go around or not to go around

[andreadebiase 5]

quick question for those who know the rules better than me, if you knew you were going to touch down slightly after the touchdown zone but were 100% sure you could safely stop the plane before then end of the runway do you have to/would you still execute a go around?

[scandinavian13 5,192]

3 minutes ago, andreadebiase said:

quick question for those who know the rules better than me, if you knew you were going to touch down slightly after the touchdown zone but were 100% sure you could safely stop the plane before then end of the runway do you have to/would you still execute a go around?

Do you need to go around? Yes? Go around.

There is no rule here. The "rule" is "be able to use the plane again" and "don't be stupid."

[Ephedrin 418]

If you aren‘t absolutely sure that the landing will be succesful, go around. But just because you slightly miss the 1000’ touch down zone on a 12000‘ runway... well... 

[andreadebiase 5]

Ephedrin, that was exactly my situation. The last part you said

 

[JoeDiamond 67]

"But I only landed a little long...", that should go over well at the hearing.

[Boomer 1,619]

Well you wont get fired for a GA you didnt need...?

[Nighthwk 566]

If I’m going to miss the zone by a lot or if I’m high at minimums the I’ll go around. It really depends on the length of the runway and if it’s contaminated or not. If I’m landing at SFO on 28R on a dry day in a light 737 and I miss it, then I’ll still touchdown as I know that I’ll definitely be able to stop safely and at a reasonable decelerate with a good safety margin. If I’m landing at SFO on  the 1s in a 747 ad Max Landon weight and I miss it, I’ll go around in a heartbeat. Just depends on the situation.

[Nighthwk 566]

1 hour ago, JoeDiamond said:

"But I only landed a little long...", that should go over well at the hearing.

Especially in a 737 on a 6000 foot runway

[JoeDiamond 67]

1 hour ago, Boomer said:

Well you wont get fired for a GA you didnt need...?

My airline has a no fault go-around policy, I’m sure many other do as well.  I can think of a few that probably wish they did in hindsight.

[BlueStar 323]

3 hours ago, andreadebiase said:

if you knew you were going to touch down slightly after the touchdown zone but were 100% sure you could safely stop the plane before then end of the runway do you have to/would you still execute a go around?

I have to be stabilized at 1,000 agl. If at any time after that point I am no longer stabilized I have to go around.  If I am not going to touchdown in the touchdown zone somewhere inside that 1,000 agl point I was no longer stabilized.   

Every where that I have flown landing SHORT was a CLM. 

This is just me, your mileage may vary. 

blaustern

[downscc 1,327]

There are few rules in aviation that always apply in every situation, but one is if you are wondering if you should go around then you probably should. If you have to ask.....

[Chock 17,769]

In an airliner, if you could see you were going to land long, it is likely that would be because you did not have a stable approach, and if you don't have a stable approach, then by definition you don't have a good approach because the touchdown zone of a runway is not an arbitrary bit painted on the runway, it is there as a guide to the runway being suitable for your aeroplane should anything go awry so long as you put it down on that spot. So it is a go around if you are not going to hit that spot.

Every pilot knows that a good landing is the result of a good approach. Yes you could get it down, but that is not the point, the point is that you might not get it down if something goes amiss at an awkward moment, and sod's law says that things will pretty much always go awry at the most inconvenient moment possible. Have you ever had a flat tire on your car which wasn't at a really awkward time? The fact that things can go wrong is something you need to be mindful of especially on an airliner, because you have a professional responsibility to your passengers and/or cargo you are carrying.

Look at it this way: How could you truly be '100 percent sure' as you put it, that you could stop in the available distance? What if a tire blew? Or the brakes failed? Or the spoilers failed to extend? Or the thrust reversers failed to deploy? Or you hit some runway contamination? Or a truck drove onto the end of the runway imagining that you'd not need that bit? Now granted, you probably would not have these things happen, but since they could happen, you need to be prepared for if they do, and being 500 yards short of available runway is not what you want when something like that occurs.

In an aeroplane, nothing should be unexpected. By way of example, if you are flying a single-engined aeroplane, you should fly it always with the thought: 'what would I do if the engine quit right now?' If you do that, then one day when the engine quits, you'll not be surprised and will be ready to deal with it. This kind of mindset is true for an airliner too, especially considering that responsibility to the passengers, other crew members, cargo on board and the fact that you are only 'borrowing' the thing from the airline which owns the aeroplane. This is exactly why you take off at V2 for example. Yes your aeroplane could take off at less than V2 and the chances are it would be fine, but you don't take off at less than V2 because you know that is the speed which you know for sure to be the safe speed to take off at if an engine quits right at that moment, where you will be able to maintain control and be able to accelerate and climb out safely.

It's the same with landings. If it doesn't look right, don't force it, go around. Sure it is inconvenient and will add some time but you can be sure your passengers would much prefer to be ten minutes late in this life than 40 years early into the next one. Graveyards are full of pilots who had 'get-home-itis'.

[andreadebiase 5]

All good points and I agree but what I probably wanted to ask is this: if you were to touchdown outside the touchdown zone, precisely a little after but the whole landing in the end was totally uneventful because nothing unexpected happened, would you be formally summoned to explain why you did that by your airline company or the FAA?

 

[downscc 1,327]

29 minutes ago, andreadebiase said:

All good points and I agree but what I probably wanted to ask is this: if you were to touchdown outside the touchdown zone, precisely a little after but the whole landing in the end was totally uneventful because nothing unexpected happened, would you be formally summoned to explain why you did that by your airline company or the FAA?

 

The touchdown zone could be as much as 1/3 the total landing distance, so yeah if you busted the landing by that much then you'd at least have to explain what happened to your company.  Not sure the FAA would be involved in an operations issue like this.

[skelsey 765]

1 hour ago, andreadebiase said:

All good points and I agree but what I probably wanted to ask is this: if you were to touchdown outside the touchdown zone, precisely a little after but the whole landing in the end was totally uneventful because nothing unexpected happened, would you be formally summoned to explain why you did that by your airline company or the FAA?

The FAA (other Competent Authorities are available)? Unlikely, but in many airlines a deep landing will trigger the SESMA.

What happens after that depends on how enlightened the management are!

As others have said: the question is why you are missing the touchdown zone in the first place. Most accidents are the result of a series of seemingly minor deviations or problems which individually might seem insignificant but coupled with some bad luck or other circumstances can suddenly compound the problem. Slightly too fast, slightly too high, slightly outside the touchdown zone, slightly less good braking action than expected or a brake/tyre failure etc and suddenly all that extra margin that you had in the performance calculations is gone. How would it look in the accident report?

If you (or your airline) have set a bottom line for something, then you should stick to it, religiously. Even if it seems silly or minor - the point is that if you bust whatever that bottom line is, by going around and starting again you break the error chain and eliminate that hole in the cheese. Sure, chances are that nothing would happen, but habitually breaking hard rules - whether you miss the stable approach criteria by one foot or 500 feet, for instance - is setting yourself up for a fall. In fact, the fact that you will get away with something 99% of the time makes it even worse because it becomes very easy to convince yourself that everything will be OK, and in the process over time you end up pushing the boundaries more and more until eventually the holes in the cheese line up and it all goes very wrong. It is a phenomenon called 'normalisation of deviance' and there is an outstanding article about it by an RAF fast jet QFI here.

As Dan says - if you're in any doubt, there's no doubt. Throw it away and try again.