I've been eyeing those yellow cement(?) landing light pylons and imagining the effects if the plane had skidded another 20 meters or so - especially now we know there was fuel for the return flight still on board....
________
On the larger question of rejected or aborted landings, is there anything to be learned from naval aviation, where the operating assumption, at least as built into the procedures and hardware, seems to be to
assume a go-around when conducting carrier landings, arguably the most critical form of fixed-wing aircraft landing?
1. First action by the pilot after touchdown is to firewall the throttles in case a GA is needed.
2. Auxiliary stopping device (tailhook) does not impede flying characteristics of the aircraft if a GA is required (except for a touch of drag).
3. The "other brain" monitoring the landing - the LO on the deck - is primarily there to order a wave-off if the approach is flawed in any way.
Not suggesting arresting gear for airliners
Just wondering if there is some room for more of the Navy mindset that "Every landing is a likely wave-off
unless the approach is nailed all the way."