A lot of companies, in order to make decision making easier for the crew stipulate that if touchdown is expected beyond x feet from start of runway then a go around is mandatory.
In my honest opinion this is crap and now we have a destroyed 777 and a dead firefighter to show why. I understand where the airlines are coming from, they figure pilots shouldn't be trying to make judgements that close to the ground and to make it easier and to improve pilot discipline they say if you don't touch down by x feet go around.
But a go around is no joke and we've lost a 737 with all pax and crew dead and a 777 hull with one death. Airlines need to reassess this. Imagine landing on a 4000m runway and you're flying a narrow body and because you've floated to let's say 1200 metres down the runway even with 2800m left the 'company'procedure is to go around even though a perfectly safe landing can be made. Meanwhile the guys who came up with this policy are patting themselves on the back for establishing such discipline. Yet there will be unnecessary go arounds, but that's OK for them I guess. So why not let pilots handfly the plane some more, get more practice? Wont that make things safer? And if you have the odd go around so what. Why is it that in the case of manual flying it's not OK to have some go arounds for the greater good?
OK so this blind categorisation of acceptable touch down zones has to go. Here's why
1. More and more planes are coming with runway over run warning and protection systems. They will accurately calculate landing distance requirements and let the pilots know when they don't have enough runway.
2. Go arounds cost the airline money and add congestion in already busy airspace.
3. Pilots do not fly go arounds very often and can screw them up.
Airlines cannot simply have a blanket touchdown zone criteria, it needs to vary depending on runway length and other criteria. If I was in KTM and floated for whatever reason I'm landing unless I'm definitely not sure I can stop in time. There's no way I'm going around, it's way more risky.
Pilots can calculate factored landing distance before landing and agree on a point (perhaps a taxi way or some other easily available landmark) after which they will go around. This is called airmanship. The usual reason for floating is weather conditions. So why would you want to go around and try another approach in bad weather due to company procedure, when you are sure you can land and stop safely?