Go Around

dell30rb

dell30rb

Final Approach
Joined
May 18, 2011
Messages
7,148
Location
Raleigh NC
Display Name
Display name:
Ren
This guy needed to go around. This is an understatement. Watch the plane shimmy as the pilot locks up the brakes skidding onto the displaced threshold.

This is at jackson county airport 24a. Landing on a pretty steep downslope, unless you have a tailwind of more than 10 knots, landing should be the other direction.

 
Last edited:
Looks like he was trying to grease it on to impress the passengers and used up all the runway.
 
Well, it was a good setup for low pass..
 
Crap I would've been on the brakes too! :yes:

I'll watch it again. OK, ya he looked a little high and fast, and touched down too far down the runway. :yikes:
 
Last edited:
Isn't the goal to put it down near the beginning of the runway? Holy moly...he had what, 400 ft at most at the end of the runway? Maybe 500? I counted two centerlines and the numbers.

Yeah, should have done a go-around for sure.
 
Aren't you guys always saying that "...if you're THAT comfortable with your short field landings, why don't you just land on the last several hundred feet of the runway to prove it?"...I guess dude just took that to heart...lol
 
On standard markings, from the start of a centerline mark to the start of the next centerline mark is 200'. I counted at least 2200' before touchdown.

Wave off, Wave off!!!

Oh well, no bent metal, a little luck used out of the luck bag.
 
A change of underwear is probably in order,glad I'm not paying for his brakes.
 
frfly172 said:
A change of underwear is probably in order,glad I'm not paying for his brakes.
Click to expand...

Brakes? What about his tires?

In addition to flying downhill, it looks like his approach speed was REALLY fast, and he had to lose a lot to get it down.

Was that a Warrior?
 
bflynn said:
On standard markings, from the start of a centerline mark to the start of the next centerline mark is 200'. I counted at least 2200' before touchdown.

Wave off, Wave off!!!

Oh well, no bent metal, a little luck used out of the luck bag.
Click to expand...
According to some of our very smart airline pilot friends, that's perfect. You're not supposed to use the first thousand or two feet of the runway anyway.
 
Lindberg said:
According to some of our very smart airline pilot friends, that's perfect. You're not supposed to use the first thousand or two feet of the runway anyway.
Click to expand...

Different animal altogether. Those runways are designed for touchdown 1000' beyond the threshold. I'm sure the AIM has this information IF you're even interested. But I guess you'd rather insult airline pilots?
 
Lets say this was a Cirrus with at Chute. Would this slowed him down if he pulled the chute upon touchdown like a drag racer? Serious question folks. Say if the end of the threshhold was a cliff.
 
A little too much of something. Oh well, didn't look he he bent anything or anyone. Hopefully he at least got a bit frighted so he won't do it again.

The one thing I can never figure out is why they put these things on youtube in the first place. Last thing I want to broadcast are my screw ups. Oh well, good entertainment value. Lets face it, videos where pilots fly safely with good judgement are mostly boring.
 
Man...I fly with the mentality that EVERY approach is a go around until proven otherwise.

Amazes me what some will do to save a landing.
 
3200ft of paved runway is LUXURY for a small airplane like this one.

When going into a 1500ft grass strip, I normally come in to "test it out" at first and see how the approach feels. Often I pleasantly surprise myself by being on speed and altitude and make it in. But the initial mentality is that I'll just "kinda come in, overfly and see what's what". I do not plan on landing the first time. Never. If you commit your mind to landing, it is hard to get out of that mindset should you need to go around.

The weekend is shaping up to be gorgeous, go fly people!
 
Here I was thinking, man, this poor guy probably doesn't deserve to be picked on like this. Now after watching it, I changed my mind. That was bad. Sweet airport though.
 
Lindberg said:
According to some of our very smart airline pilot friends, that's perfect. You're not supposed to use the first thousand or two feet of the runway anyway.
Click to expand...

Hmmm.... Or two?? Who said you shouldn't use the first two thousand feet?? Just curious as I've never heard that.

I have always said you shouldn't use the first 1,000 feet, with the caveat unless more runway is needed for a safe landing.
 
Perhaps he was a little worried about coming up short? Looks like there's some drop-off on either end.
 
Lindberg said:
According to some of our very smart airline pilot friends, that's perfect. You're not supposed to use the first thousand or two feet of the runway anyway.
Click to expand...

Funny how airports with an ILS paint big touchdown markers on the runway at the 1000' mark. They even call it the touchdown point. Guess all those airline pilots are confused by that one. :rolleyes2:
 
I was wondering why he didn't slip the hell out of it when he could see he was high and fast. Doesn't anyone know what those pedals at their feet are for anymore? He still might not have sloughed off enough energy, but he didn't even try.
 
StinkBug said:
Funny how airports with an ILS paint big touchdown markers on the runway at the 1000' mark. They even call it the touchdown point. Guess all those airline pilots are confused by that one. :rolleyes2:
Click to expand...

That's all well and good if you've got 6500' and your greater worry is being short. It's stupid when you've only got <3000', yet some people don't know how to make that distinction and think "their way" is "the way." What's a good idea in one circumstance may be disaster in another.

Nothing as useless as runway behind you....
 
Lindberg said:
That's all well and good if you've got 6500' and your greater worry is being short. It's stupid when you've only got <3000', yet some people don't know how to make that distinction and think "their way" is "the way." What's a good idea in one circumstance may be disaster in another.

Nothing as useless as runway behind you....
Click to expand...
Not true. Runway behind you is not useless. It means you planned for a bit of sink, shear, or pilot error. That's why Navy guys with a VERY short runway still aim for the second wire.

3,000 feet is a long runway for a small airplane.
 
Too high, too fast, too long, too much float ...

All kinds of wrong on that one. You can bet his wing was pointed down the whole way and he was way ahead of the curve.

This is why I try to hit the numbers (the first one's) like I'm flying STOL every landing. It keeps you sharp for that one in a hundred bad short fields.
 
Kritchlow said:
Not true. Runway behind you is not useless. It means you planned for a bit of sink, shear, or pilot error.
Click to expand...
Yes, it's useful to allow for a bit of sink, shear, or pilot error. (Going around also solves all those problems.) But once the runway is behind you, it's of no use. So once you've got it made, why not use it? Not all of us are flying big iron, and there's no reason to fly a Cub or a Cessna or a glider the same way you fly a 737. I can approach with partial spoilers in the glider and then suck them in or dump them out to still land where I want to land whether there's lift, sink, shear, gusts, or pilot error. Same thing with slipping or flaps in an airplane, where I also have to option to go around and do it again.

That's why Navy guys with a VERY short runway still aim for the second wire.
Click to expand...
That's great if it works for them in the aircraft and circumstances they fly.
3,000 feet is a long runway for a small airplane.
Click to expand...
Plenty for anything I fly. Less so if you plan to never use the first third. I did most of my training at a runway even shorter than that. If you plan to touchdown 1000' into a 2000' or 2500' runway, things can get dangerous.
 
Lindberg said:
Yes, it's useful to allow for a bit of sink, shear, or pilot error. (Going around also solves all those problems.) But once the runway is behind you, it's of no use. So once you've got it made, why not use it? Not all of us are flying big iron, and there's no reason to fly a Cub or a Cessna or a glider the same way you fly a 737. I can approach with partial spoilers in the glider and then suck them in or dump them out to still land where I want to land whether there's lift, sink, shear, gusts, or pilot error. Same thing with slipping or flaps in an airplane, where I also have to option to go around and do it again.

That's great if it works for them in the aircraft and circumstances they fly. Plenty for anything I fly. Less so if you plan to never use the first third. I did most of my training at a runway even shorter than that. If you plan to touchdown 1000' into a 2000' or 2500' runway, things can get dangerous.
Click to expand...
In an iPhone, so I'm not going to trisect this...

No, if you aim for the numbers you have lost your buffer. You can try to go around, but you may hit the truck on the road (earlier thread).

They plan the second wire for a reason.

I learned, and taught (soloed students) on 1800 feet. I have always maintained touching down 1000 feet down UNLESS you need more for a safe landing. 3000 feet is more than enough to touchdown at 1000.
 
Kritchlow said:
No, if you aim for the numbers you have lost your buffer. You can try to go around, but you may hit the truck on the road (earlier thread).
Click to expand...

The 1000' touchdown zone is designed to give plenty of ass end clearance for a 100-150' long jet that approaches in a tail low attitude. I believe a widebody jet is 200-250' long and uses a 2000' touchdown zone.

For your 20 foot long 172, a 100-200' buffer is plenty for a normal landing. You don't gain anything by using more runway.
 
Last edited:
dell30rb said:
The 1000' touchdown zone is designed to give plenty of ass end clearance for a 100-150' long jet that approaches in a tail low attitude. I believe a widebody jet is 200-250' long and uses a 2000' touchdown zone.

For your 20 foot long 172, a 100-200' buffer is plenty for a normal landing. You don't gain anything by using more runway.
Click to expand...

I don't believe the length of the airplane really plays a roll. The glide slope antenna (transmitter) is usually 1000 feet down the runway. Match that up wherever your antenna is and there you have it.

Wide body has no bearing on touchdown. Every airplane from a C152 to an A380 will be guided by the localizer to land 1000 feet down the runway.
 
Kritchlow said:
I don't believe the length of the airplane really plays a roll. The glide slope antenna (transmitter) is usually 1000 feet down the runway. Match that up wherever your antenna is and there you have it.

Wide body has no bearing on touchdown. Every airplane from a C152 to an A380 will be guided by the localizer to land 1000 feet down the runway.
Click to expand...

That does not work on a country airport with no ILS.
Regardless of the length, if you are not down in the first third, GO AROUND!

I always plan the threshold paint or first centerline stripe. If the runway has a stripe.
 
Lindberg said:
According to some of our very smart airline pilot friends, that's perfect. You're not supposed to use the first thousand or two feet of the runway anyway.
Click to expand...

You're compairing apples to oranges. If you tried to fly an airliner like a small GA aircraft an ntsb reportable accident would be almost a guarantee. Same is true if you're playing airline pilot in the little planes.
 
Kritchlow said:
They plan the second wire for a reason.
Click to expand...

You're nuts to even compare a carrier landing to what we are talking about. They're about the farthest possible thing apart in terms of, well, everything.

I learned, and taught (soloed students) on 1800 feet. I have always maintained touching down 1000 feet down UNLESS you need more for a safe landing. 3000 feet is more than enough to touchdown at 1000.
Click to expand...

Well, you're simply wrong. I'm not using up 1/3 of the runway just because it's 3000 feet long and I only need 800-1000 feet to get down and stopped. Not every airplane needs to do that and not every approach is an ILS(if the airport is even equipped with, and a lot of the shorter runways are not).
 
The obstructed-on-both-ends 3000' runway I learned on was simple--set her down in the first third (that's 1000' or less for the mathematically challenged) or go around. Even on my worst days with some of the infamous Mooney float, I never came near the far end (in more than six years).

At big commercial airports, with 8000-12,000 feet available, sure, land 1000' down the runway. At the other 4000+ airports in the rest if the country, the "first third" rule is much safer and more practical. At the 5000' field where I'm based now, my landings are getting lazy, but I almost always make the midfield turnoff with minimal braking.

This guy should have gone around. High, fast, long--push it forward and try again, lower and slower.
 
denverpilot said:
I was wondering why he didn't slip the hell out of it when he could see he was high and fast. Doesn't anyone know what those pedals at their feet are for anymore? He still might not have sloughed off enough energy, but he didn't even try.
Click to expand...

I would think that if he had the skills to scrub off that speed he would have had the skills to have not landed so badly in the first place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top