I think I cheesed off Gloucester tower yesterday for going around
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was trained that you can go around any time, even after the third bounce.
"Okay, approach briefing. We'll approach rather high this time and make a steep, power-off descent to make the threshold. You then flare too late, bounce, stall, bounce, stall, bounce again and once we've had our nosewheel broken and our prop tips dug deep into the asphalt, I want you to go-around. Understood?"
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Londonish
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Funny, but the man has a point - if it's looking pear shaped at any point you can give it beans and go around, you are not committed to land until you've turned off the runway.
Going around with a bent prop and broken nosewheel wouldn't be smart, but it's been done.
Going around with a bent prop and broken nosewheel wouldn't be smart, but it's been done.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sure. But there are things that you teach and things that you train.
I hope people are taught that go-arounds are possible, even after the third bounce, but I'd rather not see them trained in bouncing three times and then going around. Except in a simulator perhaps.
And as far as going around with a broken nosewheel is concerned: I've seen it done. A microlight of some sort was visiting our (controlled) field while we were running one of our charity days (flying with sick kids). He bounced on landing, broke his noseleg and went around. He then had the decency to hang around in the hold (with a dangling noseleg) while we could get all our charity flights back on the ground and while a few commercials could take off. Only then did he land and block our runway for some two hours. No injuries, except to his pride.
I hope people are taught that go-arounds are possible, even after the third bounce, but I'd rather not see them trained in bouncing three times and then going around. Except in a simulator perhaps.
And as far as going around with a broken nosewheel is concerned: I've seen it done. A microlight of some sort was visiting our (controlled) field while we were running one of our charity days (flying with sick kids). He bounced on landing, broke his noseleg and went around. He then had the decency to hang around in the hold (with a dangling noseleg) while we could get all our charity flights back on the ground and while a few commercials could take off. Only then did he land and block our runway for some two hours. No injuries, except to his pride.
Guest
Posts: n/a
MatsPart3
It was interesting to read your post and clearly the ATCO had good intentions and empathy for the student - good personal values I would say.
However, as a lesson leaned, this episode shows why standard r/t phraseology exists and the potential for misunderstanding when non standard terms are used.
On that basis, I believe that your ATCO made an error of judgment in trying to encourage a stude, although he absolutely did the right thing in contacting the flying club to get some background info.
Fortunately, the only outcome of this episode is better understanding for all and since all of us have made/will make errors of judgment, we should reflect on that and avoid being judgmental.
It was interesting to read your post and clearly the ATCO had good intentions and empathy for the student - good personal values I would say.
However, as a lesson leaned, this episode shows why standard r/t phraseology exists and the potential for misunderstanding when non standard terms are used.
On that basis, I believe that your ATCO made an error of judgment in trying to encourage a stude, although he absolutely did the right thing in contacting the flying club to get some background info.
Fortunately, the only outcome of this episode is better understanding for all and since all of us have made/will make errors of judgment, we should reflect on that and avoid being judgmental.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The top of the tower
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Final 3 Greens; Firstly, I am not MatsPart3's ATCO. Secondly, an error of judgement was not made, as the tapes confirmed. The comment passed was of a constructive nature after the subject aircraft had established the go-around, therefore I was not encouraging him to land from the approach!!! I do, however, appreciate that comments have been made from parties not privy to the recordings or having been there to see the circuit first hand.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VCR. I was an early Poster assuring the stude that he had done nothing wrong but I was curious as to what the Controller's thoughts were; and by no stretch of the imagination was that a criticism. Maybe I've missed it in an earlier Post but what was the clearance given and was an aicraft on the runway part of the essential traffic? This is purely out of interest and please feel free to tell me to sod off and wind my neck in. I must confess that the last time I gave a "land after" (never did an "after departing") was 37 years ago with 2804 Mtrs of blacktop available.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 588
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For the avoidance of any further doubt or speculation regarding this incident I can confirm that no landing clearance was issued, such was the timing of events.
On both approaches, the aircraft commenced the go-around before any final call, clearance to land, 'land after,' 'continue approach' or any other comment was made.
On both approaches, the aircraft commenced the go-around before any final call, clearance to land, 'land after,' 'continue approach' or any other comment was made.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: LONDON
Age: 51
Posts: 525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
matspart3, vcr etl al,
I can understand both sides of your discussion, and I probably sympathise more with going around rather than the ATC response reported although I do acknowledge I have not heard the tapes.
As someone who is wanting to start to undertake their PPL (an experience flight with a fellow ppruner this weekend weather permitting will help me see if its right for me) I have many concerns and reservations about entering into the world of GA.
Whilst I would not say once I commit to it that I would be under confident, but I would most definately say that I will always be over cautious until at least the point that I am confident in my own abilities, the abilities of the plane and the confidence in dealing with the dynamic situations - even then my reading teaches me confidence is a killer.
I know if/when I commit to the PPL that if I ever get to a point where I am not 99.9% confident in a situation I will err on the side of caution and react accordingly - now I can understand that will peeve some if not all the more experienced but I would like to believe that the processes and procedures in place can cope with my inexperience.
I am not trying to rifle either sides feathers in this instance but to be honest the day if ever it comes if I am not happy with something and in my considerations are that I cannot quantify the dangers to my satisfaction I will abort and go around - it may be with hindsight and experience a non event but without that hindsight and experience you cannot make that call in an appropriate manner.
I am all for the person involved actually coming to visit you and not only discuss the event but get a perspective of what is involved with the ATC side of things - the bigger the picture you have the better judgements you can make (I just hope I get that opportunity one day).
I guess if I was to summarise it would be to say that the situation that occured has been viewed from two accutely different angles, one with experience and one gaining experience - I think there are valuable lessons to be learnt for both parties here, from an atc perspective it is probably to not apply your experience of being the pilot in the field when your not in the aircraft and from the pilots perspective to accept constructive criticsim - dont take it personally and discuss it - safety is the goal from both angles.
I dont feel either party in this were fundamentaly wrong, things could have been better on both parts reading the above - but both could learn, communicate and come out the other side with a much better understanding of all the issues involved. There is no point in pointing the finger but there is a point discussing if you glean experience from it.
Hope my tuppence worth from a non-aviator (for now !) was worthwhile
.
I can understand both sides of your discussion, and I probably sympathise more with going around rather than the ATC response reported although I do acknowledge I have not heard the tapes.
As someone who is wanting to start to undertake their PPL (an experience flight with a fellow ppruner this weekend weather permitting will help me see if its right for me) I have many concerns and reservations about entering into the world of GA.
Whilst I would not say once I commit to it that I would be under confident, but I would most definately say that I will always be over cautious until at least the point that I am confident in my own abilities, the abilities of the plane and the confidence in dealing with the dynamic situations - even then my reading teaches me confidence is a killer.
I know if/when I commit to the PPL that if I ever get to a point where I am not 99.9% confident in a situation I will err on the side of caution and react accordingly - now I can understand that will peeve some if not all the more experienced but I would like to believe that the processes and procedures in place can cope with my inexperience.
I am not trying to rifle either sides feathers in this instance but to be honest the day if ever it comes if I am not happy with something and in my considerations are that I cannot quantify the dangers to my satisfaction I will abort and go around - it may be with hindsight and experience a non event but without that hindsight and experience you cannot make that call in an appropriate manner.
I am all for the person involved actually coming to visit you and not only discuss the event but get a perspective of what is involved with the ATC side of things - the bigger the picture you have the better judgements you can make (I just hope I get that opportunity one day).
I guess if I was to summarise it would be to say that the situation that occured has been viewed from two accutely different angles, one with experience and one gaining experience - I think there are valuable lessons to be learnt for both parties here, from an atc perspective it is probably to not apply your experience of being the pilot in the field when your not in the aircraft and from the pilots perspective to accept constructive criticsim - dont take it personally and discuss it - safety is the goal from both angles.
I dont feel either party in this were fundamentaly wrong, things could have been better on both parts reading the above - but both could learn, communicate and come out the other side with a much better understanding of all the issues involved. There is no point in pointing the finger but there is a point discussing if you glean experience from it.
Hope my tuppence worth from a non-aviator (for now !) was worthwhile
.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 266
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"I know if/when I commit to the PPL that if I ever get to a point where I am not 99.9% confident in a situation I will err on the side of caution and react accordingly - now I can understand that will peeve some if not all the more experienced but I would like to believe that the processes and procedures in place can cope with my inexperience."
Look carefully through the thread - no-one has said that the pilot did the wrong thing by going round... not even a hint. If you're ever not happy with an approach, throw it away and try again - if needs be at a different aerodrome.
As this thread shows, it's sometimes a case of perception. You may perceive that you've upset someone by an action, when in fact your airmanship is recognised and approved of.
The point of training is to give you the skills to fly safely. A significant part of this is about good decision making and having the confidence to do what is right in the circumstances. You'll develop an awareness of what's going on around you and your part in it.
I can really commend flying to you. There simply is nothing else like it. There are few things in life that require so much involvement to do well. It's challenging, but ultimately fantastically rewarding.
Look carefully through the thread - no-one has said that the pilot did the wrong thing by going round... not even a hint. If you're ever not happy with an approach, throw it away and try again - if needs be at a different aerodrome.
As this thread shows, it's sometimes a case of perception. You may perceive that you've upset someone by an action, when in fact your airmanship is recognised and approved of.
The point of training is to give you the skills to fly safely. A significant part of this is about good decision making and having the confidence to do what is right in the circumstances. You'll develop an awareness of what's going on around you and your part in it.
I can really commend flying to you. There simply is nothing else like it. There are few things in life that require so much involvement to do well. It's challenging, but ultimately fantastically rewarding.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: LONDON
Age: 51
Posts: 525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can really commend flying to you. There simply is nothing else like it. There are few things in life that require so much involvement to do well. It's challenging, but ultimately fantastically rewarding.
Whilst people have said its okay to go around as PIC - I was trying to say the insecurities I feel before even getting to PIC let alone being in charge of the plane. My first solo I am scared of - perhaps only cause I dont know enough now.
Last edited by Jofm5; 4th Jun 2009 at 07:39.
I hope people are taught that go-arounds are possible, even after the third bounce, but I'd rather not see them trained in bouncing three times and then going around.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Mind you, having a good idea of who trained Gertie, I wouldn't actually put it past them when bored...
One of my favourites was the low flying lesson - "imagine you've stupidly got yourself stuck below low cloud in low visibility, right, descend and slow down, let's have some flap, that's it, now keep going low and slow".
"What about that row of trees?"
"Look at them carefully."
"Oh ... you want me to go through that gap?" (At which point I realise that this is a game he has played before at this carefully selected location.)
Through the trees.
"What about that row of pylons and wires ahead of us?"
"You can't see them yet. We're pretending we're in low visibility remember."
A bit later.
"What about that row of pylons and wires ahead of us?"
"You still can't see them."
A bit later.
"What about that row of pylons and wires ahead of us?"
"Oh, do you think you can see them now?"
"Yes I ****** do."
"Oh all right them. OK, I have control, don't try this on your own."
Full power, low speed steep turn, and you can imagine how high we weren't.
