Not if going around is more dangerous than forcing a landing.

Ignoring and disregarding are not always the same things. Controllers and pilots are humans. Our task is to bring the aircraft down in the most safe manner and not to follow orders to the detail. I know that there is a big cultural difference depending on our background but staying alive is a combination of following rules and procedures, but also to be able to think outside the box sensibly when the rules introduce new hazards.

I'll think about that next time I use my landing distance tables/software.

Easy, it's called airmanship, if you fly to an airfield with few runways, regularely, you will soon know the distance for each turn off by heart. If the aircraft is beyond an intersection 2000m down the runway, you know for sure that you will safely stop before the other aircraft, or steer off the runway at a low speed. Thats' in my opinion a much safer option than a midair collision.

If you know your aircraft, you do not even need your landing distance table to estimate your landing roll to within 200m accuracy. That's why we do autobrake max demonstrations during training to show how efficiently and smoothly the aircraft stops within the first 1100m of the runway. I have even used it in an emergency situation requiring a threshold speed of more than 195kts and it works just fine.

No you cannot break left or right. You are limited in bank angle and performance. Making a go around requires the PF to focus on his instruments and the handling of the plane while PM has to monitor him and retract flaps, gears, set speeds and remind PF of missing items in order to gain performance needed. If four eyes are kept looking outside for another unknown aircraft, performance may be even further limited since configuring and handling of the aircraft may be compromised. Forcing a performance limited aircraft will introduce much bigger hazards, aspecially when you are close to the ground.

Great post TypeIV. What I wanted to say.

Every one is okay... No body was hurt. Proof is in the pudding. Good night. Oh, by the way, fire and fine the Chinook pilot.

Is this airport allowed to give "land after the departing" or landing clearances American style? If not, the JTA landed without a landing clearance as one would not have been issued until the ANA had departed. Even "land after the departing" has been breached so unless landing clearances are issued American style, I imagine the JTA crew are in for a bit of a grilling.

In my experience at this port, ATC clear aircraft to land almost as soon as departing traffic has begun their take off roll. There is then a period of contradiction during the approach when you've been cleared to land but it would be questionable to land until you are certain the departing traffic is airborne. I strongly suspect the landing aircraft in this incident had already been cleared to land and was subsequently told to go-around but either missed the go-around call or dis-regarded it. ATC speak English with a very thick accent and can be very difficult to understand at Naha.

Food for thought
 

If the go around instruction is at point in the landing phase where the go around becomes a touch and go instead, at what point is it safer to land than to go around and possibly hitting the aircraft on the Runway?

Just because you might touch down is NOT usually a reason to refuse a go-around. We get those situations quite often in the simulator, and touching down is NOT a criterion in a successful event.

Remember that in the case of a "balked landing" (the official term for a go-around with a touchdown) you are at flying speed immediately on touchdown, and the engines are already spooled up. With all engines operating, there is usually no concern about climbing out immediately. If you would consider a touch & go on the same runway, there is no reason to fear a balked landing.

Can you provide a reference for that?

Differs from what I learned?

Balked landing
 

FAR part 23 s3ction 77 describes the performance requirements in the event of balked landing as opposed to go around.
Similarly, Advisory Circular (AC) No. 700-016 - Transport Canada gives the definition of a balked landing as: A discontinued landing attempt. The term is often used in conjunction with aircraft configuration or performance assessment, as in “Balked landing climb gradient. Also see “Rejected Landing.”

ie not necessarily a missed approach.

Mungo Man, you are correct. I was there 1 hour after it happened. Weather was no factor, visibility more than 25k, wind right down the runway at 10 knots. The Chinook made a mistake in departing, ANA had take off clearance, rejected T/O when told. Many times on final you are given "cleared to land RW 18, traffic rolling." JTA was between 600'-800' when given landing clearance. You have everything happening right in front of you, you hear T/O clearance cancelled , see big helicopter passing over runway left to right. Say your altitude is know 400', be the hero, call "going around" make slight left bank, parallel the runway,flap 15,gear up, level at 1000' feet, standby further instructions. There is no obstacles, also no reason to fly the exact missed approach procedure. They didn't get the "go around" clearance until touching down. Yes, too late then to go around, if in reverse. What do we all do when shooting approach to minimums, with landing clearance, and see nothing? We go around, don't we? ATC doesn't tell us to go around. Situational awareness missing, big time, by JTA crew. As Josey Wales said " This turned into a Missouri boat ride!"

Closest near collision I ever had in 31 yrs ATC was because a helo departed in the wrong direction and crossed an active runway. Missed a T-38 by feet, not yards or meters.

This incident wasn't even close in comparison.

"Situational awareness missing for the JTA crew?" He was situationally aware there was a big helicopter in front of him. I take issue with the earlier poster who said it was "on a predictable flightpath"; nobody except its crew predicted it would take off at all, still less fly across a busy international runway with no clearance. Lack of SA?.. Surely the helo pilot really ought to have seen two airliners heading his way??

"Just because you might touch down is NOT usually a reason to refuse a go-around. We get those situations quite often in the simulator, and touching down is NOT a criterion in a successful event.

Remember that in the case of a "balked landing" (the official term for a go-around with a touchdown) you are at flying speed immediately on touchdown, and the engines are already spooled up. With all engines operating, there is usually no concern about climbing out immediately. If you would consider a touch & go on the same runway, there is no reason to fear a balked landing."

I have witnessed several balked landings. Although probably at flying speed shortly after touching down, in this case the runway remaining might not be sufficient to miss an actual 40 foot obstacle (b737) only 5900 ft in front of you.

Start with AC 120-91, par. 17.c.

AIM 5-4-21.h appears to extend the definition to any point after the MAP, thought the AC definition still uses the worst case -- landing at the end of the touchdown zone.

IMHO the Chinook was bloody miles away albeit not where he was supposed to be.. non-event turned into a saga by the media again

My airline uses after MAP/DA/DH/DMDA. There's a significant difference between some of those points/heights/altitudes and the runway, especially at places that have long fly visual segments such as PAJN and KEGE.

PAJN RNAV (GPS) V RWY 08 (IAP) ? FlightAware

The AC makes no mention of a go around initiated after touchdown that I see, though it doesn't preclude it or just about anything else. I would wager a more likely scenario described is a poorly planned, long landing that necessitated a go around while still airborne.

I agree! Even after a landing clearance a go around negates that clearance.
It could be that a vehicle enters the runway at an intersection point meaning that to continue the landing would result in a collision.
A go around on touchdown is part of the training and not a big deal at relatively high speed.
Obviously the Captain has ultimate authority for the safety of the aircraft and PAX but ignoring or overriding a Go around instruction will mean he will have to explain himself after the event.

That explanation would determine whether his decision was correct or incorrect or in a grey area. He could face charges for ignoring an ATC instruction and if a collision occurred because of ignoring a go around instruction It would be hard to justify that decision .

There have been several references in this thread to the go-around instruction having been given after the reversers were deployed by the JTA 737 crew. If this is the case then all pontifications about going around after touchdown are irrelevant.

Pontius

In such a situation the Captain may go against the ATC instruction as he has ultimate responsibility for the aircraft and PAX. I am sure in that situation he would be justified in aborting a takeoff attempt.

It still comes down to the Captain having to justify his actions post the event?

Well, not really. The Chinook is still visible inside the airport boundaries in the video frame showing NU-610 on the ground and slowing, at AvHerald. Less than half a mile @ less than 500 feet (and less than that when the decision to continue the landing was made).

Incident: Japan TransOcean B734 at Okinawa on Jun 3rd 2015, continued landing onto occupied runway despite instruction to go around

For me, this incident highlights the dangers of assuming everything will go "right".

The controller cleared one plane to take off while another was on final approach, thinking there was adequate spacing. Which would have worked fine, assuming nothing went wrong. Unfortunately something did go wrong (and if it hadn't been the Chinook's mistaken takeoff, it could have been a bird ingestion or some other reason for a takeoff abort.) And suddenly the "adequate spacing" was no longer there.

The landing pilot assumed he had enough space and performance to slow and avoid the aircraft stopped on the runway. And indeed he did - with maximum braking effort (from the body language of the passengers describing the landing).

But suppose this was the day the reverse gate decided to jam, delaying the start of deceleration a few seconds?

Personally: If I were the landing pilot, the moment I heard the tower call "abort takeoff", I'd have been in high alert mode, with "probable go-around" in the front of my mind. Listening hard for an acknowledgment of the call, and looking hard to find the helo, and see what the aircraft on the runway was doing. I'd have kept my options open as long as possible.

This pilot used his command authority to do what he thought was best. In the event, his decision was not disastrous. He'll have to justify his decision to two entities - those who control his license, and those who control his paycheck. Their opinions are the only ones that will count.