Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

No go-around: a lesson from the back country

10 Posts



This also puts the Courchevel accident with the Malibu into perspective: say what you will about it, but the pilot probably knew before the wheels touched down that a bent aircraft was inevitable but still had the presence of mind to commit and NOT to try to go around (which would likely have been fatal).

While we don’t have much back country in the UK at least, I have in the last month been to two airfields in the UK where beyond a certain point, you must commit to landing come what may, with no go-arounds regardless of what’s happening on the runway (both airfields one way and surrounded by terrain too steep to outclimb beyond a certain point).

Andreas IOM

In this video didn’t the guy try to make a box valley turn and stall / spun it into the ground?

It’s not clear to me from the displayed map that a go around isn’t possible. The valley to the left looks wide when getting some alt following the river/creek. ?

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

alioth wrote:

This also puts the Courchevel accident with the Malibu into perspective: say what you will about it, but the pilot probably knew before the wheels touched down that a bent aircraft was inevitable but still had the presence of mind to commit and NOT to try to go around (which would likely have been fatal).

I don’t know it but wouldn’t a go around have been possible before touchdown in a banking turn at full power?

EGTK Oxford

Quite a few comments in other forums on box canyon turns – have never figured out why some ‘mountain’ instructors teach these semi aerobatic turns as a life saver when you don’t have a useable horizon, your aircraft has minimal excess energy (both kinetic and potential) due to density altitude and proximity to terrain – understanding a commit/go around point, and having studied escape routes as part of establishing a go around point would be much better instruction.

And this essential research of the landing site should not be second hand – carry it out yourself.

Oxford (EGTK), United Kingdom

RobertL18C wrote:

understanding a commit/go around point

Maybe you need to have one both in space/time, beyond it you just cut power and hope for the best?

Of course you can always “go-around” but sooner the better, would you go-around after?
- Short runway, wheels touched ground, breaks are not working well and hedge is coming fast?
- Ground loop or a very hard landing (not bounce), why adding power to non airworthy or unstable aircraft?
- On long CAT runways, you can always gun it with power, so no need to go WOT and climb

Paris/Essex, France/UK, United Kingdom

beyond it you just cut power and hope for the best?

No, not hope for the best, you are just committed to a controlled crash, at relatively low speeds.

A Carbon Cub will touch down at 45-50 mph, TAS 55 mph due to density altitude. In around 100-150 feet with moderate braking it is at walking speed.

Much better outcome than being a lawn dart from a stall/spin.

Oxford (EGTK), United Kingdom

Thank you Alioth, that’s a good video.

I have only made about 2k off-airport landings, of which roughly half on “one-way” (no go-around) strips. In that time I’ve personally witnessed eight off-airport landing accidents, none of which resulted in the slightest injury except to the aircraft owner’s bank balance.

From this statistic some will doubtless conclude that off airport landings are irresponsible, reckless, or just stark raving bonkers.

But if there’s anyone who is tempted to enjoy off-airport flying, these are the rules which I think have ensured that my first aid kit has never been used:

1. I use Bing maps and Google Earth to get to know a new landing site. I spend as long as it takes, until the terrain, the reconnaissance, the approach and the departure are burned into my memory.

2. If I would have to climb or manoeuvre to avoid terrain on go-around, it’s a one way strip. End of story. People tend to forget that an aircraft configured for landing on short final (and perhaps well on the back of the power curve) won’t start climbing for a considerable time and distance after a decision to go around.

3. In every case I go expecting to do a recce (or maybe two) and to decide not to land. So if that’s what happens I congratulate myself for making such an accurate prediction and enjoy the rest of my flight.

4. If I decide to land on a one way (like the one at my home), I commit irrevocably to that decision soon after turning final. From that time until I stop in front of my hangar the aircraft is completely expendable. In fact, it’s already a write-off. I am looking forward to call that nice Mr William Flood in Ireland to find another one for me.

I think that if I lack the moral courage to make such a decision I should not be PIC. On or off airport, I’ll always be happy to hear criticism (as Chesley Sullenberger did) for taking an early decision to sacrifice my machine. I regard the alternative (not being around to hear those armchair experts) as substantially worse.

Glenswinton, SW Scotland, United Kingdom

Jacko’s advice is correct.

If you have chosen to land into a runway, for which you don’t know for certain that a go around is within the performance limits of the day, it’s a one way runway. I guess, it’s like a “land to hold short” clearance which you might receive at a larger airport, if you can not be certain to do it, don’t turn final!

RobertL18C wrote:

have never figured out why some ‘mountain’ instructors teach these semi aerobatic turns as a life saver when you don’t have a useable horizon

This is an important point. I do teach canyon turns, but if you cannot be sure where you are relative to the horizon, it’s not going to work. A pilot who flew my client’s highly modified research plane wasted himself and the plane not remembering this. Though in a canyon, he had enough room to turn two end to end figure eights in the area he crashed. He still crashed, and it took us a while to figure out why. It was when I was practicing “toe in” landings in an MD500 helicopter that I finally got it. The slope of debris had an angle of repose of 40 degrees, and flying toward it, with only rock and grass in front of you is totally disorienting. When you’re seeing a 40 degree slope approaching, it is your instinct to pull up, which while hovering forward becomes back up. When I finally overcame my disorientation, and had the helicopter toed in, I looked up, and 2000 feet and 40 degrees above me was the horizon – useless for orientation. Then I understood how Rob tumbled the plane into the canyon wall, he no longer knew which way was up.

An element of the quasi aerobatic canyon turn, in addition to making the most of whatever inertia and power you may have, is to remind the pilot that if you’ve suddenly decided to turn around, you no longer have time to putter around – get it done! (So we make it seem urgent!).

Home runway, in central Ontario, Canada, Canada

I do agree with PilotDAR. Learning to fly accurately by visual reference with a misleading horizon is a large and crucial part of practical training for the European mountain rating. It’s simple in theory but needs regular practice.

Glenswinton, SW Scotland, United Kingdom
10 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top