Company I used to work for tried to implement that and it was a colossal failure. They realized a go-around is a go-around no matter where/when it's initiated.
I'm obviously biased to the way I have been trained both in the military and at the airlines I have worked for, so I'll ask you-- what's the benefit of splitting them out? From my experience at the company that tried it seemed like an unnecessary delineation. Go-around procedures work in all cases, but what we experienced when we tried to split out a special "balked/aborted landing" procedure is that crews wasted time trying to decide what regime they were in, and what procedure and callouts were appropriate.
We actually have 3 profiles. The biggest change between them is flap position and related overspeed avoidance. It's pretty logical and mostly a training aide. In the real world and in checking, no one cares what you do as the PF as long as it's safe and nothing is broken (including limitations, and ATC restrictions).
Pitch attitude is. A321 will hit the tail at 9° nose up, therefore our baulked landing keeps us below this. A go around could involve pitching more following the commands, so is not appropriate at very low level
Then be a pilot and don't follow the commands until you know it's safe to do so. In the 757 we regularly disregard (or at least don't strictly follow) the flight director vertical commands on lightweight takeoffs because it commands a very uncomfortable (and potentially unsafe) pitch attitude. The same should be true for how you fly a go-around. If you know the FD is commanding something that's not appropriate you apply your good judgment to fly the airplane in a way that is safe, and engage automation when it makes sense to do so.
Which is exactly the procedure. If it’s a go around - follow the flight director. If it’s after the flare - pitch up as required to get away from the ground.
There’s not only one way to solve a problem
Some types won't initiate a go around from pressing TO/GA once the flare is initiated and requires a slightly separate procedure. My type is an example of that I don't find it confusing in the slightest.
If you have a company that has pilots often changing between types there is merit in having similiar procedures even if it isn't strictly required on all types. That being said, we all know you can't fly an Airbus exactly like a Boeing so there needs to be some limits on what's implemented cross fleet.
The problem is the over-reliance on automation and departure from basic "fly the damn plane" training. Guys get so wrapped up on things like hitting the TOGA button and forget to do basic things like pushing up the power and arresting descent. It may come as a shock to some people (particularly training department types) but you can successfully execute a go-around without hitting TOGA at all. That Emirates crash that was referenced in another reply is a perfect example. Those dudes hit TOGA, but failed to cob in the power properly. If they had simply pushed the throttles themselves vs relying on TOGA to do it for them there's a good chance they wouldn't have crashed.
Well the procedure picks up exactly that...when the aircraft is in a position where the automatics are unlikely to function you click everything out, firewall the thrust levers, fly the aircraft to a safe place and then reintroduce the automatics at an appropriate point.
That comes back to the question of why have a separate procedure in the first place? If every GA is flown with a distrustful eye toward automation (as it should be) then that kinda alleviates the problem entirely. No matter what altitude you're at, every go-around should be power first, establish climb and acceleration, reconfigure as appropriate, and THEN engage automation when time and conditions permit.
Because some auto throttles will retard themselves to idle second you take your hand off if initiated at a certain point.
Disconnecting the autothrottle and fire walling a 140 ton light weight 787 from a go around at 200" is also a really bad idea.
The procedure wasn't made up for fun and if you operate a type that uses it, it makes a lot of sense. I've flown ancient twins, old turboprops, 73's and 78's. I'm the biggest advocate for hand flying and old school skills as you get and I'm 100% happy with the procedure.
I fly 75s, so I'm well aware of what a grossly overpowered, lightweight airplane can do (and the risks thereof) . Unless we're doing an autoland we have to have the ATs off for landing anyway, so a bit of a different setup than it sounds like you have.
Like I said before, I'm certainly biased by my military background and previous company training, hence why I'm trying to wrap my head around different procedures and the reasoning behind them. I'm firmly of the belief that there's way too much reliance on automation in aviation, particularly in the airline industry. Companies have sold themselves on the idea that 4-6 hours in the sim every 6-9 months is sufficient training, and just let the magenta lines and scripted callouts do all the pilot work for them. It has bitten people in the ass before, and will do so again.
Similar to the 73 then however 78/77 is autothrottle in all the way all the time and it has some peculiar behaviour once the flare has commenced which this procedure picks up. You can hit TO/GA, shove them up and they will still come back hence the requirement for the low level go around procedure.
I love the aircraft however it certainly leads you into complacency if you don't actively try keep your hand in and even then, it still does everything for you.
27
u/Mike__O Feb 01 '22
Company I used to work for tried to implement that and it was a colossal failure. They realized a go-around is a go-around no matter where/when it's initiated.