SuddenWinds,
In that case, "area familiarity" is thrown into the equation, and that can throw a lot of things from the book to go out of the window... If one is unfamiliar with the place, unless the company notes say "at airport X, land at first opportunity despite lost comms", do the go-around and the required procedures.
2 mile final, rwy in sight, a big jet. You´re on Tower frequency, call for clearance, nothing, no response whatsoever, nothing on the radio...land or go around?
If the question is phrased as such and only such... go-around.
Putting the following:
I explain that there are certain flying regions where theory and reality aren´t 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...Didn´t mean to be disappointing..white flag waved...
In the the original question:
2 mile final, rwy in sight, a big jet. You´re on Tower frequency, call for clearance, nothing, no response whatsoever, nothing on the radio...land or go around?
Would yield a different answer... so, let's modify the question into:
2 mile final back to homebase, rwy in sight, a big jet. You´re on Tower frequency, call for clearance, nothing, no response whatsoever, nothing on the radio, seems that the guy at the tower is listening to his MW radio again, two other traffic in vicinity known to be reckless and has given me near collisions in the past, and no one seems to care about the regs...land or go around?
In this particular instance, I'd land.. only if going-around would beyond doubt put me in greater risk regardless of how good the crew's airmanship is.
If you'd explained all these in the original question... we would have finished this discussion sometime ago.
PK-KAR