Would you go around? (Poll)

[toto]

2 hours ago, 201er said:

Came across another one of these (not a Mooney)

 

 

Yeah, this is the guy in Florida that flew the plane like 100 miles back to his home base after scraping both propellers on the runway. 

[Jackk]

Depends 

if the plane just kissed the deck, going around may be less risky to person and property

if the plane slammed the deck, yeah ride it out to the expensive full stop 

[kortopates]

Depends 
if the plane just kissed the deck, going around may be less risky to person and property
if the plane slammed the deck, yeah ride it out to the expensive full stop 

There is absolutely zero uncertainty that landing unintentionally with the gear up is the least risk to persons. Sliding a few hundred feet on the runway only bruises egos. Most will tell you it was there finest short field landing! But going around after “kissing” the ground is a huge unnecessary risk to persons if you consider the number of fatal accidents. It’s entirely an effort to save the plane - not persons. Isn’t that why we insure our aircraft?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jackk]

2 hours ago, kortopates said:

There is absolutely zero uncertainty that landing unintentionally with the gear up is the least risk to persons. Sliding a few hundred feet on the runway only bruises egos. Most will tell you it was there finest short field landing! But going around after “kissing” the ground is a huge unnecessary risk to persons if you consider the number of fatal accidents. It’s entirely an effort to save the plane - not persons. Isn’t that why we insure our aircraft?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 I’m a firm believer that the better condition the box ends up in, the better condition the stuff in the box ends up.

 

100% do not subscribe to the resignation “it’s the insurance companies plane now” mindset, I’ll fight/fly till I come to a full stop.  
 

With most things in aviation it just requires common sense and isn’t paint by numbers, in some cases best to pull the power or go skidding down the runway, in other cases go around and land normally.  

Skinny runway, or a fly in with planes and people along the edges, sounds like bumper bowling as your controllability takes a hit 

 If based on my attitude and judgement it was just a scrape of the flap, why go sparking down a runway in a plane with tons of combustible fuel and fumes of fuel in it, plus why destroy a plane for no good reason. 
 

Short runway with a abrupt ending, you might not get the same deceleration gear up, and a abrupt stop can result in eating a dashboard or worse

landing gear up with all the fun sounds and feeling of the prop taking a huge chunk of runway, let it slide 

Lots of other combos we could list for days.

 

One size fits all never fits that great  

Edited July 14 by Jackk

[Pinecone]

Sorry, but prop touches, it is now a full stop.  You have NO idea of the condition of the prop or engine.

[201er]

2 hours ago, Pinecone said:

Sorry, but prop touches, it is now a full stop.  You have NO idea of the condition of the prop or engine.

Mooney prop-strike go-around crash:

http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2016/09/mooney-m20j-fatal-accident-occurred.html?m=1

 

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident to be:
The pilot's improper landing touchdown attitude, which resulted in a propeller strike, and his inappropriate decision to abort the landing after the propeller had contacted the runway, which resulted in a loss of thrust and led to an aerodynamic stall during climb.

[Jackk]

5 hours ago, Pinecone said:

Sorry, but prop touches, it is now a full stop.  You have NO idea of the condition of the prop or engine.

I agree

 

Only reason I’d do otherwise if the prop hit would be if a gear up would likely slide me into a sudden stop situation like ditch or cliff, or likely slide into people

[Pinecone]

I would rather slide into a ditch decelerating already that hit the ground from flying speed.

I am not sure what I would do about a crowd.

[aviatoreb]

Its the insurance company's plane now is not just a mantra to save your butt - but its even kinder to the insurance company as well since if you do crash and loose all souls on board after attempting an ill-fated ill-advised go around - well just from a financial stand point to the poor insurance company, that would cost the insurance company significantly more money - since souls are way more expensive than metal.  So do your insurance company a favor and do whatever it takes to not die.

[midlifeflyer]

On 7/14/2025 at 5:47 AM, Jackk said:

100% do not subscribe to the resignation “it’s the insurance companies plane now” mindset, I’ll fight/fly till I come to a full stop.  

Why do you refer to it as  resignation? I think of it and have always heard of it discussed as "prioritization." Nor do I see the connection with flying the airplane until it comes to a full stop.

You are removing damage to the aircraft from the risk/benefit analysis so you can focus on  what will minimize the potential damage to yourself and your passengers. Depending on the circumstances, at one end of the spectrum, it might mean a go around, or flying the airplane to the crash site in a way that maximizes damage to the airplane on the other. 

[Jackk]

29 minutes ago, midlifeflyer said:

Why do you refer to it as  resignation? I think of it and have always heard of it discussed as "prioritization." Nor do I see the connection with flying the airplane until it comes to a full stop.

You are removing damage to the aircraft from the risk/benefit analysis so you can focus on  what will minimize the potential damage to yourself and your passengers. Depending on the circumstances, at one end of the spectrum, it might mean a go around, or flying the airplane to the crash site in a way that maximizes damage to the airplane on the other. 

 If someone flys an aircraft differently based on who pays for damage that’s really bad, both from a logical safety position and a moral angle.

Imagine a box with fragile written on it being kicked from the mail truck to your porch and the mail guy saying “well I’m just kicking the box, not the stuff in it”

 

 In my experience the better condition the airplane ends up the better shape the people in the airplane will probably be.

[201er]

12 minutes ago, Jackk said:

 If someone flys an aircraft differently based on who pays for damage that’s really bad, both from a logical safety position and a moral angle.

Imagine a box with fragile written on it being kicked from the mail truck to your porch and the mail guy saying “well I’m just kicking the box, not the stuff in it”

 

 In my experience the better condition the airplane ends up the better shape the people in the airplane will probably be.

[midlifeflyer]

10 hours ago, Jackk said:

If someone flys an aircraft differently based on who pays for damage that’s really bad, both from a logical safety position and a moral angle.

No one should. As I said, damage or lack of damage should not be a consideration. Walking away from the crash is. Sadly, there have apparently been fatalities from trying to save the airplane. You may not  like the slogan, but that’s where it comes from.

[Jackk]

12 hours ago, midlifeflyer said:

No one should. As I said, damage or lack of damage should not be a consideration. Walking away from the crash is. Sadly, there have apparently been fatalities from trying to save the airplane. You may not  like the slogan, but that’s where it comes from.

Do you see a comparison between damage and walking away from the plane?

 

It’s just a short sighted slogan 

[Pinecone]

The logic is, too many people have stalled, spun, crashed, and died trying to get the airplane onto a runway or other place to save the plane.

If they had just accepted the loss of the plane and put it down, under control, IN THE BEST PLACE AVAIALBLE, they would have walked away.

No, you don't fly into into the side of a building, but you may take the field that is a bit short over trying to stretch the glide.

 

[midlifeflyer]

21 hours ago, Jackk said:

Do you see a comparison between damage and walking away from the plane?

Definitely. I was lucky enough to see former  FAA safety program manager and accident investigator Mick Wilson’s “How to Crash an Airplane and Survive “ program live.

[Jackk]

41 minutes ago, midlifeflyer said:

Definitely. I was lucky enough to see former  FAA safety program manager and accident investigator Mick Wilson’s “How to Crash an Airplane and Survive “ program live.

Never seen his program, I can only speak as someone who has experienced forced landings in my lifetime.

 

 Many of the Old Wives Tales need to be purged, the engine failure shortly after takeoff land straight ahead one would have ended with my plane totaled and me in the ED, vs not a scratch on me… or the plane  

Edited Thursday at 12:25 PM by Jackk