Why is the go around killing so many pilots? Which control most effectively levels the wing when slow, especially at full power? What can be done/taught to help? Are long runways helping by providing more room to decelerate over the runway or hurting by encouraging faster approaches?

Considering the 02 Jul 21 Cirrus crash in Lamoni, Iowa, Dan Gryder's video of the long gash cut in the soft Iowa topsoil just off the left side of the runway indicates a loss of control bank to left putting the wing into the ground. I don't fly big engines. Do those of you who do experience the need for a lot of right rudder on go around after touchdown? Do you go around after touchdown? I find 180 and 182 pilots have a hard time pushing the nose over to stay in low ground effect after pulling off as soon as the wing will lift the aircraft in low ground effect. They have little problem keeping the wing level with rudder, however. Part of that necessary rudder usage is to keep the nose pointed down the runway. Sort of monkey see monkey do. Not a really big engine, I guess, but big in my world. Anyway, why didn't rudder to keep the nose going down the runway keep the Cirrus wing level? Was he trying to do that with aileron? Was he already stalled from pulling up aggressively?

No, we won't have the official probable cause for a couple years from the NTSB (FAA.) Who cares about the FAA looking good and who did it? I don't want any more pilots to die in the interim. What might the FAA do to prevent go arounds from being so fatal? What can we do? Is Dan correct when he says change will happen only if we make it?

Well. Don't think of an accident go around being the same as the guy who was a bit high/fast/both on final and initiates the go around when it's still a good idea.

It's also not the student+instructor who sees an imaginary deer on the runway either.

Think of the pilot who floats clear down to the last 800' before they wheel barrow it on, THEN pours the power on when it's obvious they're about to buy some fence.

That person is already screwed. Pulling back won't result in the stall we learn at 3500', it will just be mushy and unresponsive. The cure for that is obviously to pull back and hope for the best, isn't it?

Same thing happens on a high DA takeoff when the math isn't done ahead of time.

I teach a go around and power off stall recovery as the exact same maneuver, and it's usually during that training near the ground where stall recovery transitions from rote learning to understanding.

Very good. Also, why not make touchdown and bounce the same as rejected takeoff? Bouncing down again is not as hurtful as stall at a hundred feet. Or teach all takeoff or late go around as basic low ground effect takeoff? Or just teach power/pitch to touchdown on the numbers slowly and softly with power as default landing. Landing short of the deer sometimes works as well. Things going bad at 40 is a lot different than things going bad at 80.

Very good. Also, why not make touchdown and bounce the same as rejected takeoff? Bouncing down again is not as hurtful as stall at a hundred feet. Or teach all takeoff or late go around as basic low ground effect takeoff? Or just teach power/pitch to touchdown on the numbers slowly and softly with power as default landing. Landing short of the deer sometimes works as well. Things going bad at 40 is a lot different than things going bad at 80.

contactflying wrote:Very good. Also, why not make touchdown and bounce the same as rejected takeoff? Bouncing down again is not as hurtful as stall at a hundred feet. Or teach all takeoff or late go around as basic low ground effect takeoff? Or just teach power/pitch to touchdown on the numbers slowly and softly with power as default landing. Landing short of the deer sometimes works as well. Things going bad at 40 is a lot different than things going bad at 80.

Not sure I understand the question. In a typical RTO the wheels won't ever leave the ground. You've found some reason, usually power related, why continuing isn't a great idea and responded appropriately. If a pilot went significantly past their calculated takeoff point and wobbled into the air and are suffering as a result then they missed the point of the takeoff briefing entirely.

If you're talking about a bounce recovery I'm with you. I always teach that bounces are divergent and that the third bounce is pretty much a guaranteed prop strike. Once bounce can happen to anyone. The second bounce means you are behind the plane. Unless control inputs result in a more mild bounce we all know what happens next, so it's a go around and a good teachable moment.

In tail wheel training I'm typically working with someone who is already licensed so of course they bring all the habits they learned from others. In general I find them more likely to go around than I am. If they initiate a go around for any reason I'll generally keep my trap shut and let them be PIC. Their conservative approach is better for the aircraft and I'm billing by the Hobbs.

It's a pretty rare day that I'm too fast on final but I might be high. That's an easy fix with a heavy slip so I don't see wasting a lap in the pattern over it. Same is true of a bounce. Even in the T-6 adding just a bit of power and flying the damn plane will allow the plane to settle down nicely on that second contact.

To another point you're going after in your recent discussions:
DPEs are a nervous lot. For my CFI reinstatement ride two years ago I found that trend getting worse. For example the only place I experienced a simulated engine failure was abeam the numbers on downwind. He was clearly nervous about engine out approaches. He was also very nervous with ground reference maneuvers, especially when the wind was high. I could almost hear the crease forming in the seat cushion and he was all too happy to get on to the next task. Same was true of stalls. You can see them twist in their seat a bit and their voice cracks when they ask for an accelerated or cross controlled stall in a plane not approved for spins.

And I get it. DPEs fly with people who are nervous and if we're honest they are minimally trained for the task. At 450' AGL the margin for wrestling control from someone who blew the maneuver is small. How long do you let their mistake progress before you call it and pink slip them? Even with the fist full of cash it takes to start a check ride those DPEs probably walk away from some flights thinking they are underpaid.

We don't teach people to FLY. We teach them to be scared of anything over 20 degrees of bank. We teach that adding 10 knots on final increases our safety, but we don't teach that you have to "pay the man" once you cross the fence and fix that extra airspeed. We tell them that a plane can stall at any speed and bank angle, but we don't teach them that if they unload the wing it's impossible to stall. We teach them that a 60 degree bank always has a 2G load factor, but we don't teach them that's only true for a level turn. We don't teach them that they can safely use a 60 degree bank from base to final if they unload that wing. Instead we teach them "square turns" make for a correct pattern. Combine that with not banking more than 20 degrees, what do you think they're going to do if they blow through the centerline on base to final. The way we teach it there is only one flight control remaining. We bundle slips and skids in the same discussion but don't tell them one of those will kill you on base to final but the other will only startle you a bit.

The stalls we teach have nothing in common with the stalls that kill pilots.

Yes, if we teach fear they will learn fear. That is not good. Yes, repetitive dead stick bouncing only gets worse. Power saves. If we actually begin by landing on the beginning of the runway, we can always change to a soft field landing if things get bouncy.

On the nervous pilots, I can usually talk them into making good control movements. I have only had one lock up on the controls. He locked the stick full back too high on a three point landing in a PA-12. I added full power and we q tipped the prop when we slammed down. Insurance bought him a rebuild on the engine and he sold the Cub.

Letting the nose go down when the airplane says please let the nose go down is primary instruction. Altitude maintenance and level turn orientation, obsession, has killed a lot of pilots. Neither slip nor skid is a problem if we let the nose go down naturally. Pulling back on the stick in the turn is the problem.

I have done plenty of go arounds, as a result of my being not very good at landing . But I am great at go arounds! I have a C-182 with a Texas Skyways conversion to O-520, and, especially with full flaps, the nose pitch up is dramatic, and hard right rudder is needed. It's easy to get rusty if they are not practiced, and it does not take much of an error to get it wrong. I hope I continue to be crappy at landing so I keep getting lots of practice doing go arounds.

That is a very optimistic way to look at it Frankenflaps. What about a two pronged approach? Try slowing more and using throttle a bit more for glide path and rate of descent giving you more runway to let down easy with power and continue practicing go arounds as well. If the landings become really good, you can still make yourself practice go around: eh?

If I ever get back to Canada for a clinic, come. I have this strange ability to talk pilots into being comfortable landing a bit slower. Your airplane is heavier than the kites, but has excellent flaps and engine power. Pull air and touch down slowly and softly.

Contactflying,

Thanks. My friend Josh (Dog is my copilot), CFII, MEI, IYIYI, and a bunch more letters, has been coaching me on landing slower. I also tend to pull power back with any turbulence. The joke is that I fly slow and land fast. It's like my financial investments; I buy high and sell low. Seriously, though, I have improved. I haven't done a necessary go around in a year, but I still practice them. Josh is also my instrument instructor and I plan to take the check ride in a month or so. I'm looking forward to shooting the instrument approach down to minimums at Lower Loon

Frank.

Very good Frank. The ILS approach is good practice managing airspeed with elevator and glideslope (and rate of descent) with power down to short final. From that point, VFR, we continue using the controls the same but more aggressively to decelerate on short final to touchdown. That touchdown will be with power if we have slowed, sunk, and added power to control sink effectively.

Of course we start where we are and iterate, iterate, iterate. You will continue to have to pull power and round out a bit until the slow to sink has grown on you. But you will be getting down closer and closer to the numbers with each iteration.

Very good Josh (Dog is my copilot.)

Due to the stall spin awareness emphasis being taught many students start their base and final turns by lowering the nose. Usually this pitch change is too steep and results in too high of an approach speed. Mild unloading of the wing is all that is needed and makes these turns safe and slow. This sets up a nice stabilized approach and reduces the need for a go-around. Also - current ACS PPL suggests doing slow flight demonstrations at well above where it was taught in the past. I was taught to ride the horn or buffet while maintaining altitude. I feel this is a great exercise. It teaches a better awareness of the progression to a stall. From mushy controls, to the stall horn signalling (mild to loud), to buffeting, and then breaking. It makes one comfortable flying slow. Today, students demonstrate slow flight with this ACS recommendation, "Establish and maintain an airspeed at which any further increase in angle of attack, increase in load factor, or reduction in power, would result in a stall warning (e.g., airplane buffet, stall horn, etc.)." Consequently, many people were trained in a way that makes them fearful flying at slower speeds.

I agree go-arounds need to be practiced - especially in airplanes with big bore engines. My airplane like many Cessnas has a very forward cg and during an approach with full flaps and little to no power the trim is set in the max up position. Application of full power will result in an abrupt nose up pitch requiring a serious workout nose down exercise. I have heard some people suggest using a less power during the go around but there are situations where this is not safe or practical. My practice is to apply full power, muscle the nose down (to safe pitch attitude), retract flaps to 20, adjust trim, and the slowly retract the flaps. Right rudder is required but pushing the nose down immediately is what will prevent the stall. I have to admit this procedure caught me off guard a few years ago because it had been a long time that I actually had to do a legitimate go around. The amount of nose down pressure was scary - I think mostly because it was unexpected. It is something I practice and teach now. It might make sense to use less nose up trim during landing in case there is a need for a go around.


Josh

Good points Josh. The greater use of power/pitch to decelerate on short final the lesser amount of up trim will be necessary. I used zero trim change in the 172 (same trim as cruise) with full flaps. Because I alway used full flaps and only occasionally used the 182 on the pipeline, I also used zero trim change in the 182 with full flaps and I was a little old man, Power allows for a higher pitch attitude on short final. With deceleration, it is required to control the sink rate before ground effect dampens sink rate. It also requires less hold the nose up trim.

I have heard of guys on here cranking in more nose up trim on short final. I didn't fly long finals where less than full flap and 1.3 Vso is fine. I probably abused the flap lowering speed because I never looked at the airspeed indicator while making short base to final turn and applying full flaps. When I ride and talk with other pilots, 1.3 and gradual flap reduction until short final and then full flaps seems to work OK. Some change trim and some don't.

Great post. I'm glad to hear that some places are teaching to lower the nose in turns. There really isn't a reason why that should result in a fast approach, especially with the patterns that some of the puppy mills use. In teaching from the back seat of my Citabria I would brief that a pilot might be used to the pattern legs of a Cessna being 80/70/60. My Citabria had no flaps so I taught 80/80/80. I warned them that I would punch them in the back of the head if the nose came above the horizon in a turn to base or final (the warning was always sufficient motivation).

My statement that I burned into their brains was "we'll fix it on final", meaning that once the wings were level on final they would pitch for 65. That would cause the plane to balloon a bit but after about 5 seconds they would get a significant sink rate. So even if they seemed high already and pitched for 65 I could guarantee it will all come together. It didn't take long for all of them to see that flaps are really unnecessary even for a steep approach. Even on a short approach they almost always had to add power to even make it to the numbers.

I've actually flown with instructors in the last year who suggested using the turn from base to final to burn off speed (!).

I'm with you on the ACS version of slow flight. I was taught flight at Minimum Controllable Airspeed where the stall horn should be blaring the entire time. Turns to the right took lots of right rudder. Turns to the left took less right rudder. You absolutely had to add (lots of) power in those turns or it would stall.

For my CFI reinstatement ride the examiner interpreted the ACS slow flight as: Slow the plane until the first tiny beep from the stall horn and add 5 knots. I have no idea what that is supposed to teach, but the DPE is visibly more comfortable with what probably amounts to a 10 knot cushion. One of those cases where I'll still teach actual flight at MCA and then brief them for the check ride.

Lastly, trim during a go around. Some seem unaware that full nose up trim in a Cessna will peg best glide while hands off. When I first learned that I was amazed at what an aid that would be in an actual engine out emergency. A pilot could be whizzing that trim wheel while looking for a place to land and not be distracted by checking airspeed.
Then I learned what that does when you pour the coals for a go around. Even in a C152 it takes a solid shove on the yoke to keep it from pitching damn near vertical. You can imagine I was only unprepared for that once.

Dog is my Copilot wrote:Due to the stall spin awareness emphasis being taught many students start their base and final turns by lowering the nose. Usually this pitch change is too steep and results in too high of an approach speed. Mild unloading of the wing is all that is needed and makes these turns safe and slow. This sets up a nice stabilized approach and reduces the need for a go-around. Also - current ACS PPL suggests doing slow flight demonstrations at well above where it was taught in the past. I was taught to ride the horn or buffet while maintaining altitude. I feel this is a great exercise. It teaches a better awareness of the progression to a stall. From mushy controls, to the stall horn signalling (mild to loud), to buffeting, and then breaking. It makes one comfortable flying slow. Today, students demonstrate slow flight with this ACS recommendation, "Establish and maintain an airspeed at which any further increase in angle of attack, increase in load factor, or reduction in power, would result in a stall warning (e.g., airplane buffet, stall horn, etc.)." Consequently, many people were trained in a way that makes them fearful flying at slower speeds.

I agree go-arounds need to be practiced - especially in airplanes with big bore engines. My airplane like many Cessnas has a very forward cg and during an approach with full flaps and little to no power the trim is set in the max up position. Application of full power will result in an abrupt nose up pitch requiring a serious workout nose down exercise. I have heard some people suggest using a less power during the go around but there are situations where this is not safe or practical. My practice is to apply full power, muscle the nose down (to safe pitch attitude), retract flaps to 20, adjust trim, and the slowly retract the flaps. Right rudder is required but pushing the nose down immediately is what will prevent the stall. I have to admit this procedure caught me off guard a few years ago because it had been a long time that I actually had to do a legitimate go around. The amount of nose down pressure was scary - I think mostly because it was unexpected. It is something I practice and teach now. It might make sense to use less nose up trim during landing in case there is a need for a go around.


Josh

Josh, using takeoff trim (checklist) rather than cruise trim (on my pipeline 172 I think it rusted there) and doing a basic low ground effect takeoff will result in the same pitch up. It you have students practice dynamic proactive elevator movement, same as getting the fuse level on a TW airplane, they find that it need not be so scary to push the nose down. Push it down, pull back up a bit, push it down a bit lower, back a bit...etc. It is a more comfortable way to find level in low ground effect.

Anyway the technique works on go around as well. They get a little more excited on go around, so the push to level the fuse and the push to stay in low ground effect practice will be triple dip with go around. Yes, they need to be in low ground effect on go around if they have waited way too long (really slow now) to initiate. They can zoom over the problem causing the go around with the outcome of the maneuver less in doubt. If they start way back and high, as they should, the have lots of vertical space available to push the nose down into. We got to get them thinking more about roller coasters and not depend on the engine so much.

Like Casey at the Bat, the go around done early when the pilot just doesn't like that pitch is safer than how go arounds too often happen. What about commitment, as with the one way strip, to landing as a default? If we just get to short final with reasonable speed control and then use elevator to decelerate and then demand proper glide angle and rate of descent by manipulating the throttle sufficient to make it happen, it happens. What if, once we learned power/pitch to touchdown and proper rudder control through iterations iterations, we demanded a slow and soft touchdown on the numbers every time? What if we demanded it in all wind conditions, especially a very strong crosswind component where angle across is necessary? Would banging around at 20-50 mph ground speed on the approach end rather than departure end of the runway cause as many fatalities as the go around? And at slow ground speed, ground loop doesn't necessarily destroy the airplane. Win, win.

contactflying wrote:Josh, using takeoff trim (checklist) rather than cruise trim (on my pipeline 172 I think it rusted there) and doing a basic low ground effect takeoff will result in the same pitch up. It you have students practice dynamic proactive elevator movement, same as getting the fuse level on a TW airplane, they find that it need not be so scary to push the nose down. Push it down, pull back up a bit, push it down a bit lower, back a bit...etc. It is a more comfortable way to find level in low ground effect.

Anyway the technique works on go around as well. They get a little more excited on go around, so the push to level the fuse and the push to stay in low ground effect practice will be triple dip with go around. Yes, they need to be in low ground effect on go around if they have waited way too long (really slow now) to initiate. They can zoom over the problem causing the go around with the outcome of the maneuver less in doubt. If they start way back and high, as they should, the have lots of vertical space available to push the nose down into. We got to get them thinking more about roller coasters and not depend on the engine so much.

Trim on a 172 doesn't pitch up like full nose up trim on a 180/185. Flying a 172 out of trim isn't really a big deal because it's not hard to fight. A early 182, 180s and 185s are much heavier to fly out of trim, and the pitch up that happens with full nose up trim and full power is not simple something you can work out with dynamic control movements. It's a very not dynamic HARD push forward until you get the trim set nose down a bit. It's not that it's scary to push it down, it's that you HAVE to push it down and it's a lot of work to do that.

I agree that things should not wait that long to make the decision, but sometimes it happens. And practicing for that experience is excellent. But I don't think comparing it to a C172 being out of trim is fair.

Thanks for that clarification, David. It has been years since I have manipulated the controls on the older 180s or 182s and I was a tough little guy then. You know they could have a computer push that nose down for you, ha, ha. Just kidding. As my wife says so often, "that joke was in bad taste."

You got me to actually think back, David. I am old and senile and I am sure at some point I did a go around, but I can't remember doing so. I have had students do one in their airplanes. Since I had a habit of staying down and giving way, it just didn't come up in either the pipeline 172 or 182. They were probably around 70-80s models.

A1Skinner wrote:

contactflying wrote:Josh, using takeoff trim (checklist) rather than cruise trim (on my pipeline 172 I think it rusted there) and doing a basic low ground effect takeoff will result in the same pitch up. It you have students practice dynamic proactive elevator movement, same as getting the fuse level on a TW airplane, they find that it need not be so scary to push the nose down. Push it down, pull back up a bit, push it down a bit lower, back a bit...etc. It is a more comfortable way to find level in low ground effect.

Anyway the technique works on go around as well. They get a little more excited on go around, so the push to level the fuse and the push to stay in low ground effect practice will be triple dip with go around. Yes, they need to be in low ground effect on go around if they have waited way too long (really slow now) to initiate. They can zoom over the problem causing the go around with the outcome of the maneuver less in doubt. If they start way back and high, as they should, the have lots of vertical space available to push the nose down into. We got to get them thinking more about roller coasters and not depend on the engine so much.

Trim on a 172 doesn't pitch up like full nose up trim on a 180/185. Flying a 172 out of trim isn't really a big deal because it's not hard to fight. A early 182, 180s and 185s are much heavier to fly out of trim, and the pitch up that happens with full nose up trim and full power is not simple something you can work out with dynamic control movements. It's a very not dynamic HARD push forward until you get the trim set nose down a bit. It's not that it's scary to push it down, it's that you HAVE to push it down and it's a lot of work to do that.

I agree that things should not wait that long to make the decision, but sometimes it happens. And practicing for that experience is excellent. But I don't think comparing it to a C172 being out of trim is fair.

Jim,

Reading your posts about Zoom reserve have helped me understand this technique better and I am teaching it to my students. The Vx climb out is something I teach for ACS checkrides. Otherwise every takeoff is done as you suggest. I also do not like doing touch and goes in the Skywagon. I prefer full stop option landings - clean up the airplane - flaps, trim, carb heat and cowl flaps. Then go. If we have to back taxi - so be it. Practicing go arounds is so important. We can train to such proficiency that doing them becomes something novel. Remembering how much forward yoke pressure is needed is something that needs to be practiced. If I am expecting it - it is not so surprising. Definitely a good triceps workout for sure. Also harder in the right seat than left - but I am left handed.


Josh