captjns;
Balked (involuntary) landings have been part of the training curriculum at every airline I've been with since the 1970's. However the go-around was called by either the instructor or examiner.
During ground school the subject is addressed as to why a pilot would inititiate a go-around for reasons other than "the old truck on the runway!" alert or "oops... what happened to the runway lights?"
Wonder if there will be a reacquaintance with the dreaded balked landing procedures during future RST's? Perhaps not a bad idea.
I know go-arounds are taught at "every" airline - it is a required manouevre just like the rejected t/o, engine fail at V1, etc. But just to make sure we're talking about the same manouevre,
the assumption/suggestion I am making here is, this isn't a go-around from minimums, this is a go-around from just above the runway, at touchdown, or on the runway, all after the thrust levers have been closed for landing but reverse has not been selected. That to me is a "balked landing", just so we're on the same page.
I believe this is what 411A and one or two others are talking about and it is what I am focussing on.
That is the manouevre I don't think many airlines teach. As we are aware, the manoeuvre is high-risk and requires a high degree of skillful, coordinated actions.
Flight Safety;
PJ2 wrote:
Quote:
"Floating" makes little sense as the energy is not there, as you say.
If I'm reading correctly, the excess energy had to be there, as I presently don't see any other explanation for the long float (pending additional information of course).
My writing again...we are meaning the same thing. Where a long landing occurs, yes, the high energy has to be there or the float can't take place and that was what I was observing in response to ELAC's comment. Ergo, the energy had to come from height, not speed and that meant a higher threshold crossing height...was my thought. Hope that clarifies.