GF,
That reasoning is just about what Iīve been trying to explain unsuccessfully. There are certain situations that do justify landing, the way I see it.
I respect 4pws and pk kar as their posts reflect a huge amount of experience and knowledge, but I still disagree on the "go around under all circumstances" concept.
The "where you just turn the motion off" part of the sentence is clarified in a later post, where I explain that there are certain flying regions where theory and reality arenīt that close together, and previous knowledge of certain permanent conditions, sometimes can give you some more elements to choose what you could consider a better option...Didnīt mean to be disappointing..white flag waved...
Untrained ATC personnel? Yes, with questionable ability to handle the traffic they can talk to while someone else is trying to land with their radios inop, especially those not speaking that countryīs language.
Lack of tower lights, youīll never get the green light you īll be willing to wait for till you start using rsv fuel.
Lack of radar, even if you follow procedures, itīs not the same.
Thatīs how I see it, you donīt have to agree. For the tenth time Iīll say that I DO !!! support the idea of a go around, but Iīd not blindly do that without also considering the risks involved in going back into the air and having to follow a procedure that requires everyone involved to know what theyīre doing, when I have reasons to suspect some of them may not know what to do.
Best Regards and thank you.
SW.
PS: 4pws, so youīve never seen an Initial approach fix over the outer marker, where you just cross the fix, fly outbound for a while, then do a procedure turn and then come back in? Itīs full of them in the States.
Last edited by sudden Winds; 15th Jul 2007 at 09:40.