[THE SCUD]

Originally Posted by sa226

Depending on different company SOP's, it really is a judgement call.

When you start to talk about things like decision height or minimum descent altitude, those are all IFR terms related to Instrument approach procedures. Basically if you don't see the runway at your decision height, you initiate a "Go Around"

In the case of these crazy winds, there isn't any decision height or anything like that. It is mostly pilot judgment. I have initiated a go-around at probably 30 ft due to getting caught in what I thought was wake turbulence. It was my only choice at the time.

As far as speeds and such go, a low speed or energy go around is certainly possible and not unsafe at all.

Most large aircraft use speeds such as V1, VR, V2, VYSE and VREF

Most aircraft use VREF speed for landing. Basically your Vref speed is what you are targeting to touch down at or close to.

Also some aircraft will climb with one engine out at their V2 speed, so they certainly will with all engines running. And it just so happens that in many cases your Vref speed is very close to your V2 speed, not to mention your Vr speed (The speed when you pull up to take off, or "rotate")

The above is a long confusing way of saying that the aircraft will climb at a speed close to what you land at, so you are not committed to land as early as you think.

I'm not sure if any of that makes sense, and there are many different types of aircraft with different performance numbers and speeds, but that is the gist of it.

As far as the "Go around" vs "Missed approach" go, I agree, they are essentially interchangeable. Some even call it a "Balked landing" or "Balked Approach." If I can think of a difference, it would be that a go around is more present tense and a missed approach is past tense or the name of the procedure. ATC will instruct a go around or pilot will call "go around." And the missed approach is the name of the procedure.

In essence, the go around is the act of doing it. Missed approach is the name of the procedure. But that is more semantics than anything.

Originally Posted by noel

Just a brief comment on that Lufthansa A340 crosswind landing. First of all, great footage and nice to see the skill of their crew in action.

One of my family members seemed to think that variable engine thrusts would have been used to combat crosswinds like that. I begged to differ and claimed that a 'crabbing' technique was likely used. Any CPL+ rated aviators want to shed some light on this? I'm unaware that variable engine thrust is used in any procedure and seems like it would just create a host of problems with asymmetric thrust. In winds like that it would seem that crabbing is the preferred technique and it appeared to be what he did.

Thoughts CP?