Who calls the go-around: unstable approach and hands on the flap lever
Dual navigation exercise returning to a 1,800 m runway, runway 24; wind 210/18 gusting 28 kt; the student's demonstrated crosswind limit so far is about 8 kt. On final, at 600 ft AGL, the aircraft is 12 kt fast and the student says, "I'll just hold it off." At 400 ft the speed is still 78 kt against a target of 65 kt and the sink rate has reached 900 ft/min on a slightly steeper than normal path. At 350 ft you say, "Go around." The student, still flying, applies full power but then selects flaps from 30° to 0° in a single movement at about 200 ft AGL. You take control, establish the climb and land normally on the second approach. In the debrief the student says: "I had it - you took it off me for no reason."
1. Identify the decision points in this approach and where the instructional intervention should have occurred, with the criteria you would apply.
Read the worked answer
The first decision point is on the ground, before flight. A gusting 28 kt wind on a runway 30° off the wind gives a crosswind component of roughly 9–14 kt, well beyond the 8 kt the student has demonstrated. The approach should have been flown with a pre-briefed crosswind limit and a nominated alternate runway or aerodrome, and the student should have stated their own limit before start-up. That brief would have framed everything that followed.
The second decision point is at 600 ft. Twelve knots fast is not a small deviation and "I'll just hold it off" is a plan to arrive fast and float. The correct response is a stabilised-approach gate: by 500 ft the aircraft must be on speed (within about ±5 kt), on the correct path, correctly configured, with sink rate under about 1,000 ft/min and the drift corrected. If any gate fails, the go-around is flown - and it is the student who should be calling it, because the callout is the skill being taught.
The third decision point is the instructor's at 350 ft: by then the approach had failed two gates and the delay taught the student that the deviations did not matter. The intervention should have been earlier and framed as a shared rule ("gate not met - go around"), with the student making the call.
The flap selection at 200 ft is a separate handling error: a single movement from 30° to 0° at low height destroys lift and can produce a sink or a stall warning in the climb-out. The go-around drill is: full power, carburettor heat cold, attitude to the climb, positive rate, then flap stages at safe height and speed, with the speed not allowed to decay below the climb speed.
2. How do you handle the control transfer at the moment of intervention, and how do you debrief it so the student understands the reason without feeling overridden?
Read the worked answer
Control transfer is a scripted, verifiable exchange, not a grab. I say the student's name, then "I have control", take the controls, and the student must say "you have control" and visibly release. If they do not, I repeat it and physically confirm. In this case I would also have said, immediately and loudly, "hands off the flaps" - because the pattern of reaching for the lever after someone else has taken control is how a go-around becomes a departure from controlled flight. After the aircraft is established in the climb, I hand back: "you have control" / "I have control", and the student flies the rest of the circuit.
Debrief structure: facts first, feelings second, lessons last.
- Facts: replay the numbers at 600, 400 and 350 ft against the briefed gates. Let the student compare. No adjectives needed - 78 kt and 900 ft/min make the argument.
- The rule: the gates were briefed before flight; the go-around was therefore not my opinion, it was the plan we both agreed. This is the key point: a go-around is not a judgement on the student, it is a scheduled event that either happens or does not.
- The flap error: rehearse the go-around drill on the ground, then in the air at altitude, until the sequence is automatic at the correct heights.
- The "I had it" comment: acknowledge the feeling, then show that the approach was outside the agreed criteria at two gates before I acted, and that the criteria were written down before we took off.
End with one specific objective for the next flight, so the debrief closes a loop rather than reopening a grievance.
3. Design a training intervention so that on the next flight the student makes the go-around decision, and so that your own decision is not simply copied without understanding.
Read the worked answer
The aim is a student who calls the go-around because they can see the deviation, not because someone else did.
Before flight. The student briefs the approach: runway, wind and crosswind component, their own crosswind limit, the gate at 500 ft and the criteria (speed, path, configuration, sink rate, drift), the go-around drill with flap stages and heights, and the nominated alternate. If the crosswind is beyond their stated limit, we fly a different runway and they explain why.
In flight. The student makes the callouts: "500 feet - speed 68, on path, stable" or "500 feet - not stable, going around". I say nothing unless safety requires it, and if a gate is failed I do not prompt - I wait, and count the seconds. If the student does not act by a pre-briefed lower limit (say 300 ft), I intervene, but afterwards we debrief why the call was late rather than who was at fault.
Deliberate practice. Fly two or three approaches that are made unstable on purpose (late power reduction, high and fast, or a deliberately poor line), with the student required to identify the failure and call the go-around. This builds the perceptual cue and removes the surprise of the first real one.
Culture and reinforcement. Adopt an explicit no-fault go-around rule: a go-around is never criticised as over-caution, and I record the student's calls in the training file. Debrief with the student's own words first - "what did you see at 500 ft, and what did you decide?" - so decision-making, not aircraft handling, is the thing being assessed. With a crosswind of 18 gusting 28 kt, the honest outcome may also be that we practise elsewhere and return another day; recognising that before takeoff is the same skill.