BOAC said.....
In my experience it has been 'coffee, no biscuits'
Do TELL!
Hello Connetts - of course you're not out of order!
When we talk about "go-around" this is in effect throwing in the towel - i.e. we've taken this as far as is safe - enough! This particular approach should
never have even got as far as a go-around. It should have been - at the very least - a "discontinued approach" (which is one less on the scale from a go-around).
A discontinued approach is used when it is obvious that "it ain't gonna work" no matter what you try. The discontinued approach can also be sub-divided into effectively a "soft go-around" say from 1,000' to 3,000' through to an orbit at 4-5-6-10,000'. As soon as these guys got the runway change they should have realised their profile was EVEN MORE compromised than it already was - simple, ask ATC for the extra miles you now need. Don't crack your knuckles, shout "ye haa" and go for it...
I don't think there was any concern on the part of the crew for executing a go-around off this approach and subsequent management interest - that would have indicated they WERE thinking. If they
were thinking, the OFDM alarms should have been ringing in their heads - LOUDLY - and they would have taken the appropriate corrective action.
Their decision to continue and subsequent "attempt"
should have career implicating consequences - this wasn't a slightly "high energy" approach it was nothing short of sheer recklessness.
We will probably never find out what sanctions (if any) the crew were subject to but the fact the event is in the public domain does raise the issue of how AF manage such episodes.