if they saw the runway you would expect them to land
I certainly never meant that. sevenstrokeroll said that maybe
"someone caught a glimpse of the runway and ''went for it''. to which I replied,
in that scenario, I would have thought someone to have said ether "My controls" or "Land".
i.e.
Im presuming that they
DIDN'T see the runway and go-for-it otherwise I would have expected one have them to have made some kind of response or say something. I think when the PNF said continue, he had no contact and was continuing down anyway regardless in the hope of seeing it at lower altitude.
You also said you would expect them to make continuous approaches if they kept getting a glimpse of the runway.
Again thats not what I meant, I said
if they had seen the runway during a missed approach on the first or second attempt, I'd have expected them to have taken successive approaches to the same runway?
i.e. if on the first approach to 17, they had caught a glimpse of the runway or lighting then I would have expected them to make another approach to 17 seeing as it has better lighting, but they didnt they tried the 35 end and again went around. The third approach was then flown to 17. In my opinion, this indicates that they never saw the runway or anything else on those attempts as they went down to 100' (from TAWS Data) on all of their approaches.
I hope I don't find myself sitting behind you on a foggy day!
Maybe I'm not explaining myself very well or getting my points across but I'm certainly not advocating:
*Making more than 2 approaches to one runway.
or
*Trying to land after a go-around has been called.
What I'm trying to point too is that
IMO they NEVER saw the runway at all and crashed due to a stall at 100' while looking for it, I DON'T think that they saw the runway at the last minute and went for a dirty dive which went wrong. This is the discussion point i was trying to take up with what sevenstrokeroll had said.