In the process of making the agency look good, agents are less likely to fault prescribed training techniques as contributing factors in accidents, especially fatal accidents. All go around accidents I am familiar with were fatal. Distractions, controller error, conditions, ect. were cited as contributing factors, but the cause was always error by the same pilot who was trained to pitch up to near stall pitch attitude believing altitude rather than maneuvering airspeed was safety.

On the go around, the ACS continues the call for Vx or Vy as appropriate immediately after full power. Ten years of crossing major airports on pipelines convinced me that default pitching up was far more dangerous than first leveling the airplane while going full power. From a 200' AGL patrol perspective, climbing into traffic made no sense and would have ticked off the controller who was telling airline pilots, "he's fifty feet off the trees. He's not traffic."

Yes, tower and/or see and avoid may clear the way up. But, other than immediate obstructions, there should be no hurry to get up. Where does this hurry to get up come from?

Upset and loss of control often begin with unplanned situations like those that trigger the go around. Stall results from the pilot's pulling back on the stick. Landing problem leads to go around power and immediate pitch up leads to stall, loss of control, and uncontrolled flight into terrain.

As pilot in command, we do not have to pitch up. We can simply go to full power, level the aircraft, and sort things out. As pilot in command, we do not have to immediately turn to a crosswind leg. There is no procedure turn altitude. There is no procedural track. The IMC missed approach is actually safer because neither Vx nor Vy is appropriate. Rather, we pitch just a bar width up on the AH and fly a pre-planned course.

Would it not be safer for the ACS to call for full power, level the aircraft to accelerate to maneuvering airspeed, clean up as necessary, and then climb at Vx or Vy as appropriate now with zoom reserve? If we have waited until near or after touchdown, low ground effect can improve acceleration.

I think we ambush students with indoctrination that go around is a normal maneuver. It is a low altitude emergency which should trigger maneuvering flight orientation. Encouragement to go around early in the approach should be paired with serious airspeed control, making go around truely the emergency procedure it is. If our students cannot reliably get a trainer down in three thousand feet consistently, we have an approach airspeed problem that cannot be fixed with continuous go arounds. "No more than 1.3 Vso " helps only if we teach throttle movement to mitigate gust spread instead of increasing ground speed In a headwind. Why are there more overruns and go around fatalities in strong headwinds? That math makes no sense at all.

I would like to take this one step further. This is an interesting topic that I discussed with some others recently. It lead to the use of trim for landing with STOL ops. When I am doing STOL competitions I use full nose up trip, not so much for getting to the ground and landing but to help keep the plane off its nose when I am trying to stop in under 100 ft. This also helps in very rough terrain. A valid point of what happens with a full power go around was raised. This could be a handful with a Bigger Cessna with full flaps and full nose up trim. You would notice it in a cub but usually not that bad. My response was why do you need full power? In both the cub and 180 I do power on landings full flaps Trim is full nose up when light (Two people and fuel) in both. RPM is usually 1400-1800 until the wheel touch. If I need to go around I only need to go to 2200 RPM in either plane to immediately stop descending and gain a shallow climb. Controls are still easy to handle at this point I can clean up trim and flaps as needed and proceed as Contact suggests. Instructors have only so many hours with a student for training and BFR. So I understand where keeping is simple with add full power and climb saves time, but I think it causes more problems!! You have just turned a simple procedure of stop decending and continue to fly into an EMERGENCY!! Because the plane is not configured for a steep climb. You should be trying to land at the start of the runway so you will have the entire length to level reconfigure and maneuver as necessary. I would recommend trim for airspeed to new pilots when landing. Do some go around training with an instructor but avoid full power/rapid climb control the situation don't let it control you. Best inform the instructor of the new procedures before flight!
Just things on ponder over Sunday morning coffee.
DENNY

Yes, the airplane will fly equally as well low as high. We need to quit making students feel they are doing something wrong if they have good control but are low.

I can't remember who said it first (I think it may have been you, contactflying), but my favorite saying is,

"You don't have to clear the trees by a hundred feet, you just need to clear the trees."

I want to put that on a t-shirt.

DENNY wrote:I would like to take this one step further. This is an interesting topic that I discussed with some others recently. It lead to the use of trim for landing with STOL ops. When I am doing STOL competitions I use full nose up trip, not so much for getting to the ground and landing but to help keep the plane off its nose when I am trying to stop in under 100 ft. This also helps in very rough terrain. A valid point of what happens with a full power go around was raised. This could be a handful with a Bigger Cessna with full flaps and full nose up trim. You would notice it in a cub but usually not that bad. My response was why do you need full power? In both the cub and 180 I do power on landings full flaps Trim is full nose up when light (Two people and fuel) in both. RPM is usually 1400-1800 until the wheel touch. If I need to go around I only need to go to 2200 RPM in either plane to immediately stop descending and gain a shallow climb. Controls are still easy to handle at this point I can clean up trim and flaps as needed and proceed as Contact suggests. Instructors have only so many hours with a student for training and BFR. So I understand where keeping is simple with add full power and climb saves time, but I think it causes more problems!! You have just turned a simple procedure of stop decending and continue to fly into an EMERGENCY!! Because the plane is not configured for a steep climb. You should be trying to land at the start of the runway so you will have the entire length to level reconfigure and maneuver as necessary. I would recommend trim for airspeed to new pilots when landing. Do some go around training with an instructor but avoid full power/rapid climb control the situation don't let it control you. Best inform the instructor of the new procedures before flight!
Just things on ponder over Sunday morning coffee.
DENNY

This may be well and good, right up till you have to go around at high density altitude. Try that around here on a warm day, or anywhere in the intermountain west on a warm day, where DA is 7000 plus, and sometimes 10,000, and maybe with just a bit of load, and with less than full power, you may be landing, like it or not.

Trim is a tool. In a 185, I always set students up for an experience, by getting them nice and slow, full flaps, planning a landing. If the plane is light, and the student trims off pressure on the controls, that will put the trim very near the nose up limit.

Once that's set up, I wait for them to initiate the flare, then announce a go around. For someone who's new to a 185 (and, no a 180 is NOT a 185), this will result in a deeply moving religious experience, with both hands on the yoke, pushing like hell. And, yes, some folks use less than max power, but again, at high density altitude, that may not work.

The technique I use in this scenario is to trim nose down some on short final, such that you're having to hold some back pressure on the yoke on approach. Now, if you need to go around, level the plane, apply FULL power, and accelerate, THEN climb, as contact suggests. This is a no sweat, no swearing kind of program, as opposed to both hands on the yoke, wishing you had a third hand to raise those big flaps to at least 30 degrees. And, using this technique, if you actually go ahead and land, that bit of nose down trim helps to get the tail up in a tail low wheel landing after the touch.

And, everything in this post and the one it's responding to applies largely to planes with trimmable stabilizers. These airplanes (Cubs and Cessna 180/185 and early 182) have a very powerful trim capability, particularly when lots of power is applied. And, some folks use that capability to "Help" them land a little shorter/slower. That MAY take a few feet off the landing, but if you're operating that tight, you're going to use one up one day, anyway. Using full nose up trim may be fine when the plane is loaded, as in not just a pilot and passenger.

The point is, when doling out advice, you need to specify aircraft type (My 175 has a trim tab system, not a trimmable stabilizer), and take into consideration various conditions, of which density altitude is foremost at least in the lower 48 mountain states, where many come to play. Density altitude in backcountry operations has killed a LOT of people. Ignoring DA is a great way to get hurt.

I flew in Alaska for almost 30 years, where density altitude was rarely much of an issue. But, trust me, in this part of the world, it is.

MTV

"You don't have to clear the trees by a hundred feet, you just need to clear the trees." I think MTV said it first, but I concur.

At altitude there are few emergencies requiring "immediate action." Most fall into the "cockpit resource management" bin. Almost all low altitude emergencies require "Immediate action." Pitching up to gain altitude and time to manage resources will generally limit the one resource we need in low altitude normal operations and emergencies: airspeed.

Go around is a low altitude emergency. Because time to work the problem is extremely limited, we need to plan for it the same as we plan for engine failure. Keep the airplane flying first or "what does the airplane want to do?"