Exercise 5
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
420
Subject
Aerospace Engineering
Date
Apr 3, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
3
Uploaded by CommodoreMeerkatMaster286
1. Evaluate the data from Maneuver 5.1 to create a baseline. Summarize such things as the length of time it took from the initiation of the go-around until a positive rate of climb was attained, and how much altitude was lost during the go around.
When going through the data, a descent down to the runway of about 831 ft/min is established, and then executed the go around at 100ft. In total, I lost about 30 ft in the go around and the go around took a total of 3.848 seconds.
2. Evaluate the data from Maneuver 5.2. Maneuver 5.1 was about 50% heavier than Maneuver 5. Compare the altitude lost in 5.2 versus 5.1. Why do you think the difference was or was not significant?
In maneuver 5.2, I established a vertical descent rate of approximately 680 ft/min. A go-
around was executed around 100ft. Ii the go-around, lost only about 10 ft and the go around took a total of 2.8 seconds. In comparison to Maneuver 5.1, time is not significantly different; however, altitude lost in 5.2 is only a third of that in maneuver 5.1.
3. Before reviewing the data from Maneuver 5.3 using a reduced flap setting of 25 degrees, which would you expect to have a greater altitude loss, 25 degrees or
30 degrees?
I think 30 degree flaps have a greater loss in altitude. This is because increasing the flaps typically increases the aircraft's drag, which can lead to a steeper descent angle at
a given airspeed.
4. Evaluate the data from Maneuver 5.3 compared to 5.1. Was the altitude loss encountered with the reduced flap setting in Maneuver 5.3 what your intuition caused you to postulate in Evaluation Discussion 3? Why do you think there was or was not a significant difference between the two?
This fits my hypothesis mentioned in question 3. In maneuver 5.3, there was a vertical descent rate of about 840 ft/min and executed a go around at approximately 100 ft. In total, I lost 12 ft in the go around and the go around took 2.8 seconds. I think this is because only changing the flap setting by 5 degrees has a small change on the aerodynamics of the airplane especially when considering the difference between flaps settings at higher ones instead of lower ones.
5. Consider the overall go-around maneuver, not just to the point of positive rate of climb. What do you postulate would be a performance advantage of having a reduced flap setting on approach (i.e. 25 degrees rather than 30 degrees)?
Having a lower flap setting would cause the go around to be faster, allowing the airplane
to have a better climb performance. Essentially, the climb rate would be higher with a lower flaps setting versus a higher flap setting.
6. Evaluate the data from Maneuver 5.4. It makes logical sense that delaying the go-around decision will cause a greater loss of altitude by continuing the descent for a longer period of time. How much altitude was lost during the 2 seconds of delay in initiating the go-around? Looking at the overall loss of altitude when comparing the data from Maneuver 5.1 and the delayed go-around decision in Maneuver 5.4, was the increase in the amount of altitude lost in Maneuver 5.4 simply explained by the extra altitude lost during the 2 second delay before the go-around?
In maneuver 5.4, established a vertical descent rate of about 740 ft/min. With the two second delay, I lost a total of about 37 ft. The go around took 4.2 seconds to complete. The go-around decreased the airplane's altitude by 37 ft which is only a small difference
to in maneuver 5.1. Even though this was a greater loss of altitude, there was a very small difference in altitude.
7. Consider making a Category II or Category III instrument approach. What is your conclusion concerning the importance of making a timely decision to abort the approach and landing when below 200 feet above touchdown zone elevation?
Making a go around decision on time for approaches such as a CATII or CAT III are crucial. These approaches have extremely low minimums such as 100 ft which get the airplane even closer to the ground. When the minimums for the approach decrease and get closer to the ground a loss of 20-30 ft in a go-around is very significant to the safety of the go-around.
8. Discuss the effects of density altitude on go around procedures.
As density altitude relates to performance we can directly relate it to the aircrafts climb performance within the go around procedure. A higher density altitude would mean a decreased rate of climb on the climbout portion of the go around, a lower density altitude would be the opposite.
9. Discuss the significance of the above accidents from the readings in this exercise. What were the main problems associated with each and where may have the crew gone wrong with each situation?
For American Airlines Flight 331, the airplane landed on a runway that had a tail wind of
14kts. Additionally the runway was contaminated. Both these factors would cause the landing distance to be increased significantly. With that being said the crew did not select a suitable auto-brake setting for landing in these conditions. The crew selected the autobrake setting of 3 which is standard for dry clear days and a headwind on a
runway that is of normal length for this aircraft. The crew should have selected the autobrake setting of 4 or 5 and changed runways. Shuttle America Flight 6448 executed an instrument approach. On this approach the Captain called go around, however, the First Officer saw the runway after the Captain had started to go around. The First Officer continued the approach though once they saw the runway. There was a significant crosswind for the chosen runway which was contaminated and the shortest runway at the airport by a significant amount. The crew should have executed the go around. We are daily certain that in the industry today if either the Captain or First Officer calls for a go around it is executed regardless. The only conditions that would warrant either pilot to continue would be if it affected the safety of the flight. The crew should have also chosen a different runway and should have factored in the contaminated runways into their landing calculations. AAL625 was on approach and encountered turbulence 10 ft above the runway that caused the airplane to become unstabilized. Additionally, this turbulence causes the airplane to float 2,700ft past the threshold or 1,700ft past the 1000ft markers. The only runway that was available was exceptionally short and had a mountain range on the departure end. During the landing the crew realized they were not going to stop in time and decided to execute a go around by going full power. Because this was an older airplane it took approximately 7 seconds for the engines to reach takeoff power which was not enough time. The crew then realized that they would be able to execute a go around and decided to try and slow the airplane down again. We think the crew should have executed a go-around even if it was 10 ft above the runway. The worst that would happen is the mains would touch the ground and the airplane would take off again. Given that the runway was so short the crew should not have attempted to execute a go
around past the halfway point for this runway either
10. Explain your overall conclusions relative to the Exercise 5 Objective listed above.
There are many things that affect performance for landing just like any other phases of flight. However, the factors that have a larger impact on the approach and landing of the
airplanes are sometimes external factors such as weather and runway length. Therefore, these exercises highlight the consequences of executing a go around late and how it can lead to a fatal accident.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help