On the subject of jet performance, I'm reminded of 2 go-arounds in that little rocket, the B747-SP38.
The 1st was with me flying in the RHS and misjudged the VOR onto r/w 25 in SYD. When we broke out of the cloud layer we were far too high [both agreed we made the same assessment; optical illusion without checking the DME!
], so going around from >1,000ft wasn't a drama. I chose to use CLIMB thrust instead of G/A [the latter adequate to launch a space shuttle in the power/weight ratio of the -SP] and was criticised later by the S/O who said I should have used G/A thrust as it was a "procedure."
The second was at HNL landing on 08L as a pax around door 3 [door 4 on a full-body.] Apparently a Herc was a bit slow off the runway and they went around with full charge [much lower altitude than 1st case above.] We were pressed into our seats as the rotate and climb started. Sitting in seat thinks..."Hangon, the G/A altitude is only 2,000ft!??
", when the power came off and we were all extended in our straps like a negative G rollercoaster as the power came right off and they pushed over! Would have suited NASA's astronaut syllabus!!
So, there could be a case for keeping track of the bigger picture, albeit in proportion to the excess performance available.
G'day
