Qantas jets in near collision
 

news.com.au

Jets seconds from catastrophe
By Darrell Giles
February 15, 2004

AN investigation is under way after two Qantas jets were involved in a terrifying near-miss at Brisbane Airport.

A Boeing 737 aircraft with about 150 passengers had to abort a landing at the last moment to avoid crashing into another plane sitting on the runway on Friday night. Passengers yesterday said the jets were only a matter of seconds away from disaster in the incident, which happened just before 6pm.

One of the frightened passengers was federal MP Bob Katter.

"We were only a few feet from bumping down, perhaps half a second away . . . then he switched on the throttle," said the Independent member for the north Queensland electorate of Kennedy.

"I was scared for my life and I don't scare easy. Something is terribly wrong if one plane is coming into land and another is sitting on the runway.

"I personally intend to find out what went wrong."

The Air Transport Safety Bureau's duty investigator, John Robbins, initiated the investigation yesterday.

Mr Robbins said radar tapes and recordings of communication between air traffic controllers and the aircraft would be examined in detail.

He said it was very rare for a plane to abort a landing at such a low altitude.

Mr Robbins said it was possible the departing plane was granted permission to make an early, rapid take-off but was too slow in responding to the instruction.

"That's all speculation until we hear the transmissions. There are so many possibilities," he said.

Airservices Australia - responsible for air traffic control and navigation - and Qantas both confirmed the incident.

Qantas spokesman Simon Rushton said the Sydney-Brisbane flight QF542 was forced to "go around" because of the obstruction on the tarmac.

Mr Rushton said there were no reports of injuries to passengers or crew.

Airservices Australia spokesman David Gray said an initial report of the incident found a Qantas aircraft had "sat too long" on the runway due to a "communication problem".

He was unclear of the distance between the two jets when the pilot of QF542 was forced to take emergency action and take to the sky again.

Mr Gray said there was no problem with the "go around" manoeuvre. "The only issue we have is in regard to traffic separation," he said.

The incident is likely to escalate concerns over the controversial new air traffic control regulations.

The National Airspace System, introduced in November, has been widely criticised within the aviation industry.

The Air Transport Safety Bureau last month called for a review of the system after a series of mid-air near-collisions.

Federal Transport Minister John Anderson is expected to announce changes to NAS soon.

Mr Katter was concerned the near- collision could have been caused by the changes to air traffic regulations, which allowed light aircraft to share airspace with commercial jets.

Pilots and air traffic controllers say the new rules endanger the lives of passengers.

Airservices Australia chairman John Forsyth resigned this week without public explanation, amid growing speculation the Federal Government is about to reverse large sections of the new air rules.

"I was disturbed by the changes," Mr Katter said. "It has certainly compromised safety for no obvious benefit."

Mr Katter, who takes hundreds of flights every year, said it was the first time he had been on a commercial plane that had to abort its landing.

"I have been in a lot of tight situations in small planes, but nothing like that," he said. "If he had landed, then his ability to take off again would have been severely restricted -- the wheels were almost on the tarmac."

Another passenger, Philip Castle, a lecturer in journalism at Queensland University of Technology in Brisbane, said the flight had been delayed after having to skirt the edge of a storm over the Gold Coast.

"We were coming into land at Brisbane -- we were, I would estimate, about one to three seconds from touching down," he said. "Suddenly the pilot powered up and let fly. It was a complete surprise."

Mr Castle, an occasional pilot, said the decision to abort appeared "very late . . . I think he was right on the limit".

He said some passengers were obviously concerned as the plane elevated rapidly and headed out towards Moreton Bay.

Mr Castle questioned why it was not obvious sooner that a plane was on the runway and a decision to abort the landing was not taken 30-45 seconds earlier.

"It was a potentially life-threatening situation," he said.

The Sunday Mail (Qld)

===========================================

It goes to show that Bob Katter doesn't know poo from brown clay

HEADLINE....PILOTS AND CONTROLLERS DO THE RIGHT THING - NOTHING UNTOWARD RESULTS!

Dear oh dear - more responsible reporting from our esteemed press

This sounds like the exact same words used in a similar incident in Sydney a few years ago. I thought I was actually reading the same report. 1-3 seconds to touchdown go around? Those babies would have hit anyway.

While I agree NAS is a piece of shiat, I think it is a bit much blaming it in this situation (on face value).

ABC News Online
Sunday, February 15, 2004. 8:05am (AEDT)

Authorities downplay Brisbane airport incident

The organisation responsible for air traffic control and navigation is downplaying reports of a near-miss involving two Qantas jets at Brisbane airport.

Airservices Australia has confirmed that a Sydney to Brisbane flight carrying 150 passengers was initially unable to land on Friday night.

A spokesman says the pilot of the Boeing 737 decided to go around again after having some communication problems.

He says the problem arose when the aircraft arrived late and all air traffic control frequencies were busy.

But he says reports of a second Qantas aircraft blocking the runway are incorrect.

He says Airservices is satisfied there was no major problem and that the pilot adopted standard operating procedures.

===========================================

Gee whiz, I have no idea how I could accuse the good ol’ Aussie media of misleading sensationalist reporting! :rolleyes:

Didn’t know you could “switch off” a throttle. Do we “bump down” these days? I was taught to land…….:}

A go-around is “emergency action”?!?!?:eek:

Really likes to demonstrate his complete ignorance, doesn’t he??:rolleyes:

Well sitting down the back reading newspapers and stuffing himself with food and drink OBVIOUSLY makes him an expert on all matter aviation!!:mad:

A VERY occasional pilot, obviously. The more occasional the better I think.:uhoh:

Maybe time for a Bex and a wee nap...................

If this is news worthy a day at a GAAP aerodrome would fill a full paper

What can I say.........good old Aussie press at it again.
What a bunch of w@nkers.
And thank God we have pollies like Mr Katter who are so well informed on matters aviation......NOT !!!:yuk:

Well in his defence he does say he was concerned not that he blamed it on.

Who can blame his concern with all the bad press NAS has been getting.

Maybe Bobs cowboy hat has been cutting off the circulation to his head.

Since when has a go around been headline news.

If the ozzies had the same procedures in place as the French, this would not have happened. When I was o/s, on first contact with CDG tower, you were given the wind direction and strength then cleared to land. There may have been 3 or 4 a/c in front of you for the same rwy but it ALWAYS worked. The only additional info passed was if the a/c directly in front was a heavy.

They leave it up to pilot discretion to "accept the waiver" for wake turb, why can't we take the initiative and just land the a/c if the rwy is clear?

It is difficult to mandate common sense, but I think we need to wake up in this country and stop all this procedural garbage from stifling a common sense approach to resolve a minor situation.

Losing comms through congestion or equipment failure on short final should under no circumstance require a go around. The fact is in many other countries they could have landed without a clearance without incident. In Australia's current climate of culturally enhancing dobbing, is it little wonder people are afraid to exercise their better judgement.

Australian rule makers, welcome to the 21st century .

Unbelievable journalism

Said article has now been withdrawn from news.com.au site
but still remains in the Adelaide "Sunday Mail" and Sunday
"Courier Mail" sites.

http://www.ecola.com/go/?f=&r=oc&u=w...daymail.com.au

http://www.ecola.com/go/?f=&r=oc&u=w...iermail.com.au

Wirraway

Jeez with Bob Katter's extensive aviation knowledge, that is "flying hundreds of time a year", maybe he should head up an airspace reform group. He couldn't do a worse job than has been done, and you never know he might listen to the proffessionals rather than relying on advice from the amateur end of town.

Just had a poli (I think Wayne Swan) on Sunday give his account it, people will use anything for 5 seconds of tv time, he tried to link this to NAS

From The Daily Blog.
 

150 Passengers in Mid-Air Drama. Reports today of yesterdays mid-air drama in which 150 passengers spent 70 terrifying minutes flying without the wheels down wilst the pilots wrestled with the crippled jet trying to find somewhere to land. Witnesses on the ground also told of their fears when shortly after take-off from Sydney, the landing gear disappeared into the belly of the aircraft. Bill Bogan of Sydney told us " My grandmother was on that flight going home to Melbourne. Just after the pilot did the take off trick thing, the wheels just disappeared into nowhere. I knew right then there was danger because the plane needs wheels to land". National Party Member for Western Queensland, Mr Malcolm Ecks, said "This was terrifying. After we were in the air, there was a kind of a bump noise and then I knew we were in big trouble. I've seen many pictures of aeroplanes before so I know what I'm talking about" Reports came in of how the pilots circled the entire eastern sea board for just over an hour before electing for an emergency landing at Melbourne. Myrtle McIntire tells of panicing crew memebers. "The hostessess were in a complete panic. They sort of wandered about asking the passenges if we wanted something eat. All I could think of was that I would never see my pet Chou, Moppet, again". At 3:37pm EST, the aircraft made an emergecy landing in Melbourne with airport rescue services on full emergency department standby status category 9. Fortunately there were no reported injuries. However, departmental and airline representatives have refused to comment further on this incident save for staunch denials that yesterdays incident has anything to do with the newly introduced NAS.

:confused: Have I correctly understood that the go around was caused not by a runway incursion, but the lack of a landing clearance due to coms failure or whatever?

Surely if you can see the runway is clear, and you have no other indication that you are not cleared to land, captain's discretion would dictate that a low level GA is not the safer/best option? I'm sure it would also have prevented the ignorant ravings of Mr Katter and the like.

On the positive side, I am so pleased that the pilot did in fact decide to switch the throttle on prior to going around - especially when they were so close to 'bumping down'.:rolleyes:

Ha ha, bravo! excellent work Ralph the Bong.

Sorry CloudCutter. The fact you have no indication that you are cleared to land is more to the point. Not only is it a breach of the CARs and SOPs to land without a clearance, more importantly, you don't know if someone's cleared to cross, cleared for an intersection departure and so on.

If it's OK to breach these rules - where do you draw the line?

There in NOTHING unsafe about a missed approach - I used to do up to 10 a day when teaching circuits - I wasn't flying!! - and I would say a major airline the size of QF would probably average one every few days (as a rough guess). It's a routine procedure.

It just gets better and better. Now I know why I always cock up missed approaches in the sim..... the aircraft "has lost all of its aerodynamic performance" and it is a "very difficult if not a dangerous manoeuvre". Well, I won't be going around again now that I know this! Press on and land....

From The Sunday Herald:

Call for investigation of plane incident
February 15, 2004 - 1:14PM

An incident at Brisbane airport in which a Qantas pilot aborted a landing at the last minute should be fully investigated, federal MP Bob Katter said today.

The Queensland independent MP and opposition frontbencher Wayne Swan were passengers on the 737 aircraft flying from Sydney to Brisbane on Friday with about 150 passengers on board.

"It was a very bad situation and someone has a lot of questions to answer," Mr Katter said.

Mr Katter said he would be demanding a full investigation when Federal Parliament sat this week.

Some reports have said the pilot was forced to apply power to the aircraft engines and "go around" because there was another aircraft on the runway.

But both Qantas and the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) have denied another aircraft was involved.

"The pilot had not received final clearance to land and in accordance with Qantas procedures applied power and went around again," Qantas spokesman Simon Rushton said.

"There was no other aircraft involved, there was no near miss and there is nothing to investigate."

An ATSB official said while there was an incident at the airport no other aircraft was involved.

He said the ATSB would examine radar tapes and tapes of conversations at the time of the incident, which appeared to be a "complete non-event".

"It seems the aircraft went around again but until we examine the tapes we won't know the exact reason," he said.

The spokesman said all pilots were trained to go around if they were not happy with the conditions for landing.

A spokesman for Airservices Australia, which handles air traffic control, said there had never been any danger of a collision and dismissed newspaper reports of a near miss.

He said the pilot of the 737 had had trouble getting clearance to land because of the number of other radio transmissions from other aircraft.

"The pilot then made the decision to go around," he said.

"As far as Airservices Australia is concerned this is a standard operation and there were no aircraft separation issues."

Mr Swan said the pilot of the Qantas plane had told passengers there was another aircraft on the runway.

"I only know what the pilot told passengers, and that was that (aborting the landing) was because there was another plane on the runway," Mr Swan said.

"There was no panic on the plane, and I had no sense of danger."

Mr Katter said it did not matter whether there was another aircraft involved or not.

"We were just on the point of the rubber (tyres) hitting the tarmac but instead of putting the plane down the pilot put the accelerator down," Mr Katter said.

"The aircraft had lost all of its aerodynamic performance and this would have been a very difficult if not a dangerous manoeuvre."

"It really scared me."

Confirms all of my previous thoughts about Mr Katter.

Shooting's too good for Mr Katter. It's a good kick up the @rse he needs....

If anyone would like to comment directly to the man, here's his email address:

[email protected]

This guy should be made to publicly apologise for his wildly eratic, dafamatory and irrational comments.

I thought he'd been banned from QF aircraft anyway; I seem to remember he'd been kicked off previously due to unruly behaviour on board???

Perhaps this is his idea of revenge...?

And along the same lines, The Sunday Mail should be complimented on their journalistic excellence. Heres the email address of their editor:

[email protected]

These people are just as culpable as the "honourable" MP.

I am surprised Katter was actually awake and looking out the window.

In the 12 months or so that I flew him around, I've lost count of how many times I would park out front of terminal, open back door only to have him nearly fall onto bitumen as he would be resting head on door.

Also he never seemed to care about his beloved Charters Towers Airport, when we used to have to dodge the roos on take-off and landing.

Terror in the skies!!!
Perhaps poor old Bob produced produced a nasty Hershey squirt when the pilot "switched the throttle on".
Maybe he should produce the soiled article on A Current Affair to confirm that there was indeed panic on board.

Point taken DirectAnywhere, I just wonder why the decision to go around was left so late - of course it's probibly just that expert reporting again. A missed approach in itself is obiously no big deal unless there are extenuating circumstances. I can think of one incident where a B737 crew elected to land with a departing HS748 still to get airborne (same rwy) after a conditional landing clearance was issued - the tower (realising the impending stuff-up) instructed the 73 to go around, the Boeing captain decided to land as he deamed this to be a safer option than the go around and resulting seperation issues. Granted, the situation in Brisbane was much more straight forward.

Further to Pual Martin's post, at many airports in countries like France and USA you may be cleared to land with other aircraft to use not only your runway, but a crossing runway before you eg. KSFO. I accept that the pilots involved in this instance had no other option - so I agree with Paul that perhaps a mordernisation of the rules is required. This is just my opinion - some people may think that this sort of discretion could create more of a problem?

What do others think?

Don't think it really matters here, Clouds. That they went 'round was a captains decision, he made it and that makes it right. I reckon it happens probably once every few days in Aussie, but this time it had to have Swan and Katter on board.

And this was a simple opportunity for the d1ckheads to get their ugly mugs on TV. Or perhaps as Cactus has said, Katter doesn't like QF and they don't like him. This was a great opportunity for him to get a little back.....

My point exactly.

Have seen a similar situation.

The folks in the tower were so desparate to avoid filing an incident report they shone the green light:ok:

Bob Katter......

Ever notice how those big hats have nothing in them?

Go around BN
 

Whats going on here? I cant beleive all the fuss over this incident!! I was on the aircraft involved, in fact just a row in front of Bob, and the only thing he seemed concerned with was his connecting flight once we lgot out in the terminal! I know the media beats up, but this is outrageous! I mean I don't know the facts, except a go - around was performed after the power was off during the flare, which granted is late, but it was performed smoothly, normal circuit followed by a normal landing. The F/O described it as a go - around due to an a/c on the runway, I dont see why he would lie about it and thats it. Never thought anything else about it! Except Low and behold reading papers today I was involved in a near CATASTROPHE! What the hell? I have no comment, the newspapers are just ridiculous! and the poli's on board, jes, get a life you dic$heads!!

I'm not too sure where Cloud Cutter and Paul Martin are coming from...but I am sure it's from a position of ignorance in respect to the rules and regs in OZ.

If you land without a clearance from ATC in OZ you can probably kiss goodbye to your licence!

But Hey, if you want to try it, go for it! :rolleyes:

In Texas they have saying for types like Katter:

"All hat and no cattle"

Amos2 that is exactly the point. In good old ANAL RETENTIVE Australia a pilot dare not exercise any command judgement as there is no room for common sense. They would have been reported before they got to the terminal. In many other parts of the world, this incident would not have happened as the guys would have just gone ahead and landed (as I have done). Rules are rules and we obviously obey them but lets not lose some sense of perspective.

I remember landing in Florence during the European league soccer on a Sat afternoon a few years ago. We called the tower numerous times with no response. The rwy was clear so we landed. After landing we called the tower again and the guy said callsign "cleared to land" with the soccer blaring in the background. We told him we had already landed so he said thank you and proceed to your bay. I must admit some Australian procedurally anal types would have gone around, all in the name of correctness???yeah right!!! Some times a little bit of lateral thinking can go a long way, thus negating the need for Mr Katter and his ilk to get his dial on national television mis-representing the facts.

I also understand trying to win this type of argument in this country is pretty much a waste of time, hence our reputation in other parts of the world.

Jeez Paul, whilst your point is taken, you just gotta ask who is RIGHT?

Just because this dopey clown is watching the soccer doesn't mean the runway is actually clear, does it? I know the pilot can make some sort of a judgement, but there are so many what if's?

I don't beleve that just because there are people in the world who have "relaxed standards" that we should lower ours, simply because they sneer at us and call us anally retentive!

And BTW, I have flown throughout the world with both Australian carriers and others, and have never once come across the attitude you speak of.... Doesn't mean its not there, but then I don't care if it is...

And Mr Katter can get on TV all he likes, what goes around comes around.

Enough mental energy under Bob's big hat to toast a piece of bread...........lightly!
 

Ralph the Bong ..........love your work.

However technically correct and accurately written your article was, it brings to mind the following warning:

"As these are anonymous forums the origins of the contributions may be opposite to what may be apparent. In fact the press may use it, or the unscrupulous, to elicit certain reactions."

Are you sure you're not a member of our illustrious press????


On a different note, how close to the runway can one proceed without a landing clearance??? I had believed it to be 50'(a/c < 5700kg). I assume it's 35' or end of the runway for a/c > 5700.

Surely, with or without allowance for inertia, this would require "switching on the throttles" (gotta love that?) at 70-100' at least. In any case, well before the "rubber hitting the tarmac?"

Penny for your thoughts people.............or should email Bob and ask him??? Like :mad: !

Was just going to say the same thing.

Bit of 'cultural cringe' there, Paul?

The culture in oz is not so 'lassez faire', that doesn't make it wrong or less enlightened. How clever would the captain look after he cleaned up the runway inspector, or the MWT? That is why there are rules. Whilst the capt. is able to use his judgement/discretion, was all the information at his disposal in those few seconds before the decision was required? Better to go around and think about it, IMHO.

As for the journalism....

Landing Clearances
 

For those of you advocating landing without a clearance at an Australian airport, bear in mind this incident:

• Conditions were IMC, weather fluctuating about the ILS minima - ie, sometimes it was below minima.
• A Dash8 was lined up 1/3 down the RWY after a preceding landing. A 747 was on final, on TWR freq.
• The Dash was cleared for TKOF. No reply, no movement of the aircraft.
• It rapidly became apparent that the TWR freq was inop, both primary and secondary. (Long tech story, now resolved. Suffice to say it was inop, but in the critical few moments of the incident, no-one knew why.)
• All other TWR freqs (SMC x 2, Clearance Delivery, spare VHF) attempted to call both a/c, no result.
• The light signal to vacate the runway was given to the Dash - no action resulted.
• The 747 appeared out of the murk at the minima.
• The light signal to go around was given to the 747.
• The 747 went around, just before crossing the landing threshold.

Subsequently, the crews of both the Dash and the 747 said they never looked for nor saw the light signals.

The 747 crew said they did not see the Dash on the runway and went around only because they didn't have a landing clearance.

Which makes being cleared to land when the runway is not clear and you are not #1 (a la USA and, apparently, CDG) aviation safety b u l l s h i t.

We were so close to a LA DC10/Metro tragedy ....

If our outdated procedures saved 300 people and two aircraft, then I for one am proud of and thankful for them. As, I suspect, are the two crews. And their pax, if they know about what nearly happened to them.

AA

For crying out loud, what's the problem?

Firstly, it is a requirement to land with a clearance. No, ifs, buts, maybes or questions as to the logic of that. IT IS A RULE!! There is no room to apply "common sense" and that's for everyone's protection. If you don't like it, make a submission to the Minister of Transport. Who knows what may happen?

OK, now I've vented my spleen, CAT III minima for QF aircraft are as low as 20' HAT. From that position the wheels will generally touch the ground while the aircraft is conducting an automatic go-around. Is this safe?? You betcha. It's been tested - and done - so many times it's routine, day-to-day. If an aircraft conducts a go-around from 20' due to Wx does it make the paper?? Do Wayne Swann and Bob Katter have a hissy fit?

During base training aircraft...gasp...touch down...take half the runway to reconfigure and...shock horror, become airborne again. I thought I was going to die when I did mine....give me a break.

I can forgive Wayne Swann and Bob Katter but for pilots to be questioning the need for a landing clearance and the Captain's response to a lack of that clearance, really makes me wonder.

Some interesting comments here. first of all, credit where credit is due; congratulations Ralph the Bong, beautifully said!

Let's take the givens out of the equation, the chief one being that two politicians were on board, so any opportunity to get their mugs on TV would be gleefully accepted. Secondly, the standard of journalism involved has been correctly mocked by everybody here; it will ever be thus I'm afraid.

Now as to the question of landing clearances, yes, we have different standards to the US, and I don't claim to know the finer points of their system. If it doesn't take into account the situation that Ausatco described, then forget it, but I find it hard to believe that given the extremes of weather they have over there this isn't taken into account in their regulations? Lots more knowledgeable people around than I on this one.

But in a CAVOK situation where an RPT jet is aware of all tower conversations, watches a departing aircraft get airborne, knows that no other aircraft has been cleared to enter the runway, has a full view of the runway ahead and suddenly can't get a word in, I find it extremely difficult to accept Amos2's view that the pilot's licence would be at risk by landing without a clearance. The final decision is the pilot's if safety is concerned; yes, you are only cleared to the runway threshold if a landing clearance is not issued, but any pilot who couldn't successfully argue that in those conditions landing was safer than going around would not be worth his chops, and most tower controllers would agree.

Direct Anywhere, your argument accepts as a given that every rule is set in stone, no ifs buts or maybes. Sorry, as a twenty year tower controller I just don't agree. That may apply in enroute control where everything is done by the book, but tower controllers all over the world will tell you that without commonsense aviation would come to a grinding halt.

Let's forget the furphy of the soccer watching going on, this is a situation that just happens every now and then, especially in procedural towers where more airspace and more talking is involved. Standard procedure as every pilot and controller knows is for the pilot to land then call short final and get a landing clearance. Commonsense must be allowed to prevail in certain circumstances.

And EVERYBODY on this forum should be emailing the editor of the Sunday Mail and telling him what a disgrace to journalism both he and the journalist concerned are. Err, send him the link to this thread too.

Sorry if I'm getting a bit off the subject, but if we're going to start going on about how great the procedures are overseas, then I hardly think a DUAL-LANGUAGE airport such as CDG is exactly world's best practice! I've been in there a few times and it is a disaster waiting to happen. Oh, that's right, it has: ask the crew of the Streamline Aviation Shorts 330 who "met" the Air Liberte MD-83 on rwy 27 one night after instructions were issued in French and English. Well, you can't ask the F/O... he died....

I'm a little tired of people going on about how great overseas systems are and how backward, how last-century, we are here. Whether it's NAS or landing clearances, I happen to think we've got it pretty right in this country (well, pre Nov 27). Perhaps the rest of the world should take a good look at us.

Binoculars, agreed, there are times when it's necessary, and I emphasise, necessary, to apply common sense if the rules don't give appropriate guidance. If I had an uncontrollable fire, could determine the runway was clear and didn't have a landing clearance then yes, I would land. A situation like this, however, is simply not one of those times.

Several options were available and, in accordance with the rules and the airline's SOPs, the Captain chose the correct one...based on the assumption of course that the reports of what happened are correct. To have done otherwise would have the left the individuals concerned open to all sorts of repercussions.

Bob Katter is a :mad: !

I witnessed him having a tantrum after he had just been kicked off a departing dash 8 for abusing another politition who was on board.

Further to that display of arrogance, his secretary (I think?) carried his rather large bags to his car while he carried only his briefcase and that stupid hat.

Until now, I've (obviously) refrained from comment, however without full knowledge of this particular "press release", I'd like to make the following observations.

(I) It's a brave man who lands (esp at a "Primary Airport"...is that terminology still in use?), without having received a landing clearance.

(ii) A go-around is an option ALWAYS available to ALL pilots - unfortunately not enough of us exercise it often enough!!

(iii) A go-around is NOT an "emergency" or "abnormal" procedure. The reality is, ATC are generally quite "conservative" with separation standards, so as not to frighten the "beegeezus" out of the pilots!!

The people who cite the "Cleared to land, as No3 (or whatever)" are generally talking about dual runway ops (1 R/W for landing, and another for take-off), eg, "Cleared to land as No 3."
However, the "Go-around" option is ALWAYS there - at ANY phase during the approach.

(iv) Boeing tell us that a go-around is available even after touch down, as long as the thrust reversers have not been selected. So even IF (according to 10 gallon Bob) the "rubber" had made contact, a go-around was still an option.

And last but not least...........did anyone suffer any injury from this?
Of course the answer is "No" (except Bob Katter apparently..who sh!t his undies, and made an apparent national fool of himself). "I'll be demanding an investigation into why pilots are allowed to make go-arounds!!" :uhoh: