Originally Posted by
exfocx
d_u_s,
I cannot find the post where you said you'd brief the FO not to call speed excursions unless they were sustained, but while SOPs stipulates the parameters for what is a stabilised approach and in this case we're considering speed, and while SOPs states minor temporary excursions outside of the envelope can be ignored, it doesn't allow you to brief the FO NOT to call excursions unless they are sustained (regardless of how much sense this makes, not having a PM call "speed" continually in trying conditions all the way down on an approach). So you're being somewhat hypocritical having a go at (N_N I think).
Not sure I agree but for the sake of argument, lets say thats correct. The FO then calls all exceedences down a rough as guts approach and we're all over the shop. Say we're landing at the rock on a typical day.
The post you refer was a conversation with galian. His question was;
Originally Posted by galian
If I'm within nav tolerances on finals but the wind is causing speed fluctuations - which are being corrected - but out of stable approach criteria AT TIMES and the F/O calls out "go around" should I go around??
My answer is yes. Follow the go around call. To mitigate this from happening however, it should have been part of the brief, so that the crew are on the same page regarding proper application of the stable approach criteria. How is being wrong about specifically what the FO has to call hypocritical in the context of this debate? He asked a question, i gave an answer and explained how the situation could have been avoided in the first place. Perhaps correct my statement to "brief the FO that a not stable call must only occur for sustained deviations, and that temporary fluctuations should be announced with the appropriate support calls only'
Better?