Safe height to go around?

[Put1992]

would you care to name and shame?

Not really, as they do a very good job the rest of the time.

I have no problem with charging for training go-arounds as that's the intent on arrival. However, being charged for a go-around due to what is effectively a blocked runway is a different matter and this has to stop NOW

I completely agree. Although I would not personally feel obliged to fly by money, if it has come to the point where some pilots may be forced into flying into potentially dangerous situations due to the cost, then that is a complete cheat.

Perhaps I should expand on the situation a bit more.

In total, there were 3 aircraft orbiting downwind, for a landing A320. 2 of which were PA28's, one was me, a C152. The first PA28 landed without incident, then what was in my first post happened.

Obviously, I cannot complain about the bigger aircraft. Heck, It can be fun at times. But the first PA28 joined the circuit late downwind, so I was wondering if ATC could not have sent him for an overhead join due to the situation?

Really not sure about the above comment though

Cheers

Put

[fireflybob]

Notwithstanding all the excellent advice here, especially from my erudite and esteemed fellow aviator Chilli Monster, I quite liked the Military training rule to ab initio students which was if the runway was not clear at 200 ft solo or 100 ft dual (cos instructors know what they are doing - ahem!) then you go around. I find this useful to teach at airfields without ATSU where, as we all know, it is not permitted to land unless the previous a/c has vacated (not going to go into the definition of vacated on this thread!).

Different case though when ATC issue a "Land After" but even then it's up to the following pilot as to whether he feels it prudent to continue to a landing.

[Lasiorhinus]

Originally Posted by bjornhall

Depends on where one's commit point is, doesn't it? Not wise to go around when there's not enough runway remaining to do so.

Chilli Monster, why would you be committed just because the nose wheel is on the ground? There may still be plenty of space to reject.

If you're on the runway, and at a point where there is not enough runway remaining to lift off again, yet still at a speed where a go-around is possible, you will very quickly find that you do not have enough runway left to stop in, either.

(I'm assuming you're not using arresting equipment).

More than likely, if there isnt enough runway remaining to lift off again, you'll be at a speed slow enough to have considered the landing complete, and be taxiing. High speed taxi, perhaps, but still taxiing.

If you're putting your commit point this far down the landing, you're putting yourself in danger from the opposite end of the diagram - contemplating the possibility of going around after the landing is complete. To take this to the extreme, imagine you've landed, taxi off the runway, and as you approach the clubhouse, a dog runs in front of you. "Going around!", you call, as you firewall the throttle. (Dont actually try this - it will end in tears).


I presume most of you are familiar with the concept of V1 in large aircraft operations. For a balanced field, V1 is the speed of an aircraft as it accelerates, from which will take the same distance to either continue to accelerate, rotate and climb to 35 feet, or to brake and come to a complete stop.

A similar speed occurs during the landing roll, for any aircraft.

When approaching and landing, at high speed it will take considerably less distance to accelerate and climb to 50 feet (you may already be above 50 feet) than it would to stop - depending how fast you are, you may need a few kilometres to slow to landing speed, touch down, and then slow to a complete stop. Conversely, at very low speed, such as walking pace, you will require very little distance to bring the aircraft to a complete stop, but many hundreds of metres to accelerate and climb to 50 feet.

There is a speed, however, when the distance required to either stop or go will be exactly the same. As far as I am aware, this isn't actually designated anywhere, but should be relatively easy to calculate or determine, given an afternoon with calm wind and a couple of friends. For argument's sake, lets call this speed VG. (Vitesse Go-around, for those playing at home).


When landing, you will certainly be above VG all the time you are airborne. After touchdown, but still travelling faster than VG, it is still prudent to go around, in the case of an obstruction on the runway ahead of you, because you will need less distance to fly away than you would to stop. At or below VG, you should always stop, because you will need significantly more distance to execute the go-around.

So here is your point after which you are committed to land - a speed that will vary depending on aircraft and weight. It might be wise to add a buffer of perhaps ten knots to VG, using the logic that if a collision were unavoidable, its better to hit at ten knots than a hundred knots.

[Chilli Monster]

Originally Posted by Put1992

Although I would not personally feel obliged to fly by money, if it has come to the point where some pilots may be forced into flying into potentially dangerous situations due to the cost, then that is a complete cheat.

It has happened in the past, hence the Strasser initiative for airfields not to charge for diversions.

Really not sure about the above comment though

What do you not understand?

[bjornhall]

Lasiorhinus, just to be certain; are you talking about something that pertains to real world aviation, or rather how to have fun with your POH and your calculator on a rainy evening?

[IO540]

As has been stated, it depends on where one's commit point is.

If

Four horses suddenly run onto the strip in front of you

[my bold] (which is in any case damn unlikely to be unexpected since one normally has a nice aerial view of the whole area all the way down the final) then one is going to go straight into them, isn't one?

Sorry Lasiorhinus but if you want to play with semantics you need to do it right

The only choice one then has is whether to hit them at say 50kt with the engine off, or at say 60kt with the engine running flat out (and needing a shock load inspection etc).

Obviously if there is a new obstruction and there is clearly plenty of runway then one would take off again.

You would not commit to a takeoff unless 100% sure it's going to work so why advocate committing to a takeoff (the go around) in some tight situation?

Following the point where all wheels are on the ground, the time window in which a go-around is possible but a stop is not is very short indeed.

But in most situations one is better off on the runway at say 40kt (a typical spamcan speed a few seconds after touchdown) and slowing down nicely because the weight is on the wheels, and having directional control from the nosewheel (which is also firmly on the ground) even if this means driving off the runway to avoid the new obstacle, than trying to accelerate from 40kt to 70kt within a rapidly diminishing available distance which, if misjudged, will result in a well wrecked plane.

The difference in energy to be dissipated in a crash is huge between 40kt and 70kt.

Bush flying is bound to be different but in the normal UK/European context of runways not being surrounded by bush full of hidden horses, one is better off hanging onto the go-around option right up to the touchdown point, and then concentrating on a landing.

Again it's different in big crosswind situations esp. on taildraggers where one may have to go around from a later point if the plane turns out to be directionally uncontrollable.

[Final 3 Greens]

it takes less distance to stop than it does to get airborne again

Please would you supply a definitive reference from the POH to support this assertion.

A PA28 would suffice as the type for this purpose.

[IO540]

Come on F3G you know it depends on the decision point...

[Put1992]

What do you not understand?

Really not sure about the above comment though

Which was

so I was wondering if ATC could not have sent him for an overhead join due to the situation?

[Chilli Monster]

Ahhh. Yes, overhead join would have been a better option but there is a tendency at ATC airfields to concentrate on either base or downwind joins. Knowing where you are talking about now (thanks) I think that's probably re-inforced by the proximity of CAS. It's a mindset thing where you forget there are more ways to skin a cat.

[SNS3Guppy]

Because at that point, being a good pilot who keeps his nose wheel off as long as possible, it takes less distance to stop than it does to get airborne again

Keeping your nosewheel off can produce negligible benifits; aerodynamic braking is effective at higher speeds, but merely keeping it off as long as possible doesn't serve any particular purpose, may reduce ground directional control, and doesn't make one a "good pilot." Regardless, whether the nosewheel (or tailwwheel) is on the ground or not has no real bearing on the reasonablness of executing a go-around or touch and go as the case may be.

If you touch down and find that something has caused a directional control issue, a runway incursion is happening, or something else occurs which requires a go-around, you're going faster on the runway at an earlier point than you would during a normal takeoff. If you have room to takeoff you have room to go around. The normal takeoff will see you much farther down the runway, much slower, with less obstacle clearance than a go around, assuming you perform a touchdown in the touchdown zone.

When landing, you already have significant energy. You're at flying speed. You have control. Your engine is powered up. You should be mentally cocked and ready to go fly again.

I've seen animals enter the runway (deer, skunk, horses, horses with riders, vehicles, etc). I've seen aircraft that reported as holding short, suddenly enter the runway. I've seen wake turbulence that required an immediate go around. I've seen runways that appeared solid suddenly become not so; mud or ice that fell through. I've had gear problems or brake problems or aircraft problems that required a go-around. I've had landings which bounced or didn't go according to plan, which were best handled by quickly going around.

I've been instructed by ATC to go around when information known by ATC wasn't known to me; I didn't know the hazard, but ATC from their vantage point could see it,and I went around.

Numerous reasons could exist for going around. Being prepared to do it at any time is a must.

Don't get caught up in the mentality that it's better to go off the end. It's not.

Don't get caught up in the mentality that you don't know how much runway you have available, or if you can go around. You had better know. There should be no question. You're the pilot in command. Know.

If you're going to go off the end when stopping, you've already made very serious mistakes, and the subject of going around is really irrelevant.

[Henry Hallam]

I'm reminded of the classic tale...

Tower "N12345 number 2, cleared to land"
Student "Cleared to land, N12345"
...
Tower "N12345 landed traffic has a flat tire, go around"
Student "er roger N12345"
Tower "N12345 the runway is blocked, GO AROUND"
Student "roger"
Tower "N12345 THERE IS AN OBSTRUCTION ON THE RUNWAY, GO AROUND NOW!!"
... student lands bang on the numbers, slows to a fast taxi and goes around the obstructing aircraft

[PlasticPilot]

Can GA be a bad choice ?

Commercial aspects aside, I can't recall any circumstances were going around can be a bad choice. The price for it is a longer flight time, and may be more traffic in the circuit...

But if for any reason you don't feel like it'll be fine, you can interrupt the approach any time. Even if there was enough space to land behind the preceding A/C, the additional stress generated by your un-ease can have safety relevant impact.

You can go around as many times as you want, but you can't fail that many landings...

[corsair]

Safe height to go around? Well I once hit the ground so hard that I decided to go around from the bounce. Guess that's pretty low.

[Final 3 Greens]

Can GA be a bad choice ?

I suppose, at the risk of being pedantic, there are some circumstances where it could be a bad choice, e.g.

- you do not have enough fuel to complete another approach

- you do not have enough performance to clear an obstacle in the climb out path

However, on balance, the principle that a go around is a safe and often wise option is a good one

[SNS3Guppy]

Now certainly yes, there are exceptional times when going around isn't a wise idea, and you've cited some of them. An engine-out approach in a light twin, for example; you're better off in most cases landing in the grass alongside the runway if you have to than trying to take it around on one engine.

An engine-out in a single is another obvious one.

Flaps stuck at 40 in your Cessna 150, probably not your best bet. Yes, rare circumstances can occur in which you can't go around, but they are rare.

I once had three deer materialize out of nowhere at a dead run on the runway as I was preparing to land a J-3 cub. I pushed up the power, the engine failed, and I went back to landing again. It does happen. Again, just not that often.

I've used airstrips in box canyons and other such locations which were true one-way strips; land one direction, take off the other, no possibility of a go-around. Again, exceptional circumstances, not at all the norm.

One more good reason, among many, to land where one is supposed to on the runway; landing far down the runway eliminates valueable stopping or "going" distance, and limits one's options.

This also highlights one of the important reasons why it's often best to continue a takeoff when one has a problem than to reject at high speed. When one rejects, one is tryin to lose energy with much of the runway behind, and to manage the airplane from a position of accelerating faster and faster, to trying to stop. Conversely, when one elects to live with the problem, take it airborne, and come back for a landing, one has several big advantages working in one's favor. Chief among those is the opportunity to take the time to work the situation out. It also gives one the opportunity to have the full runway ahead, instead of behind, and to approach the landing from a stable, controlled, slowing condition, better configured to stop.

This should be kept in mind when deciding whether to reject the landing and go airborne again. When one elects to go-around from on the runway, one already has energy and speed in one's favor. it's not at all the same as trying to accelerate from a dead stop during a takeoff; one is already going fast.

One should have done ample touch and go's (bumps and circuits in the UK, I believe) by the time one gains one's certification that it's second nature.

[Piper.Classique]

Only once?

Safe height to go around? Well I once hit the ground so hard that I decided to go around from the bounce. Guess that's pretty low.

Some of my bounces when I was learning to fly the cub I could just set up a new approach

Seriously, though, unless it's a one way strip or you are flying a glider, there are precious few times when it is impossible. I have converted a few glider pilots to powered aircraft and it is actually quite hard to persuade them not to try salvage a bad approach but to take another try at it. It's mindset and primacy again, what you learn to do first tends to stay with you

[stocker]

Dont know about horses but up here in Bonnie Scotland we always have to consider deer and sheep on a lot of the runways, including some licenced ones.
Many of our island airfields are particularly prone to migrating birds leaping up from the undergrowth at you on short finals.

I make every approach ready to commit to a GA and landing without incident is a bonus.

[corsair]

Only once?

All the others I considered to be a touch and go. This one was a spectacular at least 10 to 15 feet in the air. That particular 150 was an aerobat with spring steel legs. It was a truly magnificent bounce and a testimony to the strength of the little Cessna.

I've had one or two low go arounds from ATC. One I remember really annoyed me because it was very low, just at the pre flare stage. I felt that if I was a student pilot, it could easily have resulted in a low level stall with tragic results. I felt it was a poor call on the part of the controller.

[mm_flynn]

Originally Posted by SNS3Guppy

If you touch down and find that something has caused a directional control issue, a runway incursion is happening, or something else occurs which requires a go-around, you're going faster on the runway at an earlier point than you would during a normal takeoff. If you have room to takeoff you have room to go around. ...

While I agree that during the touchdown and shortly after all of the above is true and one should be prepared to Go Around, there is definitely a point where this is no longer true. CM's point in the landing roll (i.e. where you have decelerated to the point where the nose wheel would fall to the ground ) or alternatively the point where you have established directional control and commenced deceleration are sensible points where, 'stay on the ground' is a better option (for light GA pilots flying in 'normal' environments once you are below about 70% of Vr your distance to stop is likely to be less than your distance to clear an obstacle)

Originally Posted by SNS3Guppy

Don't get caught up in the mentality that it's better to go off the end. It's not.

I have certainly read a number of fatal accident reports associated with a botched go around from the ground run and very few serious incidents associated with rolling off the end. I can think of almost no event that could happen post my decision point above where you would be better off going around (horses on the field, runway incursion, etc, are all either immaterial in that you will stop before them or have dramatically reduced your TORA so where you are relative to a normal takeoff is irrelevant).

Originally Posted by SNS3Guppy

If you're going to go off the end when stopping, you've already made very serious mistakes, and the subject of going around is really irrelevant.

Quite agree with the first half- but why compound one cr@p decision with potentially another (that is a late decision to take-off again).