Go-arounds and buildings
 

When flying go-arounds and the club/terminal building is on the dead side is it permissible to fly over this building?

If going around were to involve breaking the law regarding what buildings may or may not be flown over I would suggest that terminal buildings would be built underground. Perhaps decision height should be >1000ft, less than that you have 3 choices, land, die, go to jail.

Rule 5 (or is it 6 now) doesn't apply when landing or taking off if conforming to normal aviation practice. So I guess technically you're legal.

In practice, I would let it depend on the reason for the go-around. If it's an aircraft all of a sudden entering the runway for take-off, with me on short final, I would get off the centerline no matter what. If it's a non-flying obstruction on the runway (car, deer, disabled aircraft) I would let it depend on circumstances and other circuit traffic. If it was my own fault (balked landing) maintaining the centerline exactly, or moving to the deadside would probably be the least of my worries. Getting the aircraft configured for a climb is more important.

Thanks for the clarification.

If you want a pedantic answer I think you'll find that if it's an unlicensed aerodrome you could be considered to be contravening the low flying prohibitions if you flew within 500ft of the clubhouse or any other structure, person, vessel or vehicle. It would all depend whether a go-around is deemed to be 'landing and taking-off in accordance with normal aviation practice'. Given that you do it without immediately beforehand taken off or are just about to land it might be argued by some legal bod that you are not performing either a take off or landing manoeuvre and thus are not exempted from the 500ft rule.

Of course, at a licensed aerodrome you are exempt all of the low flying prohibitions if flying in accordance with normal practice for the purpose of practising approaches to landing - which normally may involve a go-around.

Pedant mode off.

Probably better to fly over it than into it

Good point!

How low did you fly over said building? If it was 150', no good. If it was 1500', no problem.

It's not only a question of rule 5, it's also a question of airmanship. Given that the building was dead side, why did you fly over it during a go around in the first place?

Shirley if the original intention was to land then rule 5 no longer applies even at an unlicenced grass strip. With the land owners permission of course.
If I overfly our strip at 200 ft to assess the result of the latest rainstorm (the clubhouse is about 80metres from the edge) am I contravening something? I think I would rather contravene than nose over in a swamp.

I don't know about David, but I have had it suggested to me by both my civilian and military instructors that where possible on a go-around, its good to position off to the dead-side. Especially, as mentioned before, if the go-arund was due to departing traffic!

On a visual go around standard practice is to turn towards the DEADSIDE so as not to overfly traffic on the runway!

Yes, I was just going to say that but you guys beat me to it. (It was not due to traffic on the runway but I was taught to always move on to the dead side when doing a go-around and enter a shallow climb)

Unless the go around was executed at a (let's say) 45 degree angle to the runway because the approach was poorly executed.

45 degrees would get you on the deadside, yes.

I was taught that too.
Now I would only do so if the dead side was clear, and there was a reason for not keeping to the runway centre line. Last few go arounds have been due to people walking on to a grass runway. I try to avoid low overflying them, but even more important, avoid people walking near the runway.
At my base airfield (full ATC + Security), the runway is always accessed from the same side by aircraft. I would not go to the north side and fly low over aircraft waiting to enter the runway, even is this was the circuit dead side. I would get well clear of the runway line if the reason for the go around was an instruction from ATC due to an aircraft on the approach, with priority.
I learned to fly on Jackeroos at Thruxton, in 1964, with 8+ trainers, no radio, and no active tower. There were no grass runways - you landed on the grass to the right of the aircraft before you, unless that took you close to the hard runway, in which case you landed at the extreme left.
Going around on the dead side made sense then.

No it would be illegal, so therefore you must not do it..........

Come on chaps, of course you can, it is a bloody airfield so forget rule 5. Why are Brits so obsessed with the law?

Common sense....? derrrrrrrrr....................


Sorry if you are offended, but tough, the 2007 Carmenere is kicking in. ;)

reckon you've heard enough different oppinions, so mine would probly just be a repetition. Good question though, i thought, David.

Mark

Thank you!

What do you mean by "flying go arounds?"

Why would you fly over a building on the deadside, rather than track slightly to the left of the centre line and climb to a safe height, before turning?????

Please tell me you are a 13 year old flightsim jock, in which case I will genuinely pat you on the back for your question,

I'm in the same camp as final 3 greens. It might be legal but it surely isn't smart. Most buildings are at least a reasonable distance from the runway at licensed airfields so if you're flying over the builidngs you are a long way from the runway.

So you probably could not make it back to the runway if you has to, you have more obstacles to avoid, even the most 'aerofile' types will get pi$$ed off by your actions and any other aircraft in the circuit is less likely to spot you because your track is so far from the 'circuit'.