Originally Posted by
birdstrike
Seems a very strange decision.
Having landed and lowered the nosewheel you realise you have some form of problem - but can't know exactly what - and elect to get airborne, discover you have engine damage and then fly to another airfield.
Hopefully there is more to it than that or I think you'd be justified in questioning their decision making.
Yes there is more to that.
First there was a bounce. Then the pilot pushed and the nlg broke on ground.
Problem is, when your nlg touches first, this creates an upward rotating motion. They did not really decided to takeoff, the airplane bounced again.
Also the wind could have played a part with increased airspeed
So the decision to go around was maybe provoked by the second bounce.
Originally Posted by
pattern_is_full
From Aviation Herald:
Airline says wind shear precipitated the sequence.
The pitch never was 7° down on touchdown.. Maybe it was when the wheel broke though, but not just before
"touched down a second time at 15.1 degrees nose up between 133 and 144 KIAS and 3.4G. The aircraft bounced again,"
That actually was after the -1° touchdown on the nosewheel, and this was a tail strike.