Originally Posted by
galdian
I just don't think an automatic kneejerk reaction is required at 1500' in visual conditions whereas no disagreement at - maybe to pick a figure - 500' or below.
Apparently the majority think otherwise; just don't get it.
That you don't understand isn't an argument. I get the feeling the whole point of you trying to create a discussion at some arbitrary threshold that you've set is to create an opportunity for a Cpt to refuse a Go Around command.
FO - "Go around"
CPT - "Why?"
FO - "Reason X"
CPT - "I disagree, we're continuing"
What happens if the FO still isn't happy? Do they say Go Around again? Do we have another discussion? Practically speaking no FO is going to call Go Around (without an earlier support call) unless they believe (rightly or wrongly) a clear and present safety danger exists. Now they're bound by their OM to escalate their concern, if necessary to the point of taking over.
So now, we've gone from an extremely simple decision and defensive procedure, into having a debate at 500ft, a further disagreement then escalation of the RAISE model to the point that the FO has to take control over the Captain, with all the problems related. Immediately reportable matter, crew stood down, tea and biscuits for all involved.
And this is an improvement?
Originally Posted by galdian
What should the criteria be? Well as professionals I'd like to think we could discuss and improve the understanding and paramaters, maybe not.
The risk vs reward doesn't add up. Hence SOP at every airline in the developed world. SOPs written in blood, many times over.
Originally Posted by galdian
And you pointedly ignore my question about how to REQUIRE F/O's to take over when the aircraft is out of the slot, calls have been ignored and it appears the Captains intention to try and land hot and/or high.
Sort out THAT and the accidents like Yoyogi (?) and AIExpress10 years ago in Mangalore will be banished and hundreds of lives saved. Apparently not worth addressing.
I ignored your question because it doesn't make any sense. What are you even asking? How do we require FO's to take over with the aircraft is in a dangerous state? We already do, at least thats my understanding of procedures for airlines all over the world. If you have a specific point, state it clearly.
Originally Posted by galdian
But hey - 1500' in clear conditions the 2IC says "go around" and off you go, you don't think that can be improved?
Improved how? If the FO had a good reason, whats to improve? If they didn't, then it will be addressed in training and improvements made there. You on the other hand, want to introduce complexity, discussion and time pressure into what is otherwise a very simple and straight forward procedure. No thanks.
Originally Posted by galdian
And nice touch - you ask a question, pre-empt any answer...then criticise ME for YOUR answer to YOUR question.
Auditioning for a spot on Q&A (ABC TV allegedly balanced discussion program for non Aussies) per chance?
I did no such thing, save your melodrama for someone else. I wrote "if your answer is", and addressed that. If your answer is not as I put forward, then my comment has no relevance to you and you're welcome to go be offended elsewhere.
It simply boggles the mind these 1950's CRM ideas (or lack thereof) still persist.