The importance of the go-around
Not landing at your intended spot is almost unheard of in most facets of aviation. During our primary training, it is often beaten into our heads that we need to be ready to go around on every landing. However, eventually most of us become complacent and plan to land no matter what, as anything else can be embarrassing at the very least. Outside of the training and learning environment, go-arounds are rarely encountered maneuvers. Sure, turbine drivers working the line go missed for weather minimums often enough, but those are well-practiced maneuvers in the simulators since it is still somewhat of a rarity and is a very critical and error-prone part of IFR flying. Case in point, when was the last time, as a passenger on a commercial airline, that your flight went "missed approach" and headed to an alternate?
I can only recall one unplanned non-landing in VMC conditions in over a decade of flying professionally. This is even truer in the non-IFR general aviation world. On several BFRs I have instructed a go-around deep in the flare and still had the pilot land and then ask what I was asking him or her to do. I even had one gentleman tell me he would never initiate a go around that late in the flare. With long runways and the relatively short landing capabilities of light aircraft, the need to abort an approach or landing rarely arises. However, in the backcountry environment it is quite normal and routine to not land at your intended spot. Additionally, if we are doing it right we aren't carrying a bunch of excess energy to assist in changing our plane's trajectory. Whether it's an intended aborted approach at a no-go around strip or an unintended balked landing on a 300-foot sandbar, you must have comfort in radically changing your aircraft's trajectory when operating in the backcountry environment.
How late into the landing is okay to initiate a go-around?
In my experience, the balked landing, or go-around, is a busy transition that is often executed after a pilot is already slightly flustered. While I don't have statistics, I personally know of a quite a few incidents that could have been avoided with a proper aborted approach or balked landing. However, during dual instruction, people seem to have some discomfort when initially doing these maneuvers with me. I'm sure if you asked most instructors when they feel they have to be most on-guard, a balked landing is a close second to a power-on stall. This is even truer in the shorter, rougher, and more confined areas where many backcountry operations happen. It's one thing to abort early and have plenty of energy to make that happen, but it is completely different if you miss-time a flare and bounce resulting in a balked landing when you're staring at some terrain or obstacles. Furthermore, many of the backcountry strips in the west are in mountainous areas that choke down your options even further. Because of this, it is extremely critical to be comfortable with changing your flight regime and aircraft configuration.
At this point in the approach, have you considered what your options and plan are in the event a go-around becomes necessary? Is a balked landing even possible?
No matter the flavor of the abort there are a few similarities to all of these maneuvers. First, I never approach an area without having prior knowledge of the surrounding environment. This is done much like a helicopter assessing a landing zone in that I do both high-altitude and mid-altitude reconnaissance. The focus of these is learning the overall layout of the area. This obviously includes the usual stuff: terrain, obstacles, takeoff considerations, desired departure paths, etc. However, it can also include some less common considerations. For instance, if I'm going to go beat up a patch of land, I want to know that I can do it without upsetting the neighbors-- even if those neighbors are a herd of livestock. At high altitudes and low power setting you are much less invasive than if you're swooping down and hammering the throttle and spinning those massive props that we all envy.
All of these start out the same: I set up for landing configuration as far out as comfortably necessary. A slow, steep, stable approach described in our previous articles/videos is what I use unless conditions dictate a different approach. I don't skimp on flaps or fly it at faster speeds, as that can be misleading later on when you are actually planning to land. It is important to note that on any of the intentional aborts once the decision has been made to not land, I DO NOT LAND no matter how good everything is looking. Similarly, I don't try to salvage a landing once an abort is initiated regardless of how tempting it is. Another very important note is that your mixture must be at the correct setting. I can't imagine a more helpless feeling than stabbing the throttle in a confined area and experiencing a prolonged hesitation or complete failure, both of which have happened to me in the training world, but luckily never in the backcountry realm.
Ultimately though, the primary objective is to keep the airplane stabilized and not corner yourself into a stall. At the slow speeds that we fly in backcountry operations, the easiest way to hurt yourself or do major damage is by getting too slow on the approach or on the departure and causing a stall. It is also important to remember that stall speed drastically increases in steeper banks. Dings and scratches can be fixed, but the effects of a stall and/or spin are always more damaging.
From the high and mid-altitude recon orbits you can really only tell so much about your desired landing area. It is one thing if you are flying to an often-visited area, but if you're going to a truly new place you must make a lot of decisions while airborne. Part of this will be done with aborted approaches, go-arounds, and balked landings. These come into play when evaluating new landing areas.
I've had many people interested in this kind of flying ask how I know I can land and take off safely in an area. The real answer for me is that I approach that spot many times and, in doing so, I do many different styles of aborted approaches and landings. First from high up, then a little lower, and then I roll my wheels down the surface of the landing area. I might do all of these several times before gathering up the nerve to slow down and really put the weight on the wheels. If this is off-airport, I'll do a surface roll even if it is a place I have been to before. Twice I have seen barbed wire newly strung in a just a matter of days to accommodate cattle. Ever since then I am more comfortable taking a close look every time regardless of familiarity.
Ultimately, if I've done enough passes, I will feel comfortable landing or I will decide to not try. This could be going into a spot I have been to before or a completely new spot, but no matter what, I do a few approaches to make sure that I have a solid plan in the event that something doesn’t work out.
Anatomy of the maneuver
These flight regime reversals can be broken into two basic categories: 1) Intentional maneuvers to help evaluate your landing zone environment, or 2) Unintentional maneuvers that are reactions to the unimproved areas in which we operate. In either event, proper decisions and inputs need to happen quickly and a thoroughly thought-out plan needs to be in place regardless of intentions.
I break down the different version of the non-landings into four similar but distinctly different routines:
1The aborted approach:
This is used when evaluating an area that is unknown or confined. It could be an innoccuos field, abandoned strip, or just a short fun little sandbar. This is also the maneuver used in one-way or no go around strips.
After a high and mid-altitude reconnaissance is performed, I use an aborted approach to build the intended path I am going to follow to the landing zone. The reason I feel these are different than a standard go-around is that the abort must happen way in advance of the touchdown area. In some cases you might not even be able to see the runway at these abort points. Much like a decision height or altitude on an instrument approach, these abort points need to provide safe obstacle clearance once the abort has been made.
Prior knowledge of an area is very helpful, but in uncharted territories these can take patience and experience to know you and your airplanes limits. Erring on the conservative side I approach these the same way I approach all the others, in landing configuration. This is what makes this different from mid-level reconnaissance. The steeper and slower you are, the closer you can most likely get. This is because the slower speed enables you to do tighter turn and allows for closer abort points. Once a comfortable abort point is decided, I don't go past it unless I am actually landing. If you venture any further you are going to land or wreck trying. Either way, you aren't going to outclimb terrain or obstacles if you abort past your comfortable point.
Once at my comfortable abort point I positively apply full power, wait for the airplane to stabilize and collect energy, and then begin my climb out. Depending on terrain, obstacles, and aircraft, I may leave my flaps down until positive climb-out is reached. For instance, in the Maule if I reduce flaps too soon and a good speed hasn't been reached, the bottom falls out. On the other hand, the Super Cub it isn't as sensitive to flap reductions so it usually comes quicker. After cleaning up, I accelerate and follow my planned departure path.
An intentional rolling of the surface followed by a go-around is a common evaluation technique for off-airport landing zones, familiar or not.
2The intended balked landing:
This is used when evaluating the surface of an area, which can often be misleading as seen from the air. This is only done once a departure path is assured at current weight and environmental factors. To my students I call this a "backcountry touch and go." It is performed as if you are going to land, but once again I DO NOT LAND when performing them. I perform the exact same approach, flare, and touchdown that I would as if I was landing, but change the rollout.
I basically have two different versions of the above. First, weight on the wing and just sniffing the surface condition with my tires. The second is a more committed version where the weight is largely transitioned to the wheels and slowing starts to happen, but it isn't finished to where I can't be airborne at the flick of the throttle and a milking of ground affect.
The more comfortable I am with the surface, the slower and heavier on the wheels I become. In a taildragger this is done in a wheelie configuration with no brakes. I try to wait as long as possible on the ground to evaluate surface conditions then advance the throttle smartly at a comfortable spot to perform a safe departure along a predetermined path. I leave flaps at full until the airplane is stabilized and fully at flying speed before any reduction of flaps. Once again in an aircraft like a Carbon Cub this dance can happen pretty quickly, whereas in a 185 it is still fast, but takes a little time to gather itself.
3The go-around:
The go-around is for when I plan to land, but end up aborting for some reason. This can be for an unlimited number of reasons, but a good example of this is too much lift or sink at inopportune times, putting you out of position. I go around at the drop of a hat if the approach is even slightly out of plan. I'll then circle back around and give it another shot.
Depending on where in the approach this happens, it can be a pretty simple endeavor or a more tricky deal if you're closer to the flare in a confined area. There are many reasons to go around, but it can't be overstated that once the decision is made to go around there should be no salvaging of the approach. I advance the throttle and stabilize before reducing flaps and beginning a positive climb.
4The unintended balked landing:
This is a landing where things might not have gone as planned. Perhaps a bounce, float, or just a crappy touchdown have put your landing in jeopardy. This is probably the most common part of backcountry operations where people have the opportunity to fix the problem before becoming another blemish.
Not using a balked landing is really the result of two things: lack of experience to know the landing isn't going to turn out well, and waiting too long to initiate a go-around. I let the touchdown determine my comfort level for the rest of the landing. By this point I know what the rollout will feel like from previous passes.
If the touchdown isn't exactly as planned, give it the onion and milk the airplane in ground effect until enough energy has been gained to change configuration. There is no question that this is the point at which you're most vulnerable. Mentally many of people get flustered here. Now they have to do something they weren't planning on and if it's in a confined area (regardless whether the aircraft is up to the task performance-wise) people tend to get a bit more anxious. This is where your planning, practice, and experience come into play. If you've done your previous passes correctly and you're comfortable with bad landings, then you merely power up and stabilize the aircraft at an acceptable attitude and let all that preparation work for you. The only focus should really be controlling the plane and not worrying about terrain or obstacles since you have done this same route a few times before.
Numerous passes in the form of go-arounds or balked landings can allow you to collect more information about the surface and the best approach.
Conclusions
There are a few things to reiterate:
You are going from a slow low-energy state to a full power higher energy configuration. The goal isn't to yank back on the stick or yoke and expect the plane to follow, but rather get the power forward and let the plane gain energy at its current attitude and don't allow the plane to stall under any circumstance. The heavier and steeper you are the longer the plane takes to react. A constant speed prop on a fully loaded Maule is going to react differently than a fixed pitch lightly loaded cub. Once you have a plan, stick to it. Don't plan on aborting and then land. The mixture has to be set right. At the higher altitudes where I fly, an improper mixture setting can frequently be the source of hesitation at power up which is exactly what you don't want during these maneuvers.
Being comfortable with go-arounds and balked landings is a must in the backcountry. In my opinion it is the single most useful tool to have in your set of skills if you intend to safely operate anywhere other than a long paved runway. Not only are go-arounds invaluable for evaluating a landing area, but you will inevitably have imperfect landings when operating in marginalized environments. Being comfortable and safe during a balked landing or aborted approach is an absolute must in the backcountry.
