From here
I learned to fly in PA-28s, both the -140 and the -160 variant. The -140 is seriously sluggish and with full flaps will either not climb at all or only very, very slowly. Actually, my instructor demoed that once on a very long runway. If they had deployed full (i.e. 40deg) flaps, rather likely on a shortish runway, then a go-around becomes a tricky maneuver. There is also another gotcha with these airplanes: the manual flap handle. It is VERY easy to drop it all the way when you only want to retract one or two notches. Easily done in a hectic situation. Now you’ve lost your lift and are behind the power curve… not a good place to be.
sugarcube wrote:
s PPL I was tought to veer to the right (or left, for right hand circuits) while doing go-around. I don’t know whether this is a universal procedure, or being tought in Germany,
That’s seriously weird. Why would anyone do that? Strikes me as a pretty idiotic thing to do, as you already have your hands full cleaning up the airplane and the last thing you want is to introduce more complexity in this situation, not to mention the higher stall speed in a bank.
It is only for going around due to another aircraft departing unexpectedly. To avoid its flight path from below.
boscomantico wrote:
It is only for going around due to another aircraft departing unexpectedly. To avoid its flight path from below.
But if you´re going around, due to another aircraft departing (blocked runway), you should already be above the departing aircraft and your go-around (missed approach) profile should be above that of the departing aircraft. This is of course in theory! Different airplane performance (approaching and departing aircraft) will potentially blow that logic away. But let´s face it. Any IFR (IMC or not) missed approach does not deviate due to the concern of a departing aircraft (by design). Good airmanship (and experience level) may translate (if possible due terrain etc..) in to a rational deviation, such as the “weird” training of turning away from the runway track during missed approach. I´ve never heard of this being trained during initial PPL, CPL or IR licence and rating training though. Touching on the consideration in theory seems rational, but to actually train it. I´m not sure teaching banking at low level during “high workload” balked landing/missed approach is such a great idea.
Yeager wrote:
not sure teaching banking at low level during “high workload” balked landing/missed approach is such a great idea
Neither am I.
OTOH,
Yeager wrote:
you should already be above the departing aircraft and your go-around (missed approach) profile should be above that of the departing aircraft
this works good until both flight paths converge upon reaching TPA (or circuit altitude in EU)…
Dan wrote:
this works good until both flight paths converge upon reaching TPA (or circuit altitude in EU)…
Sure thing, but that concern would not require lateral diversions a low level in any case, you could make that diversion somewhat later, and not as an initial consideration at low level. IFR procedures would not take the departing (SID or whatever) and approaching aircraft (missed approach) on the same paths (ultimately) either.
boscomantico wrote:
It is only for going around due to another aircraft departing unexpectedly. To avoid its flight path from below.
I’ve also always been taught to slightly offset to the right so you can see the runway during a go-around. I think the assumption is that you are going around because another aircraft pulled out on the runway in front of you, and you want to keep an eye on them. If you simply botched your landing, not sure if the offset is warranted.
Messed up go-arounds seem to regularly cause crashes, sadly. It sure seems like something to practice. I too learned mainly in a Cherokee 140 (which was later upgraded to a 180) but I don’t recall any specific issue with go-arounds or gently retracting the flaps. I probably did 100s of them during my training.
eurogaguest1980 wrote:
I probably did 100s of them during my training.
But do we really train the real thing? Usually when I have to do a go around on a check flight it is initiated in the approach at maybe 100-200ft (VFR, else at IFR minimums). Then there is plenty of time, speed and altitude to do it properly. But in real life the go arounds which go bad often involve even ground contact with the wheels.
I am not fully convinced by this kind of go arounds. If you simply continue a bad landing after the plane more or less made contact with the ground you might damage the aircraft but everybody will likely walk away. If you do a go around it is all or nothing. If it works out you are the hero and the plane will be just fine. If it does not work out death is a likely outcome.
In a similar fashion landing accidents often just damage the plane. Take off accidents are less frequent but if they happen the outcome is often horrible.
I agree very much. Better to focus on a landing. The old story about flying to go around and landing only if it works out, is the wrong way to go about it.
Peter wrote:
The old story about flying to go around and landing only if it works out, is the wrong way to go about it.
I think you misinterpret what e.g. FedEx do. Brief the go-around before every landing, so be spring loaded for it if you have to. The problem in many of these GA go-around accidents is, IMHO, that the pilot tries to save a bad landing and makes the go-around decision way too late. We don’t know enough yet about this accident, but it sounds exactly like that.
Sebastian_G wrote:
But in real life the go arounds which go bad often involve even ground contact with the wheels.
My point entirely. You should never wait that long. Unless something totally unexpected happens at the last minute (think vehicle or wildlife entering runway), you should know much earlier if that approach will lead to an uneventful landing.
172driver wrote:
My point entirely. You should never wait that long. Unless something totally unexpected happens at the last minute (think vehicle or wildlife entering runway), you should know much earlier if that approach will lead to an uneventful landing.
Exactly. If the question “hmm, should go around?” enters my mind during the approach, I just go around. Why not? Something was trying to tell me there was an issue, and I can either listen, or continue a “risky” landing. There are many times when I didn’t plan things properly and I’m a bit high or a bit fast, and I know I’m not going to make it, but I still continue the approach knowing I’ll be going around, just for practice.
I fully agree that given a choice of a botched go around while on the runway and simply running off the end of the runway at 20 kts, we should choose the latter, but like many things in aviation, it’s best to avoid bad situations earlier. The old “superior judgement” vs “superior skills” thing.
