Abandonment issues

Big Bear is a nontowered mountain airport at an elevation of 6,752 feet, and the density altitude on that summer day was 9,700 feet. While we were on final to Runway 26, a Cirrus in the run-up area began moving slowly toward the runway. My friend, however, was concentrating so much on the gusty approach that he didn’t notice the evolving conflict.

The Cirrus pilot was oblivious to our presence. He nonchalantly taxied onto the runway for takeoff without making an S-turn to look for traffic, or uttering a word on the CTAF frequency. I said nothing and waited for my student to begin a go-around. After far too long a delay, my friend finally applied some power, but the heavy airplane was configured for landing and failed to respond with much enthusiasm. It began to sag toward the runway in a nose-high attitude.

Had it not been for my intervention, my friend’s timidity with the airplane would have led to an insurance claim during his first week of ownership. Or worse. My friend made two major mistakes. The first was not recognizing soon enough that a go-around had become necessary. The second was not shifting mental gears and reversing his course of action in a safe yet expeditious manner.

This failure to go around in a timely manner often is the result of a pilot suffering from “landing expectancy”—a complacent perception that an approach and landing can be completed safely because of a failure to recognize the development of threatening conditions. Consequently, a pilot might continue an approach beyond the point where assertive action was needed to save the day.

Experience does not offer immunity from landing expectancy. The more successful approaches a pilot has made, the more confidence he or she will have that the next approach will be as successful as all previous ones have been.

Numerous accidents occur annually because pilots are not as prepared to abandon an approach as they are to continue. This provides a clue to a reliable and simple technique that can be used during every approach to combat and eliminate the complacency associated with landing expectancy. All a pilot needs to do is ask himself at some point during every approach, “Am I as prepared to reject this approach as I am to continue?”

My friend’s second mistake was being timid with the controls. A properly executed go-around should be performed aggressively. It demands the immediate application of maximum-allowable power. Because a go-around typically begins with the airplane in a slow, high-drag configuration, full power should be used to arrest the descent and begin a climb. Pilots sometimes apply only partial power in an attempt to “be gentle with the engine.” Although it might otherwise be admirable to avoid rapid and large throttle movements, the occasion of a go-around is not one of those times. Concurrent with the application of full power, the pilot should comply with the go-around instructions in the pilot’s operating handbook. This includes adjusting pitch attitude to maximize climb performance. Consider that this could initially require a slightly nose-low attitude and having to accept a temporary sink rate until the flaps are retracted sufficiently to enable the airplane to climb.

When performing a perfectly executed go-around in a heavily loaded airplane at high density altitude, a pilot should expect that it might not be possible to prevent a loss of altitude while reconfiguring the airplane because of the limited power available from a normally aspirated engine.

One way to determine the go-around capability of an airplane at altitude is to practice the maneuver up high. At 9,000 feet, for example, begin a simulated approach with the airplane in landing configuration. Upon reaching, say, 8,500 feet—not an unusually high density altitude for many airports in the western United States—initiate a go-around to determine how much altitude might be lost while reconfiguring the airplane and before the aircraft begins to climb. This provides an indication of what can be expected during an actual go-around under similar conditions. Unfortunately, the loss of 100 or 200 feet of indicated altitude during this maneuver might not seem like a big deal at altitude. Try, though, to imagine what losing as much or more altitude would be like while on short final, and experiencing the visual and unnerving sensation of the ground rushing up to meet you.

BarrySchiff.com