It was the tower that authorized the go-around without the plane informing that first.
TWR: 521, continue straight, climb 4000' feet
UAE521: Straight ahead to 4000' Emirates 521
After that, tower requsted EK565 to go-around.
The most plausible theory I have seen here is that it was a hard landing with a bounce. The tower probably saw that and thought the plane would make a go-around and authorized that 'pre-emptively'.
Negative. Tower do not request the go-around! They can certainly instruct a go-around *decisively* (if runway is still occupied). But we have not heard a decisive Tower instruction for go-around here: Tower merely gave (important) instructions after the go-around decision had been made (most likely by EK521 crew).
Indeed, it seems as if EK521 was instructed to climb to 4000 'out of the blue'.
I would be very surprised if Tower gave their instruction "out-of-the-blue". That would be highly unprofessional ATC procedural: cockpit crew workload in a go-around is very high, and until the crew reports their go-around to Tower, Tower will/should not interrupt them until they are ready to accept ATC instructions. Their go-around announcement** is usually a good moment for ATC to give short instruction, usually (runway-) heading an a initial altitude. Once things have settled down - workload wise, and positive climb gradient have been achieved in the desired aircraft configuration, more detailed instructions can be made. That would also be the moment that ATC queries for the reason for the Go-Around (if not yet reported by the crew).
** Go-around decision can lay 100% with the cockpit crew (of course ATC also has authority to order go-around). Cockpit crew most certainly do not require prior permission to enter go-around maneuver! If cockpit crew decide to go-around, the will make an announcement of such when they are ready for that (Aviate, Navigate, Communicate). So it is an announcement, not a request.PLAUSABLE SCENARIO:
The most plausible scenario around the ATC communications is that important transmission(s) is/are missing.
Why are they missing? Most likely because the receiver for LiveATC is beyond the receiving horizon. Probably quite some distance from the airport, and being at rooftop height (at best), susceptible to distortion from other roof tops, buildings, atmospheric conditions (humidity, OAT 50C).
Such conclusion is supported by the poor Tower receiving as heard on LiveATC. Mind you, the tower transmission antennas are probably at a high mast close to the airfield, or even on top of the ATC Tower. If that has a poor line-of-sight to the LiveATC receiver, planes on, or very close, to the ground will be worse, to the point that they may not even be recognizable in the back ground noise (and thus may very well be filtered out). So I very much expect that EK521 did transmit a go-around announcement, but that at that point they were below the line-of-sight ot the liveATC receiver, and thu swas never picked up.
Note that planes higher up (say 500 - 1000 ft) are picked up extremely well. Reality check: on this LiveATC feed, just how many transmissions can be heard from planes ON the ground - like the preceding aircraft vacating the runway . . . .
Rather than jump to conclusions based on amateur transcripts of a very poor quality liveatc recording, I think we should wait until an official transcript based on better quality recordings from the aircraft and ATC is available. Based on information from elsewhere, it seems likely that the liveatc recording is missing some important parts of the radio traffic.
It continues to amaze me how not only laymen, journalists, but even more serious aviation lovers on here see tings like LiveATC, FR24 etc. as the godgiven truth, without understanding/realizing that these data streams are subject to data-rate reduction, data-interpretation, data-interpolation, data-distortion or even missing pieces of data. And then go on and use that misinformed data to make incorrect statements, or even worse, make negative comments or even blaming/flaming on crew/ATC or whatever/whoever . . .
I guess I'm a dying breed, not being a slave to the impatience of modern social media, and being able to obsere some patience for better and more reliable data sources.
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"