Originally Posted by
jiejie
jb, First of all, I meant the conditions were dangerous (weather) and sorry if this got misconstrued. If you want to slap me around, I guess I'll have to accept it, but in this part of the world, I don't think my fears are unfounded and I don't think I'm a simpleton on this matter, when you consider the general context. I agree the go-around and recovery SHOULD be a basic one practiced by every commercial pilot out there in the world, hopefully regularly, but there is a great body of information out there suggesting this is not the case except maybe in the developing world. With a motley mix of personnel staffing many of the airlines of Asia now plus the dubious oversight of the local aviation authorities, you never know the decision-making quality or the flying skills of who's up in the cockpit on the controls. Often this isn't really put to the test until the chips are down in a suboptimal situation. Then there are those Asian cultural and interpersonal issues that sometimes can compromise successful resolutions. This pilot made the right decision and was able to execute successfully but there's ample evidence that not all pilots can or are willing to do the same. I don't know how it is where you fly.
Well, where I fly and taught, it is exactly as I said. No student pilot is soloed until/unless he can do a successful go-around (or balked landing as the US FAA describes it). Very few private pilots don't have to demonstrate this on initial and recurrent flight checks, and any commercial pilot has to demonstrate this on recurrency, as do airline transport pilots.
However, not to pick nits, but your original post implied that the go-around itself was an inherently dangerous operation, which it is not. Your comment about the available power left little doubt in my mind at least, and clearly could alarm those with little or no flight deck time. The fact is, the aircraft had ample power available for the operation, assuming everything was normal. Your post suggested that there was "barely" enough power to execute the go-around and directly stated that a go around at this point is impossible, quoting
"You were lucky that the pilot was able to get enough power (barely) to get up again--once a plane is just above the tarmac prior to touchdown, it's committed and too late to power up again and execute successful go-around." This is clearly not correct.
The balance of your post amplified the misinformed statement.
This type of comment not only is not correct, but is the type of sensationalistic statements, I have come to expect of journalists looking to sell a few commercials or newspapers and why I no longer read USAToday.
On an up note, lordkier welcome to FT, and this is a real travel safety/security question which does not involve the US travel police for a change. Thanks for the refreshing change of pace.