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

On Jul 12, 9:58 am, James Sleeman wrote:
The potential for *exactly* this accident sequence had been identified
by the ATC unit at that very airport in the 90s and instructions were
given at the time that would have avoided it basically that ATC should
only ever tell club/student pilots to "go around, say again, go
around" which is the offical phrase and procedure for which students
are trained. New ATC personell having joined the unit after this
instruction was promulgated were not made aware of it. The
instruction has subsequently been re-issued.

Thanks for the excellent summary and commentary!

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.

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

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.

On 2007-07-12 11:38:43 -0700, Dudley Henriques said:


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.

Besides, as Rod Machado so infamously pointed out, your credibility as
a student pilot starts to wear a little thin when you are calling ATC
from a 747. :-)

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

James,

I think what should be learned from this is that especially low-time
students still circuit bashing have very set procedures they are
following in thier minds,


Only after bad instruction.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

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.

My instructor and I practiced aborted approaches ( go-arounds) at least once
every session. FROM THE SECOND LESSON. I never knew when the command would
come. Seemed it was most often when I had the entire approach nailed...
perfect! _
I do remember that as soon as power was applied, it took a LOT of forward
yoke force in the C152 to keep the nose down and let A/S build since we were
in landing config. Flaps out, trim and all.

Maybe this poor chap hadn't experienced that effect enough.

I was instructed that after reaching climb speed I must manuever away from RW
centerline, start climb, s-l-o-w-l-y bring in the flaps and establish normal
climb config.

My glider instructors would also frequently abort aerotow unexpectedly which
totally saved my cheese when I experienced my first real rope break.
Bless 'em.

Too bad for this kid. A real shame.

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

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

On 2007-07-12 12:00:49 -0700, "Robert M. Gary" said:

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

You think that is bad. I once had to do an Immelman as a solo student
at Boeing Field!
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

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