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

When I began soloing, my instructor forbade me to engage in any low-
altitude
maneuvering on final approach (e.g. 360s for spacing, which the tower
sometimes called for). He explained clearly that any such request from
ATC
should be met with "Unable, student pilot, going around", followed by
a
standard go-around. I think that's an excellent policy for students
until
they have extensive solo-landing experience.

I would respectfully disagree with this line of reasoning from an
instructor and would never recommend this or condone this procedure from
any instructor within shouting distance of my voice :-)
The entire purpose of teaching people to fly airplanes is to teach them
to operate safely within a constantly changing dynamic. This means both
the aerodynamic AND the ATC dynamic.
Students learning to fly in a controlled traffic environment are not
well served by instructors who encourage them to deny an ATC request as
a routine procedure based on the fact that the pilot is a student.
This should in no way be misconstrued into meaning that a student
shouldn't take whatever action is necessary to maintain flight safety if
contrary to an instruction from ATC. It does mean however that student
pilots are better taught to function in the traffic environment as
PILOTS rather than students right from the gitgo, as in any and all
situations encountered in that environment they will have to act as
pilots and not students.
The only time a student should not follow an instruction from ATC is
when that instruction over rides a flight safety issue that is
immediately apparent to the student. In that case, an "unable to comply"
followed by a brief transmission as to why is the protocol, but doing
this should always be the abnormal situation not the norm!
In the specific instance you have used as an example, there might very
well be a valid reason known to the controller ONLY as to why a specific
instruction was given at a specific moment in time. There could ALSO be
a valid reason why a go around from a present position when the ATC
request was made would be inadvisable due to traffic separation or an
aircraft sequencing on a crossing runway.
The reasons why something can be valid or invalid in the ATC environment
are many and varied.
The bottom line on this is that a student pilot should be trained to
respond to any and all reasonable requests made by ATC when in the
traffic pattern of a controlled field, NOT taught to change or deny an
ATC request based on a student pilot status. If the student is dual, the
instructor is PIC. If the student is solo, that student should know how
to deal with any and all ATC requests and be functioning as a normal
aircraft in the traffic environment. That responsibility is also the
instructor's.
Dudley Henriques
Dudley Henriques

"Peter R." wrote

It should be a non-event. Sadly in this case it wasn't

I'm not sure that a go-around is even a required skill for solos, (from reading
the rather lengthy report) for the country in which this took place.

If not, it should be.
--
Jim in NC

On Jul 12, 3:56 am, "David Wright"
wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/essex/6294778.stm

Interesting that a "Go Around" is considered here as an "unfamiliar
manoeuvre" - and that the pilot was "put in a situation beyond his
experience" - okay he only had 15 hours of flying time and it was only his
second solo, but I was doing touch and go's and going around from about my
third hour onwards.

D.

I just read the news report. Man, flying in the UK must be exciting if
the tower can ask you do perform a loop to avoid traffic!! No wonder
the poor kid crashed.

-Robert

Thomas Borchert wrote:
David,

Interesting that a "Go Around" is considered here as an "unfamiliar
manoeuvre"


IMHO, it is impossible for an instructor to prepare a student for each
and every situation he might encounted. However, it IS not only
possible, but mandatory to prepare him to be flexible, think for
himself and adjust to unfamiliar situations. If the student hasn't
mastered that, he isn't ready for (solo) flying.

Reading the accident report, it's clear that
the cause was insufficient airspeed coupled
with a high bank angle probably uncoordinated
turn close to the ground. This was the *first*
thing I was taught not to do. The second was
to "fly the airplane".

So the whole "Go Around" thing seems to be a
something of a misnomer.

On Jul 13, 6:41 am, "Morgans" wrote:
"Peter R." wrote



It should be a non-event. Sadly in this case it wasn't

I'm not sure that a go-around is even a required skill for solos, (from reading
the rather lengthy report) for the country in which this took place.

If not, it should be.

That's why they invented the touch and go.
And it sounds like the unfortunate student got caught on the backside
of the power curve.

On Jul 13, 1:13 am, Dudley Henriques wrote:
David Wright wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/essex/6294778.stm

Interesting that a "Go Around" is considered here as an "unfamiliar
manoeuvre" - and that the pilot was "put in a situation beyond his
experience" - okay he only had 15 hours of flying time and it was only his
second solo, but I was doing touch and go's and going around from about my
third hour onwards.

D.

A "go- around" is NOT an unfamiliar maneuver; at least it shouldn't be
to any student who has been checked out for solo. In fact, go arounds
are an intricate part of the learning curve and should be taught to
every student pilots before solo is achieved.
I can see no reason why a properly training student pilot would be
incapable of going around during any solo flight that student was signed
off to make.
If a student crashes on a go around because normal procedures were not
followed, there is a serious problem either involving the instructor.
Even if mis-communication was a factor, the student STILL should have
been able to handle the situation avoiding a crash.
I look heavily toward the instructor in matters like these.
This having been said, I ALSO would reserve any final decision on these
matters until I had studied the official accident report.
Dudley Henriques

I recall having to correctly perform a go around for the clubs head
instructor before being allowed to solo. I still remember his words,
"if you aren't ready to go around you aren't ready to land."

Euan Kilgour wrote:


I recall having to correctly perform a go around for the clubs head
instructor before being allowed to solo. I still remember his words,
"if you aren't ready to go around you aren't ready to land."

I trained at a little airport that was while small fairly busy back in the
'70s. There were lots of NORDO aircraft and guys that might have well been
NORDO. If you didn't know how to do a go around your life would be measured
in hours because I can't count the number of times in my ~40 hours that some
butthead pulled out on the active while I was on final. Yes most of them
would of been clear before I made it to the end of the runway but to a
newbie they looked like they were going to be at the same place I planned to
be in a minute or so.

On Jul 12, 2:38 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
I would respectfully disagree with this line of reasoning from an
instructor and would never recommend this or condone this procedure from
any instructor within shouting distance of my voice :-)
The entire purpose of teaching people to fly airplanes is to teach them
to operate safely within a constantly changing dynamic. This means both
the aerodynamic AND the ATC dynamic.
Students learning to fly in a controlled traffic environment are not
well served by instructors who encourage them to deny an ATC request as

I see your point. Thanks. I'll reconsider.

george wrote:

And it sounds like the unfortunate student got caught on the backside
of the power curve.

That was kinda what I was thinking. As a student it took me a bit to
understand that notion of pitch and power relationship.
Was kinda creepy roaring around at near full power with the stall warning
horn blarin' away. O_o

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums...ation/200707/1

Andrew Gideon wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 09:13:16 -0400, Dudley Henriques wrote:

A "go- around" is NOT an unfamiliar maneuver; at least it shouldn't be to
any student who has been checked out for solo.

Someone I know was badly injured in what appears to be a botched
go-around. This was a very experienced pilot (ie. multiple hundreds of
hours, ME rated, etc.). But how often had he performed that maneuver in
the past few years? I don't know.

A go around isn't really a maneuver, it's a transition. It should be
taught along with landings as an integral part of the landing scenario
and a possibility to occur on every landing.
This is why I have always objected to the "compartmentalized" method of
teaching people to fly airplanes; ie; landing, crosswind landings, go
arounds etc. Every landing has the potential for both a crosswind and/or
a go around. I prefer to teach landings as a single event that can
encompass any and all circumstances found in a landing. The result of
this approach (no pun intended :-) is that a pilot starts considering
all landings from the first one on as an event that can, and often does
mean, deviation from a rock solid and rigid and most importantly
EXPECTED sequence of events.
The good instructor wants the student to be fluid, flexible, with the
goal of landing the airplane in mind at all times, but ready in an
instant to deviate from what the airplane is doing NOW to what the
airplane now HAS TO DO!




Do biennials typically cover this? And what about those that "place out"
of biennials via WINGS program. Do the CFIs doing the flight time hours
for WINGS include such things (ie. in that hour of t/o and landing work)?
A good bi-annual given by a good instructor will be relaxed and informal
with the instructor observing what you are doing and how you are doing
it. It would and should be quite common for an instructor giving a
bi-annual to ask for a go-around from any point in the approach,
(conditions permitting) including the flare.

My club membership involves an annual flight review. At least one CFI
with whom I take these loves to throw these at me (and, I suspect, his
other victims {8^): aborted landings, aborted takeoffs, etc. Last time
with him I was doing a touch-and-go and he aborted the "go" after the
"touch".


I've done this as well conditions permitting. The entire purpose of a
review is to see the pilot act and react in both a normal and abnormal
environment; then to make a decision on the skill levels shown.
I usually knew by the time we reached the runway just what to expect
from a pilot I was reviewing. It's amazing how accurate the period
involving preflight to pre-takeoff is as a prediction tool for a sharp CFI.
Dudley Henriques