Safe height to go around?
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
From: Daventry
Being charged for go around
Put1992
I know where you fly and how you pay for landing fees (not direct to tower),are you assuming that you are being billed in this circumstance even though you iniated the go around.After all,you went around on safety reasons,not because you made a cod's of the approach.
Not worth a major inquiry over the few pounds involved but you can always ask the tower (maybe when you next book out)
You made a good decision though
As far as the OHJ is concerned,as you know the circuit height is 1000' aal and CAS is at 1500',so OHJ's not common there I believe.
MM
I know where you fly and how you pay for landing fees (not direct to tower),are you assuming that you are being billed in this circumstance even though you iniated the go around.After all,you went around on safety reasons,not because you made a cod's of the approach.
Not worth a major inquiry over the few pounds involved but you can always ask the tower (maybe when you next book out)
You made a good decision though
As far as the OHJ is concerned,as you know the circuit height is 1000' aal and CAS is at 1500',so OHJ's not common there I believe.
MM
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 2
From: USA
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).
You do not necessarily have to stop before an incursion; going may be your only option.
Others have stated they'd rather hit the object at a lesser speed, exit the runay at a lesser speed, etc. Why hit it at all? Your best option may very well be to go.
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)
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).
See this happening; don't wait until you've rolled off the end to make the decision. Any go-around requires a certain degree of timliness. One cannot go beyond the point of no return, having rolled off the runway and caught fire, before deciding to go. When one is landing one is obviously not putting it down in the touchdown zone, then it's time to go...give up trying to stop...just go.
One should have the runway planned out. If it's a four thousand foot runway, know that half way down that runway, you've only got two thousand feet. Know what you can do with two thousand feet. No guessing required. Look at the runway as you approach it, or as you enter the pattern to land on it. Note the half way point. Note the touchdown zone, and how to identify it as you approach it. Just as you should always do when taking off, you should plan out the runway when landing; know where you'll be capable of rejecting the takeoff; plan it mentally in accordance with a runway light, distance marker, taxiway or runway access, bush, tree, patch of bare ground, whatever.
A good rule of thumb when picking a runway for landing is to pick one in which you can stop and takeoff again...if it's not long enough to land, stop, and takeoff from that position on the runway, then go find another runway. With that length in mind, you don't run out of a place to go-around when landing. Try it, some time.
Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
From: Anywhere
Originally Posted by SNS3 Guppy
The nosewheel "falling" to the runway is entirely irrelevant and meaningless in determining when one should no longer consider doing a go-around. That point in time marks no particular distance remaining or consumed, nor is it relevant to the ability to accelerate to flying speed, nor clear subsequent obstacles.
It might not have any "relevance", but as a rule of thumb it's going to work pretty well for me (and pretty badly for you I suspect
)Make it more interesting - pair of Citations, obstacle 1000m into the runway. Want to play "Spool Up Roulette"?
A good rule of thumb when picking a runway for landing is to pick one in which you can stop and takeoff again...if it's not long enough to land, stop, and takeoff from that position on the runway, then go find another runway.
Last edited by Chilli Monster; 1st May 2008 at 19:38.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Tell you what then - let's take 2 identical aircraft (PA28 or similar) and land them towards an obstacle 400 metres away. At the point I lower the nose and brake to a stop (not before) you apply power and see if you miss the obstacle.
I've operated a PA28RT from a 490m runway (Leicester 04/22), 2 adults, 2 kids, standing start and made it out very easily.
What speed are you lowering the nose? Or put it another way, how long does a PA28 take to accelerate to Vr from a standing start? Rather longer than from 30-40 knots and certainly more than 90 metres, I would hypothesise.
Or is your obstacle the Eiffel Tower?
By the way, if can you show me the POH chart to support your assertion, I might change my view.
BTW, I could also stop in 400m.
For the avoidance of doubt, I am a competent, "average Joe" PPL.
I've operated a PA28RT from a 490m runway (Leicester 04/22), 2 adults, 2 kids, standing start and made it out very easily.
What speed are you lowering the nose? Or put it another way, how long does a PA28 take to accelerate to Vr from a standing start? Rather longer than from 30-40 knots and certainly more than 90 metres, I would hypothesise.
Or is your obstacle the Eiffel Tower?
By the way, if can you show me the POH chart to support your assertion, I might change my view.
BTW, I could also stop in 400m.
For the avoidance of doubt, I am a competent, "average Joe" PPL.
Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
From: Anywhere
F3G - I've operated my TB20 off the same runway. However, that's not the scenario. The scenario is to land, decelerate to a speed probably adjacent to stall and then see what uses less distance - stopping or accelerating back to take off speed.
There are no performance charts for such a scenario (which you well know), though no doubt if one was written I suspect the results would bear out that stopping (especially if you're confident in your brake perfomance) will use the less distance than going around from that point.
That should be self evident.
There are no performance charts for such a scenario (which you well know), though no doubt if one was written I suspect the results would bear out that stopping (especially if you're confident in your brake perfomance) will use the less distance than going around from that point.
That should be self evident.
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,218
Likes: 0
From: Surrey
A bull entered the runway at a remote location on the Navajo reservation one night; I didn't have time to stop and had too much energy, but not enough to continue a takeoff. I applied full power, applied full flaps, pitched up over the bull in ground effect, came down on the other side, continued to gain speed, and lifted off prior to the ambulance at the other end.
F3G,
If you get the accelerate-stop distances and the takeoff distance charts for a twin you can find the speed where stop is better than go.
The scenario Chilli is painting is
1 - you land at Leiester and slow to say 40 kts
2 - A van drives on to the runway at the 400m point
3a - Do you continue to stop - Which as you have said is 'easy' within the runway before the van - cause you know you can land in 400 m
OR
3b - do you, 250 meters down the runway 40 kts (assuming Vr = 60) and slowing, with full drag flaps, hit the gas and go for a ground effect pop over of the van (or even better a takeoff!). If you believe in the rule of thumb that 'if you are not at 2/3Vr by 1/2 way down the runway then you should reject the takeoff' - why go when you would reject this situation if you were starting from the ground?
Thread Starter
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
From: Birmingham
As far as the OHJ is concerned,as you know the circuit height is 1000' aal and CAS is at 1500',so OHJ's not common there I believe.
What speed are you lowering the nose? Or put it another way, how long does a PA28 take to accelerate to Vr from a standing start? Rather longer than from 30-40 knots and certainly more than 90 metres
Im sure you've all had the feeling of just wanting to be on the ground again? (to remain sane
)Cheers
Put
Guest
Posts: n/a
So you touch down and decelerate to a speed adjacent to the stall in an Archer (49 knots), release one stage of flaps and add full power.
The aircraft will be accelerating strongly and can lift at 55 knots if need be (although 60 would be preferable) - how long does it take to add 7 knots compared to shedding 49?
I just think that the scenario is daft for a PA28 and the data doesn't exist in the POH, so its a matter of opinion.
If this really happened, my choice of whether to stop or go would be more influenced by runway type/contamination. e.g. wet short grass or dry tarmac.
That is a very fair point. Although let's say you fly from a very short strip, and you float a fair way down the runway on the flare. In the potential, and I use the term loosely, panic, of it all, you can't assume a low hours student is going to be immediately familiar with how much room he has to play with, that is appropriate to his aircraft. Thus why accidents happen.
Understand your point, but are you saying that the stop or go is more risky?
At this stage, the aircraft is effectively out of control if the pilot does not know the options available, another reason (to quote SNS Guppy) why it is important to put the aircraft down in the right zone.
The aircraft will be accelerating strongly and can lift at 55 knots if need be (although 60 would be preferable) - how long does it take to add 7 knots compared to shedding 49?
I just think that the scenario is daft for a PA28 and the data doesn't exist in the POH, so its a matter of opinion.
If this really happened, my choice of whether to stop or go would be more influenced by runway type/contamination. e.g. wet short grass or dry tarmac.
That is a very fair point. Although let's say you fly from a very short strip, and you float a fair way down the runway on the flare. In the potential, and I use the term loosely, panic, of it all, you can't assume a low hours student is going to be immediately familiar with how much room he has to play with, that is appropriate to his aircraft. Thus why accidents happen.
Understand your point, but are you saying that the stop or go is more risky?
At this stage, the aircraft is effectively out of control if the pilot does not know the options available, another reason (to quote SNS Guppy) why it is important to put the aircraft down in the right zone.
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
From: Vancouver Island
In propeller driven aircraft, I've had 40 or 50 engine failures over the years,
Several thousand birdstrikes, but only a few have resulted in damage.
I applied full power, applied full flaps, pitched up over the bull in ground effect, came down on the other side, continued to gain speed, and lifted off prior to the ambulance at the other end.
That looks like someone who should maybe quit while they are ahead, because maybe the next time they won't miss the ambulance.
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,218
Likes: 0
From: Surrey
So you touch down and decelerate to a speed adjacent to the stall in an Archer (49 knots), release one stage of flaps and add full power.
The aircraft will be accelerating strongly and can lift at 55 knots if need be (although 60 would be preferable) - how long does it take to add 7 knots compared to shedding 49?
The aircraft will be accelerating strongly and can lift at 55 knots if need be (although 60 would be preferable) - how long does it take to add 7 knots compared to shedding 49?
HOWEVER, it takes 230 ft to accelerate, allow 1.5 sec to realise you have the problem, reconfigure, get the power on - is another 100ft, and then assume a 6% climb gradient is another 100 ft to clear a 6 foot obstruction and you are now 430 feet from decision point at 65 kts, In the 8 seconds to stop you will have rolled 380 ft.
So you can see even pretty early in the landing roll the physics say stop. There are of course many reasons around aircraft control (bouncing, lateral track, directional instability, surface condition, brake functionality, etc.) early in the landing that would mean go around is the right choice. Hence my logic of once you have established braking effectiveness and directional control the go around is discounted.
Thread Starter
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
From: Birmingham
Understand your point, but are you saying that the stop or go is more risky?
Cheers
Put
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 2
From: USA
In propeller driven aircraft, I've had 40 or 50 engine failures over the years,
Several thousand birdstrikes, but only a few have resulted in damage.
I applied full power, applied full flaps, pitched up over the bull in ground effect, came down on the other side, continued to gain speed, and lifted off prior to the ambulance at the other end.
That looks like someone who should maybe quit while they are ahead, because maybe the next time they won't miss the ambulance.
Several thousand birdstrikes, but only a few have resulted in damage.
I applied full power, applied full flaps, pitched up over the bull in ground effect, came down on the other side, continued to gain speed, and lifted off prior to the ambulance at the other end.
That looks like someone who should maybe quit while they are ahead, because maybe the next time they won't miss the ambulance.
You rise up every once in a while with a little vitriol to swat down...are you somehow threatened by other participants here...does it tip your throne, or something?
Are you for real? I've never read such $hit in all my life. Must tell all the other guys operating Citations, Lears, Challengers, Hawkers, Beech Jets etc into Cannes that they shouldn't be going in there according to you.
I said nothing about going into Cannes. However, as you brought it up, do YOU fly any of the aircraft you cited...and do YOU fly them into Cannes?
Seeing as you brought it up...with Cannes being a 5,200' runway, chances are very good that one can get one's warrior down in that distance, stopped, and take off again...which is just what I said before. Think.
Last edited by SNS3Guppy; 2nd May 2008 at 08:35.
Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
From: Anywhere
SNS3 - yes, C550, non thrust reverser equipped, C560, thrust reverser equipped, both into Cannes.
And the type of aircraft doesn't matter - you inferred it's always better to go-around no matter what your speed, no matter what the obstruction. That has been shown to be a possible bad decision in certain scenarios. (I notice you don't disagree with either of the "comparison" scenarios I posted).
You also stated that you shouldn't operate an aircraft from ANY runway from which you couldn't land, stop, then take off again - again, if we all took that rather simplistic, non educated, non calculated approach then the number of airfields / strips many people would operate out of would cease to be viable, and is a completely unrealistic approach to flying.
I wish I had the luxury of 6000ft plus every time - it isn't always going to be the case. I've operated a PA28 onto a grass runway where the LDA is only 341 metres - now in your eyes that's a no-no, but the book says it's possible, and I've proved it is by doing it. Once you lower the nose-wheel you're stopping, the go-around ceases to be an option. It does however remain so up until that point (I think I'm proving the case again, something you've not actually managed in your postings).
You see, for all your pontificating about runway lengths that's not the crux of the matter here. It doesn't matter if the runway is 10000ft long - because if you get an obstruction in front of you at the 1500ft point, as you touch down, then that's how long your runway is - what lies beyond the obstruction has the same relevance as fuel in the bowser or sky above you - $od all
As others have said - quit while you're behind.
And the type of aircraft doesn't matter - you inferred it's always better to go-around no matter what your speed, no matter what the obstruction. That has been shown to be a possible bad decision in certain scenarios. (I notice you don't disagree with either of the "comparison" scenarios I posted).
You also stated that you shouldn't operate an aircraft from ANY runway from which you couldn't land, stop, then take off again - again, if we all took that rather simplistic, non educated, non calculated approach then the number of airfields / strips many people would operate out of would cease to be viable, and is a completely unrealistic approach to flying.
I wish I had the luxury of 6000ft plus every time - it isn't always going to be the case. I've operated a PA28 onto a grass runway where the LDA is only 341 metres - now in your eyes that's a no-no, but the book says it's possible, and I've proved it is by doing it. Once you lower the nose-wheel you're stopping, the go-around ceases to be an option. It does however remain so up until that point (I think I'm proving the case again, something you've not actually managed in your postings).
You see, for all your pontificating about runway lengths that's not the crux of the matter here. It doesn't matter if the runway is 10000ft long - because if you get an obstruction in front of you at the 1500ft point, as you touch down, then that's how long your runway is - what lies beyond the obstruction has the same relevance as fuel in the bowser or sky above you - $od all
As others have said - quit while you're behind.
Last edited by Chilli Monster; 2nd May 2008 at 13:15.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Using some reasonable acceleration and deceleration derived from my POH
Its always good to see a test pilot posting here
HOWEVER, it takes 230 ft to accelerate, allow 1.5 sec to realise you have the problem, reconfigure, get the power on - is another 100ft, and then assume a 6% climb gradient is another 100 ft to clear a 6 foot obstruction and you are now 430 feet from decision point at 65 kts, In the 8 seconds to stop you will have rolled 380 ft.
Well logic isn't your strong point is it? if the decision to go/reconfigure takes 1.5 seconds, then the same should apply to the stop decision, since a normal landing won't require the type of braking necessary to stop a PA28 in 380 feet.
So a go decision will see one clear a 6 foot obstacle after 430 feet?
Chilli Monster set a distance of 400m, which is 1313 feet - now which part of "clear it easily" are you having trouble understanding?
Likewise stopping in less than 1313 feet won't be a problem.
How many hours do you have in PA28s?
The scenario as set is so easy as to be daft and any experienced PA28 driver will know that without resorting to a calculator.
Its always good to see a test pilot posting here
HOWEVER, it takes 230 ft to accelerate, allow 1.5 sec to realise you have the problem, reconfigure, get the power on - is another 100ft, and then assume a 6% climb gradient is another 100 ft to clear a 6 foot obstruction and you are now 430 feet from decision point at 65 kts, In the 8 seconds to stop you will have rolled 380 ft.
Well logic isn't your strong point is it? if the decision to go/reconfigure takes 1.5 seconds, then the same should apply to the stop decision, since a normal landing won't require the type of braking necessary to stop a PA28 in 380 feet.
So a go decision will see one clear a 6 foot obstacle after 430 feet?
Chilli Monster set a distance of 400m, which is 1313 feet - now which part of "clear it easily" are you having trouble understanding?
Likewise stopping in less than 1313 feet won't be a problem.
How many hours do you have in PA28s?
The scenario as set is so easy as to be daft and any experienced PA28 driver will know that without resorting to a calculator.
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 2
From: USA
you inferred it's always better to go-around no matter what your speed, no matter what the obstruction.
You also stated that you shouldn't operate an aircraft from ANY runway from which you couldn't land, stop, then take off again
Lets face it. If you land on a runway that's long enough to take off again once you've come to a complete stop, then going around at any point in the landing just isn't a problem.
If you're caught with an object that intrudes on the landing distance, then the entire disucssion is pointless.
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,199
Likes: 3
From: Hunched over a keyboard
They gave you "continue" because they were hoping that the other aeroplane would clear promptly enough to allow them to upgrade to "land". However, if you don't get that clearance in sufficient time, then it's really up to you to decide that it's time to give up and go around.