.  
Thrust asymmetry resulting from one thrust reverser going to the stow position faster than the other one; and,

.  
Severe thrust asymmetry resulting from one thrust reverser failing to re-stow.

Getting to Grips withApproach-and-Landing Accidents Reduction
Commitment for Go-around
If a rejected landing is initiated, the flight crew must be committed to proceed with the go-around maneuver and not retard the throttle levers in an ultimate decision to complete the landing.
Reversing a go-around decision usually is observed when the decision to reject the landing and to initiate a go-around is taken by the first officer (as PF) but is overridden by the captain.
Runway overruns, impact with obstructions and major aircraft damage (or post impact fire) often are the consequences of reversing an already initiated rejected landing.
Summary of Key Points
The SOPs should define the respective decision criteria for:
.  
Full-stop landing; or,

.  
Rejected landing and go-around.

Procedures and techniques should be published for bounce recovery, including:

.  
Continued landing; or,

.  
Rejected landing (i.e., go-around).

Associated Briefing Notes
The following Briefing Notes can be reviewed in association with the above information:
.  
6.1 - Being Prepared to Go-around,

.  
7.1 - Flying Stabilized Approaches,

.  
8.1 - Preventing Runway Excursions and Overruns.

Bounce Recovery – Rejected Landing
Page 3

AIRBUS INDUSTRIE Getting to Grips with
 Flight Operations Support               Approach-and-Landing Accidents Reduction

AIRBUS INDUSTRIE Getting to Grips with
 Flight Operations Support Approach-and-Landing Accidents Reduction

Introduction
Rushed and unstabilized approaches are the largest contributory factor in CFIT and other approach-and-landing accidents.
Rushed approaches result in insufficient time for the flight crew to correctly:
.  
Plan;

.  
Prepare; and,

.  
Execute a safe approach.

This Briefing Note provides an overview and discussion of:
Table 1

.  Criteria defining a stabilized approach; and,
Factors Involved

.  Factors involved in rushed and unstabilized approaches.
% of Events 
High and/or fast approach or Low and/or slow approach  66 % 
Flight-handling difficulties : - demanding ATC clearances - adverse wind conditions  45 % 

Note :
Flying stabilized approaches complying with the stabilization criteria and approach gates defined hereafter, does not preclude flying a Delayed Flaps Approach (also called a Decelerated Approach) as dictated by ATC requirements.
Statistical Data
Continuing an unstabilized approach is a causal factor in 40 % of all approach-and-landing accidents.
% of Events 
Off-runway touchdown, Tail strike, Runway excursion or overrun  75 % 
CFIT  -- % 
Loss of control  -- % 

Table 1 and Table 2 show the factors involved in rushed and unstabilized approaches and the Table 2 consequences of continuing an unstabilized
Consequences of Continued Approach

approach.
Flying Stabilized Approaches
Page 1

AIRBUS INDUSTRIE
 Flight Operations Support
Approach Gates – Stabilization Heights
The following approach gates and minimum stabilization heights are recommended to achieve timely stabilized approaches:
Getting to Grips withApproach-and-Landing Accidents Reduction
Defining a Stabilized Approach
An approach is considered stabilized only if all the following conditions are achieved before or when reaching the applicable stabilization height:
　
中國(guó)航空網(wǎng) m.k6050.com
航空翻譯 www.aviation.cn
本文鏈接地址：Getting to Grips with Approach-and-Landing Accidents Reducti(126)