Is a "Go Around" an unfamiliar manoeuvre to a student pilot?

Back to the OT. I read the report and this discussion.

To me this accident looks like a perfect example of the "Swiss cheese model"
which describes how several small individual mistakes may combine to cause
an accident.

A question to the CFIs in the group:

Do you normally include a set of "unexpected events" such as the abnormal
go-around that was a factor in this accident, in your flight training
syllabus before solo, even though the regulations might not require it?

Here are some examples that I have experienced either as watcher or pilot,
that might be useful to rehearse with each student before solo. (Note that
some of them need cooperation from ATC):

- Orbit in the pattern (for spacing) in various locations and aircraft
configurations.
- Go-around with a heading change and nonstandard pattern re-join (like in
this accident).
- Taxi into position ("Line up" for the Europeans) then ATC orders a/c to
expediently vacate runway.
- In a touch and go, after the "touch" the a/c is ordered to make it a full
stop landing.
- Landing clearance simply omitted. (should result in go-around)
- Landing clearance only after a/c is beyond the threshold.
- A/c is requested to land long, in order to be able to vacate runway more
expediently.
- Low fly-by to enable tower to inspect a/c (with binoculars) for possible
landing gear defect.

In my own case I had rehearsed only some of these events during training,
so when they eventually occurred it was "exciting", with probably increased
risk level. So maybe they would be good to rehearse before solo?

Snowbird wrote:
Back to the OT. I read the report and this discussion.

To me this accident looks like a perfect example of the "Swiss cheese model"
which describes how several small individual mistakes may combine to cause
an accident.

A question to the CFIs in the group:

Do you normally include a set of "unexpected events" such as the abnormal
go-around that was a factor in this accident, in your flight training
syllabus before solo, even though the regulations might not require it?

Here are some examples that I have experienced either as watcher or pilot,
that might be useful to rehearse with each student before solo. (Note that
some of them need cooperation from ATC):

- Orbit in the pattern (for spacing) in various locations and aircraft
configurations.
- Go-around with a heading change and nonstandard pattern re-join (like in
this accident).
- Taxi into position ("Line up" for the Europeans) then ATC orders a/c to
expediently vacate runway.
- In a touch and go, after the "touch" the a/c is ordered to make it a full
stop landing.
- Landing clearance simply omitted. (should result in go-around)
- Landing clearance only after a/c is beyond the threshold.
- A/c is requested to land long, in order to be able to vacate runway more
expediently.
- Low fly-by to enable tower to inspect a/c (with binoculars) for possible
landing gear defect.

In my own case I had rehearsed only some of these events during training,
so when they eventually occurred it was "exciting", with probably increased
risk level. So maybe they would be good to rehearse before solo?





It should be common practice for instructors to use part of every dual
period spent with a student covering possible situations that could be
encountered by ANY pilot engaging in the maneuver or scenario being taught.
In other words, everything an instructor teaches in the air should be
considered and covered from two directions; first, what to do to make it
come out right, and secondly, things to consider if things DON'T come
out right.
This is instruction 101 for any good instructor.
Dudley Henriques

Snowbird,

- Landing clearance simply omitted. (should result in go-around)

Actually, that should result in "xxx tower, please verify N12345 is cleared
to land/option/t&g" in due time in the pattern. And the deeper learning point
in this is: "You are the pilot in command, assert yourself and your needs on
the radio. Don't wait for them to hand down the manna (aka clearance) from
the heavens, ask for clarification before things become a problem."

- Low fly-by to enable tower to inspect a/c (with binoculars) for possible
landing gear defect.

I have never understood the usefulness of that particular maneuver (sp?).
First, what's the likelyhood of the tower people knowing the slightest thing
about landing gear and the specifics of the plane flying by? And second, how
would they see from a flyby whether the gear is locked down or just looks
locked down?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Thomas Borchert" wrote

- Landing clearance simply omitted. (should result in go-around)

Actually, that should result in "xxx tower, please verify N12345 is
cleared
to land/option/t&g" in due time in the pattern.

Agreed. However, in this case, as far as I remember, the tower frequency was
so busy that the landing a/c simply did not get a chance to transmit.
Normally, a "N12345 on short final" also usually works.


- Low fly-by to enable tower to inspect a/c (with binoculars) for
possible
landing gear defect.

I have never understood the usefulness of that particular maneuver (sp?).
First, what's the likelyhood of the tower people knowing the slightest
thing
about landing gear and the specifics of the plane flying by?

We had a situation at the local airport where one main wheel fell off on
take-off and remained dangling from the brake line. I'd guess the tower was
able to brief the pilot about the airplane's condition better than the pilot
himself was able to. Whether it made any difference or not, I'm not sure.
(The landing went without any major damage.)