B737 flight crew reported bounced landing resulted in a go around and momentary loss of control.
Synopsis
B737 flight crew reported bounced landing resulted in a go around and momentary loss of control.
Narrative
Day 2 of a 4 day. Probationary FO with around 200 hours in the aircraft. Threat forward brief was utilized. Full arrival briefing was conducted at cruise Including a discussion (per pilot bulletin) of -900ER tail strike avoidance. CA was PM. Uneventful arrival and approach. Vectors for RNAV XXL at ZZZ. FO was flying. No issues with the approach; full SOP compliance and in LNAV and VNAV with a stable approach through 1000 and 500 gates. Ceilings were slightly above LNAV/VNAV minimums so we did break out just above minimums but with RNAV minimums; PF was visual at 500 and very stable. The gradient path did bring the aircraft slightly high once visual (3 white; 1 red) and the FO was slightly slow to correct to a more normal aim point but did make a correction while maintaining stability and airspeed. Airspeed never decayed below target during the entire approach to flare. All automation was off under 400 feet. Through 300 feet the PF continued to adjust towards 2 red/2 white. However; as the aircraft continued through 75 feet; there was not much arresting of the rate and PF made a corrective verbal input: something to the effect of 'arrest that sink rate'. The PF did not make large enough of a correction but was trying. Airspeed continued to stay pegged at target which was good but coming through 20 feet was slow/late to initiate the flare. I made another corrective verbal call 'more flare'. The PF attempted to flare but was not as quick as needed. There was NO 'sink rate' GPWS at any time in the approach. Airspeed was on target (never slow). No tail strike or un-usual aircraft attitude occurred. Throttles were moving to idle as the aircraft approached runway contact. Airspeed stayed in stable parameters - the PF never got slow. Unfortunately; the slow/late flare resulted in a firm bounce. The PF had a bit of a startle effect and given the firm bounce; I elected to immediately take control of the aircraft and initiate an immediate go around. I did not want to risk the FO trying to 'save the landing' or risk a tail strike scenario. Per the FM (Flight Manual); when you bounce; the best course of action is to immediately initiate a go around. I took the aircraft and immediately executed a go around. Pressed toga while pushing throttles to the green carrots while flying through the F/D (Flight Director) towards 15 degrees. Rotation was smooth. The aircraft maintained positive energy and rate of climb away from the runway and never settled or sunk back towards the runway. We did not change configuration until initial positive rate of climb. All call outs were made and executed per FM. Go around was executed well. No configuration deviations or problems with ATC instructions. Energy state was well managed. Got up to 3000M and got the automation back on. Analyzed fuel (was fine); talked to FAs; customers. Reloaded the box; re-ran descent check and tried again. Then have the aircraft back to FO who wanted to try again. I did ask if they wanted me to fly. Fuel status was fine. We could have tried multiple more times as needed. Second arrival was uneventful. Stable approach to a normal landing. Taxiied to the gate. We were keeping the aircraft so did a complete post flight walk around and preflight walk around for the next leg. As expected; NO tail contact occurred. FAs were debriefed. They said the bounce was not very severe in the back but they obviously felt the bump and the go around. Full debriefing conducted with the FO. FO admitted they were slow to flare but agreed that the correct action was executing the go around out of the bounce. The contributing factor was the slow/late flare.Despite the bounce and unexpected go around; the outcome was success. The aircraft bounced but instead of trying to 'save the landing'; an immediate go around was well executed and no tail strike or undesired aircraft state occurred. The training we receive in the simulator shows that you can safely and easily go around out of a bounced landing.This was demonstrated on this event. It's also important to continue to emphasize that even in stable landing state; inside of 50 feet; things can still deteriorate if you are not vigilant. This was a stable approach essentially the entire time…but a slow/late flare led to a bounce. That startle effect is real but if you bounce; you have to initiate an immediate go around.
Second reporter narrative
Day 2 of 4-day pairing operating ZZZ1 to ZZZ. CA is PM and I'm PF. Originally planning for RWY XY and then got switched to RWY XXL RNAV. Everything was briefed and set-up in advance. Approach was flown and briefed per SOP. Got vectored onto the approach outside ZZZZZ. On speed; VNAV; LNAV engaged. Configured and stable at 1000 and 500; respectively. Broke out just above RNAV minimums and saw that I was 3 white and 1 red; so started to correct by clicking off the AP (Autopilot). Adjusted my aiming point and I was on speed. Clicked off the A/T (Autothrottle) around 300' to maintain target speed and try to obtain 2 white 2 red. After 100' still felt high and slow/late flare resulted in bounced landing. I pulled the power out; but startle factor resulted in CA taking controls and executing a go-around. I PM'd the go-around and the plane took off immediately without touching back down on the runway. We never received any aural or GPWS warnings on final or go-around segment. Cleaned up the aircraft and got back to a safe altitude to come back around for the same approach. CA offered to fly the approach; but I opted to fly it. We both felt comfortable with that; and fuel was good. 2nd approach and landing went smoothly; taxiied to the gate and debriefed thoroughly. We had already briefed 900ER tail strike and bounced landings; so talking through our specific situation helped me to see the warning signs and avoiding it the second time. It was definitely a learning experience and fortunately we did not tail strike and there was no damage to the plane. Flight attendants; ATC; and passengers were all informed on the situation and CA maintained CRM (Cockpit Resource Management) and SA (Situational Awareness) with me throughout the entirety of the flight.
More incidents for this aircraft family →
Source: NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System (public domain). Reports are voluntary submissions and are not verified by NASA.