Hello everyone,
Yesterday I was on flight Vietnamese Airlines flight VN740 from Singapore to Ho Chi Minh City.
The flight was pretty turbulent especially as we were making our landing approach.
On landing the plane hit the ground pretty hard and immediately the pilot started to attempt take off again. The plane was really struggling to get back up into the air and we were flying very low for about 60 seconds. there were a lot of worried faces to say the least!

Eventually, we got back into the air and landed safely second time.

I've scoured the intenet for information on incidents like this but can't anything. So what i'd like to know is:
Does anybody know how common an incident like this is? Was it really as dangerous as it seemed at the time?

Thanks

Yes, sounds a bit hairy. Go-arounds are common and no cause for alarm, but rarely involve actually touching down (aka hitting the ground ) in the process. I'm guessing he really botched the landing, possibly because of the turbulence or touched down too far along the runway.

But they recovered. I won't add the usual "any landing..." saw.

Scary. Yes this is dangerous. You were lucky that the pilot was able to get enough power (barely) to get up again--usually 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. Possibly he got crosswinded or was experiencing microburst at the critical moment. Possibly he was coming in too fast and realized it at the last minute. Count your blessings and hug your kids tighter tonight.

Sometimes the forums of pprune.org will have mention of these sorts of non-casualty incidents (as well as actual crashes), but it may take several days to come up (or not).

Incident may be a little out-of-the-ordinary for an airliner, but not a near-death experience. Sounds like the pilot let the sink rate get a little high, bounced the landing, and then wisely decided to do an immediate go-around. Keeping the aircraft level while accelerating to a safe climb speed is a normal part of the go-around procedure. That's something I've done many times (admittedly in airplanes 100 times smaller).

The mere fact that the pilot was willing to do a go-around tells you that he valued safety over ego or "looking good." That's a good sign. You start getting into scary territory when the plane bounces hard and the pilot doesn't immediately initiate a go-around: trying to salvage a bad landing can be a quick and easy way to lose control of the aircraft.

Sounds as though it might have been airborne due to "ground effect" and not aerodynamic lift.

And yes, I would consider that dangerous. However, you also need to know what prompted the pilot to go around. Perhaps he made the better of two unattractive choices.

This is a go-around. This maneuver is taught every student pilot from the time they start making their own landings. Students and airline pilots are taught to go around before the airplane is on the runway, after it makes contact with the runway, or if something just doesn't seem right. Airline pilots practice this maneuver in the simulator at each 6 month recurrency training session. The pilot realized the landing was not a good one, rejected the landing and did exactly what he was trained to do. The aircraft had more than barely enough power, it was light due to the fuel burn from the take off airport, it had sufficient airspeed since it was in the air and the pilot kept the airplane level until he had climb speed/power/configuration.

Airplanes are not committed to land just above the tarmac. Unless they are out of fuel.

If the aircraft actually touched down and then took off again, it was a maneuver called a :tough and go" which is the most basic part of pilot training. As was just mentioned the "go around" is also practiced by all pilots when they conduct recurrent training.

We do not know the circumstances of this flight, but it seems the product of a prudent pilot who realized the conditions for a successful landing were not present. A wise decision, in all probability.

jiejie, Please do not spread the false and highly inaccurate misinformation that these maneuvers are somehow dangerous and that once a plane is above the tarmac it's too late. Untrue! There's plenty of power and plenty of reserve to go around. If you are not qualified to make these comments DO NOT. they can cause harm. Please learn the facts. They will help you too.

The OP asked the question because of legitimate fears. in turbulent air it seems more dangerous, and a go-around or touch-and-go almost always feels as though the plane is not struggling. The safest course when circumstances are questionable is do what your pilot did.

What maybe the pilot landing in Mangalore should have done.

Indeed.

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.

That's why I like KA! ^

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.

Actually, this is the part of the description that would make me nervous:

Quote:

Originally Posted by lordkeir

... The plane was really struggling to get back up into the air and we were flying very low for about 60 seconds. there were a lot of worried faces to say the least! Eventually, we got back into the air and landed safely second time....

It suggests that the plane did not have sufficient velocity or power to fly at that point, although 60 seconds probably is an exaggeration. 10 seconds can seem like an eternity if you're really scared.

Go arounds tend to go up & away from the runway ASAP.

As others have said, your pilot made the correct choice to go around. Proof: you are alive to post here. The pilot in India landed half way down the runway without enough room to stop. Instead of a go around, he landed and ran off the runway with tragic results.

No regular runway is 60 seconds long at jet flying speeds. There are procedures for a go around that involve several steps, depending on the plane, more than just firewalling the throttle. Gear, flap settings, etc. are quickly checked and if not in best go around configuration a few switches need to be flipped as the go around procedures are done. This is why simulator practice is so important. The pilots do not have 30 seconds to look up the first five steps of the go around procedure in the handbook, it has to be in their heads and done automatically. As long as the pilot knows he has sufficient speed and will have the altitude to clear the trees ahead, it is safer to stay low for a few seconds and check the required go around settings. It shows he did things right.

Also if the plane is just above the runway, it is in ground effect and it helps to keep flying there as it accelerates and then climbs. Trying to climb too soon leads to stalls. ^ to your pilot, it sounds like he did the right things.

Sorry, the math doesn't work out. 60 seconds @ 150 MPH will more than clear the perimeter of most airports. The need to get up & away quickly in a go around is underscored by the example you cited in your previous paragraph:

The longer runway at Mangalore is 2.45 km (8,038 ft) long. If the pilot touched down at the very start of the runway, at 150 MPH he would clear the runway in 37 seconds. If the pilot touched down halfway down the runway (your example), he would clear the end of the runway in 18 seconds.

If the pilot was halfway down the longer runway, 60 seconds to get going again would (with a lot of luck) have the plane skimming over sacred cows, houses, trees.

If he was trying to land on the shorter runway (1600 m. or 5249 ft.) at Mangalore, the numbers are reduced by about 1/3, i.e. if you touch down halfway down the shorter runway, you only have about 12 seconds until you're greeting the cows at the end of the runway.

The go arounds I've been in have had the plane climbing immediately -- there was no screwing around at ground level.