Originally Posted by
galdian
There we go again - where have I ever said that I wouldn't do the go around, now apparently (according to you) I'm all about finding ways to refuse to do a go around.
That's really, really dishonest.
Everywhere in this thread? You have stated over and over, replete with ridiculous loaded language ("kneejerk reaction!") that you wouldn't necessarily do a go around, going as far as to create perfect little tailored situations to try to support your decision making model.
Originally Posted by galdian
Appears consensus is that at any time/height someone says "go around" without explanation you don't question, you just do - and as above that's rubbish.
Originally Posted by galdian
I just don't think that a go around call AT ANY TIME needs to be blindly followed
Originally Posted by galdian
No prior qualifying statement, no prior talking, simply "go around".
It would appear most subscribe to the thought that you will blindly just do it without understanding why.
That doesn't seem sensible.
Originally Posted by galdian
Seems to be the proposition from DuS: any height, any time, any conditions if the phrase "go around" is uttered whether in anger or error then you just leap into action and do it.
Sheep and communists are applauding the initiative!
Originally Posted by galdian
I just don't think an automatic kneejerk reaction is required at 1500' in visual conditions
Do you need more? All you've done since the beginning of the thread is try to quantify ways to justify not doing a go around. "What if this, what if that".
To what end do you want to have these discussions with the FO? If in any of your examples, 'from a safe height', you disagreed with the FOs call of GA, what then? Your options are to either do the go around anyway, which then has me asking you, what is even the point of having a discussion in the first place.. Or continue the approach, in which case you have refused a go around.
Its pretty simple mate, there are only 2 options.
Lets have an answer.
Originally Posted by galdian
How about we'll just leave it that I reckon understanding why the call's made - if time permits - is not a bad thing for a number of reasons, you're happy to kneejerk.
Yes, again with the loaded language. I, and every airline in the developed world will continue to 'knee jerk'.
Originally Posted by galdian
And you still don't understand that a bigger concern is although written in ops mans culturally many F/O's ill refuse to physically take over even when clear aircraft is in a state of peril - and people are dying because of this.
If you don't believe this exists you've been fortunate to operate in a very rarified environment which is not true reflection of issues encountered elsewhere in the world.
I asked you last post to explain what in gods name you're on about with this trope. The issue of FO reluctance to take over has absolutely no relevance to the discussion at hand, which is the merits of the current standard practice of both pilots needing to be happy to continue a landing. If you want to create a thread about cultural factors affecting FO performance then knock your socks off, but it has no relevance here.
I'll tell you one thing that certainly WONT be motivating weak FO's to speak up, and thats a policy that allows Captains to refuse a Go Around command because they think they knew better.
Tell you what, ill create a list of fatal aircraft accidents where the FO expressed his/her unhappiness and/or called for a GA and the Cpt ignored them. You produce a list of fatal accidents where the FO called for a Go Around that wasn't strictly required.
We'll meet back here and compare the body count shall we?