Safe height to go around?

[Put1992]

Upon being forced to commit a go around on my previous solo flight (still had to pay the landing fee) I was wondering if I should have gone earlier. PA-28 on the runway, and ATC told me to continue my approach at 500 feet. The PA-28 was vacating at the very end of the runway. Really, I should have gone around at an earlier point, but I hesitated, ignorant to the fact that aircraft were not vacating on the "middle" taxiway. I ended up going around at 300 Feet.

A combination of a busy circuit, and an A320 on the ILS meant it all got a bit hectic in the circuit!

Decided to call it a full stop after that.

A very testing flight!

[Finals19]

Ultimately the GA is your call, but ATC were probably trying to squeeze you in due to traffic conditions at the time. Not unusual at larger airports for ATC to give you a VERY late landing clearance - its really all down to how comfortable you are with accepting it. Remember you can go around at any height you want, just as long as you deem it safe to do so. I have gone around at 50 feet or less, which is really no big deal, although lots of variables come into this, like wx, wind, obstacles etc.

Remember that large a/c go around from 200' agl on an ILS, and in reality they can actually dip below this in the process...

[SNS3Guppy]

Safe height to go around? It starts at the ground, and goes up from there.

[Put1992]

Ah ok. It just all seemed a bit dramatic at the time

[Mike Cross]

Go-around is as SNS3G says, anywhere from the ground up. If you land too fast and balloon a well-executed go around will save your bacon and prevent the nosewheel being broken off.

However until you are very comfortable with the handling it's wise not to push the envelope too far. Pushing the throttle forward and retracting the flaps with one hand can cause the other hand to move, particularly if you don't have the trim correctly set and are holding on some pressure, or if the a/c has a big pitch change when you do it.

The right point to go around is when you realise that you are not going to land. Continuing the approach when it's plain as a pikestaff that the other a/c won't vacate in time is pointless.

Not unusual at larger airports for ATC to give you a VERY late landing clearance

They're masters of the art of holding the microphone open "Speedbird 243.................. continue approach................wind 240 10 kt.......................justwaiting for the previous aircraft to clear the runway...........clear to land!"

[BackPacker]

It just all seemed a bit dramatic at the time.

For a low-hours student, I can imagine that a GA can be very dramatic. Especially if it's not due to your own fault but because of external circumstances and ordered by ATC. Just keep your head cool, acknowledge the instruction, put full power on, carb heat off, keep the nose fairly low so you build speed first without losing any more altitude, get rid of some flap if you have to and then climb away. And yes, this can happen even at 1 ft. over the runway.

ATC told me to continue my approach at 500 feet

Just so I understand this correctly. Did ATC call "continue approach" when you happened to be at 500 feet, or did ATC call "maintain 500 feet" when you were on final approach?

I guess it would have been the first, and this is quite normal. You've called final, you had probably had confirmation earlier on that you were first to land (except for the one one the runway) and this is just ATCs way of saying "continue your approach as if you're going to land but I can't give you a landing clearance yet because of other traffic on the runway. But I think the timing will work out and I'll be able to give you a landing clearance in due time". So just continue your approach as if you're going to land, but just make sure your wheels don't touch the tarmac yet.

I fly from a long runway with exits at the beginning and end only and we get this a lot: traffic unfamiliar with the runway exit layout touching down at the "big aircraft" touchdown point, and then taxiing all the way down the runway. The trick is then to continue the approach, initiate the flare with a bit of power on so that you float indefinitely without touching the tarmac, and chop the power as soon as you get the landing clearance. Only when the landing clearance doesn't come when we've floated halfway down the runway (or more) do we initiate a go-around. Which is actually quite tricky when you're so close to the ground, due to the torque effect and everything. Increase power carefully and keep the nose pointed exactly where it was until you've got full power on. Only then raise the flaps carefully and climb away.

Come to think of it, this might be a very good exercise to do with your instructor, sometime. Don't do it with a stiff crosswind though, at least not the first few times.

Oh yeah, and anytime you do an approach and end up below 500 feet (I think) you have to pay a landing fee. Doesn't matter whether you call it a missed approach, go around, touch and go or full stop.

[Put1992]

Just so I understand this correctly. Did ATC call "continue approach" when you happened to be at 500 feet, or did ATC call "maintain 500 feet" when you were on final approach?

The called "continue approach".

I was just wondering why they did not tell me to go around, when it was clear, even from then, that I was not going to make it.

Cheers

[BackPacker]

I was just wondering why they did not tell me to go around, when it was clear, even from then, that I was not going to make it.

Perhaps because they though you could make it? Or because they thought, just like you did, that the aircraft in front would take the middle exit?

It is sometimes surprising what experienced pilots can do in a familiar aircraft and on a familiar airfield, and ATC knows that. So they sometimes push the envelope a bit when they are working an aircraft based locally, expecting that an experienced pilot will work with them, an an inexperienced pilot will simply say no.

So in your case, executing the go-around at 300 feet was the right thing to do. But a more experienced pilot, familiar with the field, ATC and the aircraft, might have continued the approach and squeezed in behind anyway.

In situations like that, it's a bit of a game between the pilots and ATC. If you know the rules and have the experience, you can play the game. If you lack the experience, don't play and stick to what you know. You can always go around. It's the landings that are the hardest.

[Julian]

Echo the sentiments...go around is from 0.1mm upwards :o)

The other thing to remember is that you are probably in the worst position you can be - low and slow - so although must act quickly, make sure you dont do anything stupid. Chuck tried to get this point across in his thread.

As my instructor on my PPL always said all those years ago

"Treat every approach you make as a potential go around"

I have always stuck by his advice since!

J.

[IO540]

The #1 rule is keep the decisionmaking in the cockpit.

ATC are there to assist but they cannot override the above.

It's much easier and much safer to go around when at say 300ft or higher than when on the runway. Personally, therefore, I go around if I am unhappy about previous landing traffic getting out of the way. One should never commit to a landing unless the runway is clearly clear, and once committed to a landing I always land.

Putting the effort into a decent landing is always safer than putting the effort into a late go-around.

A go-around from the runway is hazardous because one doesn't know how much runway is left, and there is a high workload with getting rid of the landing flap, etc.

[Ivor_Novello]

Not all runways are 2200 meters tarmac.... and I wouldn't rely too heavily on the brakes of the average training aircraft.
So yeah there's no limit to how low one can go around, sometimes it can be with all wheels down having realised you won't stop before the fence

And I would say that sometimes ATC will have to override the cockpit decision making. Runway incursions are not unheard of and sometimes angle/slope/sunglare don't make them too easy to spot.

Ivor

[foxmoth]

Remember that large a/c go around from 200' agl on an ILS, and in reality they can actually dip below this in the process...

Not quite correct, from a CATII or III approach you can be going around from much lower than this - right down to touchdown in fact, often in the SIM on a practice LVO you may be going around below 50' and the aircraft may touch the runway during the GA.

[Blues&twos]

Lufthansa, Hamburg anyone?

[Julian]

And I would say that sometimes ATC will have to override the cockpit decision making.

Whilst ATC can request you to go around the final decision will still be yours, you may not be able to GA for some reason. If you can then you should, as you say, ATC may have seen something you haven't!

J.

[Put1992]

Or because they thought, just like you did, that the aircraft in front would take the middle exit?

But the aircraft was told to vacate at the very end of the runway

[Lasiorhinus]

Originally Posted by IO540

once committed to a landing I always land.

With respect, that's a very dangerous mindset.

Once you've committed to the landing, and you suddenly realise your wheels are still up, it is prudent to go-around.

Four horses suddenly run onto the strip in front of you... go around.

Landing into a setting sun, you suddenly realise the shadow in the runway is not the shadow of a tree, but the aircraft that landed before you with a flat tyre and ground-looped... go around.

Until your aircraft is on the ground and slowed to taxi speed, you must always be prepared to go around. It matters not whether you're flying a microlight or a 747 - consciously refusing to go around below a certain limit is a dangerous attitude, and greatly increases your chance of bending something, one day.

[Chilli Monster]

Originally Posted by Put1992

Upon being forced to commit a go around on my previous solo flight (still had to pay the landing fee) I was wondering if I should have gone earlier.

From a flight safety point of view this concerns me - would you care to name and shame? 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

Originally Posted by IO540

One should never commit to a landing unless the runway is clearly clear

Have you never had a "Land After"? That's a landing without a "vacated" runway (I hate the use of the word "clear" in this context for obvious reasons, and we might as well get the terminoogy right)

and once committed to a landing I always land.

I agree with Lasiorhinus, a dangerous mindset. Once the decision is made to land then fair enough, you continue with it, however you should never really be commited to landing until the nose wheel touches the ground. Up until that point every approach is a potential go-around.

A go-around from the runway is hazardous because one doesn't know how much runway is left, and there is a high workload with getting rid of the landing flap, etc

Of course you know how much runway is left - aim to touchdown in the TDZ everytime and it becomes pretty self evident, and not too difficult to work out. Correctly executed and trained for the workload for a go-around is no different to that on take off.

[bjornhall]

With respect, that's a very dangerous mindset.

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.

[Chilli Monster]

why would you be committed just because the nose wheel is on the ground?

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 If you have to reject the landing due to an obstruction then at that point you're going to hit it if you try and get airborne again.

From an ATC point of view also, I wouldn't dream of sending an aircraft around from the "nose wheel on" position if I judged the speed slow enough to make acceleration and take-off unsafe - and if the aircraft has been landed properly then that is the more likely possibility.

[bjornhall]

Ok, good answer!