Bounced landings. Should you go around or re-land straight ahead?
 

Browsing through the BASI Journal No.3, Summer 1988. A self contributor wrote this on page 12.
Cessna 152
"During early solo training, on landing I bounced heavily a number of times. I panicked and decided to go around. Applied full power, full up elevator and with full flap and carb heat selected. I ran off the sealed section of the runway. By this time my speed was insufficient to lift the aircraft off, but as a result of panic I left full power and full up elevator. The aircraft eventually lifted off just short of the boundary fence, narrowly missing various obstructions, including a house, whereupon I regained normal control and landed without incident.
Supervising instructor did not observe the event. Reason for incident: Panic/Inexperience.

BASIS writer comment: The bounce is usually caused by incorrect speed or aircraft attitude at touchdown. When the bounce occurs, the accepted safest procedure for low time pilots is to go around (remember to reconfigure for climb and carby heat off. But please report all misadventures to your instructor. He will help you learn from your mistakes.


You have to say not a very instructive reply by the BASIS "expert."
Before first solo, a student should be thoroughly conversant with the technique of recovery from a series of bounced landings. That means being taught how to apply cushioning power, re-establish the landing attitude and simply land straight ahead.

A similar technique is published in the Boeing Flight crew Training Manual which states: "If the airplane should bounce, hold or re-establish a normal landing attitude and add thrust as necessary to control the rate of descent. Thrust need not be added for a shallow bounce or skip. When a high bounce occurs initiate a go-around. Apply thrust and use normal go-around procedures". So the procedure is not new.

Despite the claim by the BASIS expert that "the accepted safest procedure for low time pilots is to go around" the incident described by the student pilot showed that a go-around on the point of stall with a high drag full power configuration in a Cessna 152 can be decidedly dangerous since it requires excellent handling skills to minimise the chances of a full power stall and incipient spin. If not immediately prevented by correct application of rudder the yaw caused by full power at speeds just above the stall is significant and directional control lost in a flash with possible devastating consequences. It may be safer to establish the landing attitude, apply power as necessary to control the rate of descent and land ahead on the remaining field or runway length.

Instructors need to demonstrate both techniques to the student before certifying a student for first solo.
Postscript:
I sent a student on her first solo and observed her circuit which looked exemplary from the ground as did her final approach. To my consternation the glide path appeared to flatten at 200 feet and I thought she was going to stall. She recovered by lowering the nose and subsequently landed heavily with several bounces. The last bounce was high caused by her pulling back on the control column too far. I prayed she would not attempt a last second go-around as by now the stall warning would have been sounding. Instead she was able to flatten the bounce and using judicious power was able to land safely straight ahead within the remaining landing area. I was glad that I had taught her how to recover from a bounce by applying sufficient power to control the rate of descent and land straight ahead.

She taxied back to pick me up and I asked what had happened at 200 feet. She still had a big smile on her face after her first solo. She failed to notice my fixed grin and said the stall warning had sounded on short final and at the time she failed to realise its significance. When the aircraft fell out of the sky as she rounded out she then realised she had stuffed up.

Re go-around or not, I reckon the first thing a pilot should do is have the decision made before the landing is attempted. The landing strip may not be suitable for a go-around, or the distance remaining after a bounce may not be sufficient for a go-around, due to for example terrain. The idea of telling students to just default to go-round is a way to make the decision for them.






.

I completely disagree.

Adding full power is always sufficient if done at the point of bounce, provided the student has been instructed in and competently demonstrated flying the aircraft away. The aircraft has been certified to climb in the landing config. If the aircraft is so “deeply stalled” such that it won’t fly on application of full power as you suggest, the problem is:
1. They continued the approach with the stall warning on
2. after the initial bounce - the go around was delayed far too long, or
3. the student has been sent solo without the required go around skills.
The aircraft does not go from bounce/skip (ie too high energy state to land) to “deeply stalled” in a heart beat.

Bounces in transport category aircraft are a completely different kettle of fish, using Boeing FCOM procedure to justify a certain instructional technique in a C152 is long bow to draw. A Boeing manual will call for continued takeoff after an engine failure ar rotate. Do you teach this in a Seminole during an initial multi?

Unless it were explicitly against the guidance provided by the AFM for the type, I completely agree with the BASIS comment. In my many years of experience of training, including GA, international airline cadets and airline check and training, going around is the safest option for an ab initio student.

Providing full power, full carb heat and full back stick as per your C152 example - does not a go around make. A normal go around from ground level should be heavily ingrained and practiced before first solo.

IMHO, the lack of correct go around training was the cause of this incident.

No need to fall back on sarcasm, SP. You well know the answer to that ridiculous question. The Op made a valid point that bounced recovery in a light aircraft should include not only instruction on how to conduct a normal go-around procedure, but where suitable conditions exist a controlled touch-down straight ahead may be a safer technique.
The student who wrote his report was honest enough not to gild the lily when he admitted: "I panicked and decided to go around. Applied full power, full up elevator and with full flap and carb heat selected".

You have no idea of what go-around procedure he was taught and are merely speculating when you assert his error was due to lack of proper go-around training. Sometimes when momentary panic occurs in a stressful situation such as existed in this incident, previous good training can fly out of the window.

I was lucky on my first solo that the nose landing gear didn't break after a series of bounces. I hadn't been taught what to do if I bounced..neither the continued landing nor go around from a bounce.
Many years later I discovered that many of my fellow instructors weren't teaching it and probably didn't know what to do.

It appears that after the student commenced the go-around it touched down, once on the runway on it's wheels they should have chopped the throttle and stopped. Ab initio training is like that, even very clear instruction sometimes gives strange responses.

I think if the scenario is practiced during training training the reaction to go around would be a lot more instinctive.
For myself, the tailwheel rating was the turning point where I learned that there was no shame in putting on the power and getting back up in the air for another go.

As is usually the case, in aviation it's unwise to try to give a single answer to anything. If it were possible, the manual could replace airmanship or judgement.

I remember an RAF Bulldog student who bounced at Cosford and got into a PIO situation, with more than one bounce. The top of the nose-wheel oleo on these aircraft sits directly under the constant speed prop oil pump. The nose leg was deflected up into the pump, damaging it. This caused the prop to revert to the fully coarse position. The student decided to go around, but the engine couldn't provide enough thrust to allow a climb. The aircraft eventually overflew the entire length of the runway and crashed into a field outside the airfield.

Although it could be argued that not many low time students fly CS prop aircraft, even a basic aircraft could suffer prop damage, which could have a similar result.

I doubt most instructors would deliberately demonstrate a bounce, simply to protect the aircraft. It wouldn't surprise me if most of them will take over if they see that about to occur, for the same reason. The result is that when it does happen to a student when they're flying solo, they're in an unfamiliar situation with very little time available for a decision, when they're already fully engaged in trying to do a landing.

I was lucky enough to have instructors who let me make that mistake multiple times, so I got plenty of practice bouncing down the runway - and learnt both of the standard recovery techniques.


The situation is similar to the light twin engine failure on takeoff training. It's really important that students have that experience so they can respond instantly - but if the student gets it wrong and the instructor isn't ready to step in immediately then the consequences can be catastrophic.

Hi ShyTorque.

“ with more than one bounce”.

The first bounce is always the least severe in a PIO type scenario. Had he/she gone around after the first bounce, the damage would not have occurred. Trying to correct a bounce rather than go around actually caused this issue.

The aircraft being incapable of going around due to severe damage occurred a long time after the go around decision should have been made.

I think you'd be surprised. I know a fairly large school which puts through many dozens of pilots per year, and the only fixed-pitch prop they operate is a tail dragger used for aeros. They don't let low time students near that.

I guess the question you need to ask is whether any current ab-initio constant speed prop aircraft have constant speed pumps located where they can be damaged by nose wheel oleo damage, or was the aircraft in your example unique in that respect.

Then they shouldn't be instructors if they lack the competence to demonstrate a bounce. It doesn't have to be a huge aircraft wrecking bounce where nothing is learnt. A normal round-out and greaser touch down followed by gentle pull back on the stick to simulate over-controlling on the elevator to a few feet to simulate a bounce and then a touch of power to ease the aircraft back on the runway. What could be more simple? At least the student has now witnessed a controlled demonstration and knows what to aim for. It is not astronaut training and even the most inexperienced 250 hour grade 3 should be taught how to demonstrate the manoeuvre before being awarded his instructor rating. After all they are going to be witness to hundreds of bounces as instructors. Surely that is part and parcel of instructor course training? Or is it?

A good bet is that it still happens today at flying schools.:rolleyes:

Yes, I'm aware of that. Almost forty years ago I watched a colleague and friend of mine nearly kill himself in a Jet Provost at RAF Basic Flying Training School. I never forgot the sickening sight of the last bounce / nose up / stall / nose drop & crash from what must have been about 100ft agl, after which the aircraft wasn't capable of flying or bouncing any more. He was also sitting on a live ejection seat! A decade or so working as a military flying instructor reinforced my memory of that particular episode. :uhoh:

I was taught how to deal with a bounce in about 1972 when Her Majesty first let me loose in one of her taxpayers' aircraft. That didn't have an engine so maintaining aircraft attitude was everything.

Always go around I mean think about where your take off performance calculation is made from.

So many accidents with training aircraft all occur from bouncing, freaking out and messing up the go around. Just treat it like a touch and go and you're on your way!

I bounced and damaged a C172 on my first flight after endorsement. I had learned on a C150/152 and a warrior. I didn't think of going around.

In the C150 I never generated a bounce. For some reason, probably weight, I never experienced one. In fact I had the reverse happen, my instructor demonstrated STOL landings at YCEM by doing a STOL touch and go - except with a stuck flap switch and full flap, the c150 wont climb. I almost died that day. Moral of the story, don't teach STOL by touch and go. If you can't climb you are likely dead.

As for bouncing, all I was taught was "protect the nosewheel" which is easy in a land-o-matic warrior.

I was endorsed on a C172 on a windy day. Approach at 70,, land at 70 into a twenty knot headwind - no bounce.

Tried to touch and go at 70 a few days later with no headwind. Predictable result: bounce followed by PIO, followed by bounce etc. After three such arrivals a disturbed tower alerted my school and called me in. Bent firewall. My trust in flying instructors and schools has never quite recovered -"what else don't I know?" is now my creed.

Poor old Sunfish. You were certainly given poor gen by your instructor (s) 70 knots in a 172 is ridiculous and certainly not in the POH. There are some awful instructors out there and I pity their unsuspecting students who are their victims:{

Without knowing all the background of Sunfish's circumstances and prior training that led to his unfortunate incident, I'm not sure that what he was told was exactly 'ridiculous'. The C172 POH has Normal Landing (flaps down) at 60-70KIAS. If it was a windy (& perhaps gusty) day as he stated, then holding 70KIAS until 'over the fence' seems reasonable to me. They certainly dropped the ball by not at least showing him in his early training how to recover from a bounced landing, and maybe he needed a bit of extra dual in the C172 before being let loose. The STOL figure in the POH is 62KIAS so in calm conditions a normal landing at around 65KIAS works fine. I understand where you're coming from Centaurus, in that one of the main reasons people 'bounce' a landing, is that they are carrying too much speed on short final, mistime the flare and...well we know the rest. But in this particular case, in those conditions, I don't think 70KIAS was all that excessive.

There are many reasons for a bounce. Here's one...

https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=89f_1509352199





.

My ab initio Instructor (PD) did precisely the above!:ok:

Which is why I never had any problems if I ever bounced in later flying.

Come to think about it though; I cannot remember when I last did!:hmm:

Anyway, Thanks, PD.:ok: