Interesting go-around

I'm a pretty new pilot and I agree with the go around decision. For me, the fact that they can't ever see the full runway to verify there won't be an incursion collision makes it a no-go. Sure it should be clear, but I'm not sure my widow would find that comforting in the event of a collision. I'm curious, what other reasons do people have for the go or no-go decision?

I don't care to argue about it, but am interested in why people feel the way they do.
 
I'm a pretty new pilot and I agree with the go around decision. For me, the fact that they can't ever see the full runway to verify there won't be an incursion collision makes it a no-go. Sure it should be clear, but I'm not sure my widow would find that comforting in the event of a collision. I'm curious, what other reasons do people have for the go or no-go decision?

I don't care to argue about it, but am interested in why people feel the way they do.

There are many approaches that you cannot see a good portion or anything of the runway except what is required to see ( mainly lights) if the weather is poor enough. Unfortunately incursion prevention is something you have to rely on ATC for...
 
I'm a pretty new pilot and I agree with the go around decision. For me, the fact that they can't ever see the full runway to verify there won't be an incursion collision makes it a no-go. Sure it should be clear, but I'm not sure my widow would find that comforting in the event of a collision. I'm curious, what other reasons do people have for the go or no-go decision?

I don't care to argue about it, but am interested in why people feel the way they do.

Because as a professional pilot you have to be able to land with visibilities less than a mile.
 
I'm a pretty new pilot and I agree with the go around decision. For me, the fact that they can't ever see the full runway to verify there won't be an incursion collision makes it a no-go. Sure it should be clear, but I'm not sure my widow would find that comforting in the event of a collision. I'm curious, what other reasons do people have for the go or no-go decision?

I don't care to argue about it, but am interested in why people feel the way they do.

When you continue your piloting education, you'll learn about instrument approaches. In an instrument approach, you often don't see the full runway. In fact, we are often thankful when we can see enough to land on.

What we see here is a pretty rare situation, losing all visibility at this stage of an instrument landing. I don't think any experienced pilots on here think this crew did the wrong thing. Any debate is tangential. We wonder if we would have reacted in the same way and wonder about the consequences of sticking with it.
 
I'm a pretty new pilot and I agree with the go around decision. For me, the fact that they can't ever see the full runway to verify there won't be an incursion collision makes it a no-go. Sure it should be clear, but I'm not sure my widow would find that comforting in the event of a collision. I'm curious, what other reasons do people have for the go or no-go decision?

This is actually slightly better than CAT I mins. With an instrument ticket you can hop in a Cessna and do this.

 
Also interesting fact that at 200’ &1800rvr at 200' you will never see the runway. You must see the approach lights and continue down because you are further than 1800 feet away from the runway.
Took a lot of early mornings down to mins to put two and two together.

"A typical ALSF-2 system (High Intensity Approach Lighting System With Sequenced Flashing Lights) consists of 247 steady burning lights: including green threshold lights (49 lights), red side row-bar lamps (9 rows, 54 lamps), and high intensity steady burning white lights (144), plus an additional 15 flashing lights commonly referred to as strobes. The strobes flash in sequence starting with the strobe farthest from the runway and ending with the strobe closest to the runway threshold. The lights are spaced at 100' intervals from the runway threshold outward to 2400'."
 
Back
Top