alright 4PWs, just a few things not to make this an ever lasting thread.
1)When I mentioned the Swiss air MD11 accident it was only to give you an example that blind accpetance of procedures is not always the safest course of action, not to start a discussion on that particular accident, and hey, my big, enormous and deepest apologies for having made a mistake on the airline, everyone made it very clear how wrong I was...
2)I wasnīt trying to say that following rules is something that ONLY works well in a sim...I am disappointed you interpreted that. I am also dissapointed at your "avoid posting ridiculous scenarios" comment.
3)Maybe your definition of "use of judgement" is slightly different than mine in this lost comm case that I presented. Your judgement calls for a mandatory go around under all circumstances no matter what if you canīt get a verbal or visual clearance to land. Mine is "stick to the rules, go around if you canīt get a clearance, but if thereīs a safety concern involved with that go around, landing on a visibly clear runway, with no red lights coming from the tower is definitely one possibility, and again, itīs written somewhere.
I perfectly understand thereīs no such a thing as "a safety concern with going around" for you. And this is the point Iīd like to briefly discuss.
Maybe where you fly, theory and reality are close together. Where I fly, quite a few times youīre on your own, and staying more time in the air than necessary may complicate things and put the airplane in a difficult situation, and I assure you that if faced with a lost comm scenario on final approach having to go back in the air with no radios and all these other local ingredients adding up is a lot more complicated and risky than just confirming rwy is clear and landing. Some examples of that are..untrained ATC personnel, lack of tower lights !!!, lack of radar, lack of suitable alternate airports with sevices nearby, and political issues. In general Iīd go around but I wouldnīt blindly go around without also considering the problems associated with that.
Thank you once again for replying, Sir.
SW.