Great post Centaurus - didn't see the programme myself, but this is what I log in to PPruNe to read - thought provoking discussion betwen professionals about flying, rather than slag-fests and bitch fights.
So my question is this - having grown up in the military system, the go-around was burned into our brains as a non-negotiable requirement under a whole range of circumstances.
At 2FTS I think there were 9 defined criteria - ranging from "approach too steep or too shallow" through "S-turn required to line up on finals" etc. I failed one of the best ACM rides I did on intro fighter course - because I didn't go around when I should have back in the circuit. As a senior F-111 QFI I would still go around routinely from approaches.
But I do a lot of commercial flying (down the back) these days, and a go-around is so rare as to be very noteworthy. Indeed from what I've seen, the "go -around culture" isn't nearly so strongly emphasised in civil aviation - and I'm wondering why.
The money aspect is one obvious possibility, but if you follow that thought through it leads logically to the unpalatable statement that "I will compromise safety for $$"
So what else is it? Are you all such sky gods that they aren't necessary? Is it pride / cultural factors? Seemed to be the case in the Air China Airbus prang in Japan a few years back. Traffic density - ie hard to slot back into the circuit because everyone focuses so heaviliy on straight in approaches? Lack of defined criteria that should trigger a go-around? Doubt that that's it - I know QANTAS is very strict on stable approaches etc - but still, what about Bangkok?
So what is it? Is there a problem with go arounds that I'm missing?
Interested in feedback from airline professionals.