Originally Posted by
OldLurker
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?
Because: the captain failed to apply thrust; the FO failed to ensure the thrust levers advanced to a GA thrust level as indicated on the EICAS; the captain rotated to the GA attitude before the FO called rotate (which he didn't) at Vref (and with no thrust, I doubt Vref was ever achieved); NEITHER noticed and called a negative speed trend; the FO allowed himself to become distracted at a critical time (!) and unquestioningly raised the gear lever on command. Lots of failures and a perfectly serviceable jet was destroyed.