Originally Posted by
Oldaircrew
I think we're arguing the wrong point. Whether the crew or aeroplane failed is moot. The real question should be: why did they go around in the first place?
I'll take the bait ... According to the preliminary report (linked at post #11 in this thread) they went around because wind conditions changed, they were landing long, and they sensibly thought "let's get out of here and do it again" or words to that effect.
IMHO the question should
not be "why did they go around"? Go-around is a proper option, to be encouraged, if an approach doesn't look good or even if a touchdown doesn't look good – as others more qualified than me have said here, go-around is an option until thrust reverse is selected. Airlines who penalize crew for go-around are (IMHO again) completely misguided.
The real question should be: why did they screw up the go-around?