Hi Volo - are you sure about the 100 ft height difference ? That would make a 1:10 fall along the full length of the strip. That is a ramp, not a runway. Would be like the one in the Freestate I think, one way in, one way out, no go-around possible.Volo wrote: ↑Wed Apr 07, 2021 4:51 pm
Sure - I agree 1000 meters might be generous for landing but not for a take-off or a late go-round decision .
it seems everything was stacked against a successful go round .
For starters my google earth tells me that the threshold of the runway used is 100 ft lower than the end of the runway with the logs which are quite evident on Google ( perhaps they were also added few meters to clear).
When the pilot initiated a go round which was apparently after an initial touch down a good deal of that 1000 meters must have already been used up .
Three up with some fuel cant have helped
The cross wind and who knows maybe a bit of a tailwind component would further aggravate the situation and the straw that broke the camels back seems to be the misuse of the flaps .
On balance I still say a 1000 meter strip with less than favourable attributes is pushing it for many medium performance aircraft .
But if you are correct - then that may fully explain the circumstances here. Passenger pulls flaps to assist the landing (because go-around is NOT an option on a 1:10 airfield). Pilot freezes, neither committing to the landing nor to the go-around.
BTW, although it doesn't help performance, the C177 flies, lands and handles much better with someone heavy in the back. Requires much less yoke, and becomes much easier to get a controlled, smooth landing. On take-off she may run a bit, but will fly-off with less pull on the yoke.
I want to re-iterate, 1000m is generous. (LATER ADDITION:) Indeed, with a 1:10 slope, you could probably land the aircraft in 150 m !