Piltdown Man wrote:
This also shows their complete and utter lack of foresight. I believe that it is correct for ATC to pass on relevant information at the appropriate time but to insist on a go-around following a possible birdstrike is reckless bordering criminal. Let us decide. Because if one these go-arounds goes wrong, where will the lawyers look? At us obviously, but also at the controller and the pathetic policy they were asked to follow - all beautifully recorded.
Foresight is not used but hindsight is and now the lawyers are involved, unless every operator waives airport/ATC liability in the event of an incident, this is how it will stay. As I said earlier, here a "possible" strike would allow us to offer a discretionary landing. A "confirmed" strike would not.
In Ottawa, a crew lands long on a wet runway in an aircraft not equipped with reversers and runs off the end and their company sues the airport and ATC. Everyone is to blame except those directly responsible it seems.
Go-arounds are not uncommon, especially at high density airports, and we are continually told to try and reduce the number but not slow down the throughput of traffic. Figure that one out.
If a professional crew does not handle the go-around correctly because of reasons unknown (but heavily speculated) how is ATC to blame for initiating the go-around for whatever reason? We don't just randomly issue a go-around. We are following our rules and if pilot training is lacking or fatigue/stress/illness is found to be a factor, then things will have to change on the flight deck not in ATC.