might be one of them.
Until I can afford my own crate, I guess I'll stick to the operator SOPs.
Having said that, there are always more improved ways to do things and my take (and that of a few other learned persons also) might be one of them.
Until I can afford my own crate, I guess I'll stick to the operator SOPs.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Baulked App
....interesting subject indeed.
Another thing to consider when in the circuit for the purposes of actually landing as apposed to bulked approaches (for the purposes of training) & that's whether or not the airframe is configured for a landing as in gear down (should it be a retract job) & full flap selected. This config requires far more power than say just gear down & perhaps approach flap or even flapless if that's the chosen config. What I tend to do is have a mental picture as to what I would do in the case of a preceeding being slower (which is almost the case most of the time for me) than myself & the likelyhood if I'm faced with having to go-around.
At the 300 ft stage AGL it's most likely that the airframe is configured for actual Ldg (which is what would be in most Co's OPS) & therefore T/off pwr would be needed followed by climb pwr after clean up. In the case of being extremely low for Eg. & go-round is required then flap should be retracted first to say an intermeadiate stage 'cause if a significant sink is experienced then the gear needs to remain down in case an actual contact is made with the rwy surface. Besides full flap usually creates the most drag.
Of course this is all predicated on having all engines available for such an event. S.E situations are far more exact as in full pwr till at a safe height.
It's horses for courses obviously & there's no exact proceedure 'cause there's no exact picture you get in yr mind time & time again. At the endorsement stage both ways should be demonstrated therefore having the candidate aware of the potential differences & results.
My opinion only of course as is everyones elses in here
Capt Wally:-)
Another thing to consider when in the circuit for the purposes of actually landing as apposed to bulked approaches (for the purposes of training) & that's whether or not the airframe is configured for a landing as in gear down (should it be a retract job) & full flap selected. This config requires far more power than say just gear down & perhaps approach flap or even flapless if that's the chosen config. What I tend to do is have a mental picture as to what I would do in the case of a preceeding being slower (which is almost the case most of the time for me) than myself & the likelyhood if I'm faced with having to go-around.
At the 300 ft stage AGL it's most likely that the airframe is configured for actual Ldg (which is what would be in most Co's OPS) & therefore T/off pwr would be needed followed by climb pwr after clean up. In the case of being extremely low for Eg. & go-round is required then flap should be retracted first to say an intermeadiate stage 'cause if a significant sink is experienced then the gear needs to remain down in case an actual contact is made with the rwy surface. Besides full flap usually creates the most drag.
Of course this is all predicated on having all engines available for such an event. S.E situations are far more exact as in full pwr till at a safe height.
It's horses for courses obviously & there's no exact proceedure 'cause there's no exact picture you get in yr mind time & time again. At the endorsement stage both ways should be demonstrated therefore having the candidate aware of the potential differences & results.
My opinion only of course as is everyones elses in here
Capt Wally:-)
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Straya
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I feel that every go around should be taught and executed the same way. Full power/thrust, same actions in the same order.
Procedural commonality is a beautiful thing. If full takeoff/go around power is difficult to trim it's probably valuable practise for the situation where it will all be needed, such as the IMC missed approach in the dinged old Chieftain at max weight.
A CAVOK go-around due to traffic is flown exactly the same as an IMC missed approach in the jet, as it was at every semi-professional Cessna/Piper/ turbo prop outfit that's ever had the misfortune to hire me.
The stress on the engines is less than going from cold-ish idle to full power/thrust on takeoff, and if you found you hadn't got rid of all the drag during your go-around, you might find yourself a little embarrassed when in a turn your available thrust starts to turn negative.
In short: teach one manoeuvre: full power/thrust go around, do it the same every time. The more you treat it like that other common manoeuvre , the takeoff, the better. So follow up is climb power/thrust and after takeoff checklist.
Procedural commonality is a beautiful thing. If full takeoff/go around power is difficult to trim it's probably valuable practise for the situation where it will all be needed, such as the IMC missed approach in the dinged old Chieftain at max weight.
A CAVOK go-around due to traffic is flown exactly the same as an IMC missed approach in the jet, as it was at every semi-professional Cessna/Piper/ turbo prop outfit that's ever had the misfortune to hire me.
The stress on the engines is less than going from cold-ish idle to full power/thrust on takeoff, and if you found you hadn't got rid of all the drag during your go-around, you might find yourself a little embarrassed when in a turn your available thrust starts to turn negative.
In short: teach one manoeuvre: full power/thrust go around, do it the same every time. The more you treat it like that other common manoeuvre , the takeoff, the better. So follow up is climb power/thrust and after takeoff checklist.
Stick the spurs in and haul arse outta there I say!
At 300' the FTDK would be full flap and gear down. Your gonna need full power to convert a descent into a climb.
Do it! Practice it!
Then it you might instinctively get it right when Skippy's Dad hops out to say "Hello" - just as you flare!
Dr
At 300' the FTDK would be full flap and gear down. Your gonna need full power to convert a descent into a climb.
Do it! Practice it!
Then it you might instinctively get it right when Skippy's Dad hops out to say "Hello" - just as you flare!
Dr
I'm going to wade on on this even if I am a low time VFR single engine person.
Boardpig wrote:
I respectfully suggest that the day you do have to do a go around, on a nice hot day, at somewhere near max weight, when the proverbial cow/roo/rabbit/powerline jumps out at you, then you will require full power and you will have to fight the trim.
So get used to it right now in your training and master the trim change and build up the muscles.
I had a friend who destroyed his aircraft and was lucky not to kill himself and his entire family when his new and slightly unfamiliar aircraft got away from him on a go around after he stuffed up his approach. All it takes is a few seconds if you aren't ready for whats coming. I think it was at Mataranka.
Boardpig wrote:
I did remark that a “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 (you then apply power when you need to climb of course).
So get used to it right now in your training and master the trim change and build up the muscles.
I had a friend who destroyed his aircraft and was lucky not to kill himself and his entire family when his new and slightly unfamiliar aircraft got away from him on a go around after he stuffed up his approach. All it takes is a few seconds if you aren't ready for whats coming. I think it was at Mataranka.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: in them thar hills
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here is a common enough scenario that shoots the full power, clean it up and go around every-time-as-per-SOP theory down. Suppose you have a circling minima of 500 ft. You have arrived off the NDB approach (or whatever) with minimum legal fuel and get visual at 500 ft - maybe a bit higher - but the cloud is most certainly solid overcast at 550 to 600 ft. Now at 300 or 400 ft on final some mug taxies onto the runway, forcing you to go-around, or maybe you just screw it up and get too high, or too far off centerline. Are you going to instinctively go into the full missed approach scenario and climb back into cloud? Bad, bad choice. Ease the power up to what is needed (probably no more than climb power on most twins due to the inertia and small height gain required), return the flaps and gear to circling configuration for the particular airplane type, and level off at 500 ft for another go.
Once you go back into that cloud you have no choice but to conduct another instrument approach with less than minimum reserves. THAT my friends is poor airmanship, and in the past has resulted in more than one pilot failing a checkride.
Now, I await the holier than thou's who would never find themselves in such a situation.
Once you go back into that cloud you have no choice but to conduct another instrument approach with less than minimum reserves. THAT my friends is poor airmanship, and in the past has resulted in more than one pilot failing a checkride.
Now, I await the holier than thou's who would never find themselves in such a situation.