Why go around after a bird strike. Why not just continue landing?
Yes, good question. But, we don’t know if they went around before the strike or after.
CRM is a process that has, in many ways, made flying safer. But in some ways too, it has become a bit of a “talk-fest”, with some protagonists thinking it makes the coughpit democratic. Quite simply there are times in flying when you need decisions quickly, and those are the times the Captain just “does” and talks about it later.
Even after a bad strike, the engines are much more likely to be stable at a low power setting.
Thanks for this - I was wondering if it was even feasible to belly land a larger aircraft succesfully - the Jeju barely seemed to slow down once on the ground and I wondered if in this situation a water landing or even on the airport "lawn" was a safer option without landing gear.
There aren’t many examples of large passenger aircraft doing gear up landings. Apart from this, there’s only two that I can think of, a DHL 757 and the LOT 767. In both cases they had flap, and so were much slower. But they also used up a lot of runway. Far more than you’d expect. And this aircraft was much, much faster….
There’s what looks like farmland and water nearby, and it’s fair to say that they might have been better off going for one of those. They could hardly have been worse off. The speed is a real issue, but they may have been able to get rid of more of it (before touchdown) if landing on something that wasn’t length constrained. Personally I think the water would have been a better choice, but even then you’re looking to save some lives. I don’t know that a repeat of the Hudson was ever on the cards (in that case the aircraft went in quite slowly, at alpha max and with some flap).
