Should this have been a go around?
 

After lurking a lot here, the general consensus among pilots on this forum is that any sudden deviation or disruption on final should result in a go around.

What do you think of this one?

Strong Winds Cause Plane to Make Scary Landing in Portugal - YouTube

I watch many videos on YouTube of landings and it seems that there are many who will continue to attempt their landing, despite some quite hairy patches.

Madeira. Pretty typical approach. Good touchdown.

Should this have been a go around?
 

............

Isn't this the second time you've posted the exact same post. You received plenty of answers the first time, so why the repeat?

why on earth would the media (yanks at that) have to report it in the first place. Did it crash ? No. So why make the headlines.

As for skilledmusician - unless you were the pilot in command, don't question whether it should have been a go around or not. Who are you to question the Captain's decision.

Who are you to question the Captain's decision.

Mayhaps....another Captain? ......... But I agree, from that view point...a 'Stabilised Approach' ...doesn't look it does it??

Nope, I've never posted something like this.

Edit: this is response to kbpsen

I'm merely a curious observer. By posting this question I do not insinuate either of the following:

1. That I am questioning the captains decision
2. That I am a captain or even a pilot
3. That I know better than the captain
4. That I am arrogant.

I'm just very interested in understanding pilots and how they fly aircraft, their everyday decision making (particularly the exciting ones) and just looking to see what opinions, affirmations or advice other pilots have on situations like this.

Well someone did. Same landing, same thread title and same post content.

Extraordinary coincidence.

My apologies then, not to you but to the many others here, that I did not thoroughly check if there was another thread here. I did take a little look down the list in this section to see if there was already a thread.

Without knowing what went on in the cockpit it is impossible to say, appeared to be some pretty severe wind shear. By the time he had his wings level and probably started to apply thrust he was in clean air and stable.

It landed without incident, so why go-around? Surely the idea of a go-around is when it is deemed that landing is not possible. With a bit of local knowledge, plenty of experience, and no doubt a pretty slick hands-on type of pilot at the helm, it landed alright and was pretty much a none event.
Contrast that to the button pushing Easyjet Airbus jockey video a few weeks ago, that looked perfectly landable after a bit of a wobble, but who went around.

I would hope that many would rather be flown by pilots with this sort of skill, rather than the tentative, lacking in flying skill, autopilot monkeys who would have gone around at the first wobble, instead of doing what they are paid to do, and land their aircraft.

If we were looking at a smoking hole in the aftermath, I'd have agreed with the "should have gone around" crowd, but for this, and the outcome, complete none event.

ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!

The "idea of a go-around" is that standard approach criteria have not been met, or there is a significant possibility that a safe landing may be compromised. A go-around is a ROUTINE maneuver, not a 'last ditch' or 'emergency' maneuver because a "landing is not possible".

I am not addressing this landing specifically, because I cannot tell if those criteria were met. I am addressing your apparent perception of a go-around in general.