Originally Posted by
galdian
From your postings it is clear you see nothing but death and destruction from such an idea as "complicates things".
Fair enough, your opinion.
I see nothing but an increase in risk, for virtually no reward. Do you understand the difference?
Originally Posted by
galian
Then in response to exfocx you say "brief the F/O that not stable call must only occur for sustained deviations, and that temporary fluctuations should be announced with the appropriate support calls only".
Personally find that a lot to take in, I assume you'd further brief YOUR interpretation of "sustained deviation" Vs "temporary fluctuation" unless they're defined in your OM so should be used in everyday operations and briefings.
Are they?
Brilliant.
Just so we're on the same page, you find it "a lot to take in" to be briefed on a provision of the stable approach criteria, in the cruise, on autopilot?
Yet at 500 ft, with an FO calling 'go around' on you, you are happy to enter into a debate about something like a systems related problem, correct their lack of understanding of this technical matter by referring to a backup system, seeking confirmation of this new found understanding from the FO, then continuing with the approach.
That's to be believed is it?
Further to this, and even more amusingly, we've covered this little topic before.
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??"
Soldat - "Depends on what your ops manual says. Are temporary excursions permitted? If so, this should have been briefed as part of the arrival. "Due to the significant turbulence on final, call me on sustained deviations only. Do you have any questions or complaints about this?""
Galian - "
Fair point about briefing what's obvious to me re gusty aproaches but maybe not obvious to others."
So which is it mate? Is it a fair point, or is it now suddenly 'a lot to take in'. ?
Originally Posted by galian
Are they?
Yes.
Originally Posted by
galdian
For someone who appears to want to "uncomplicate things" I'd be sitting in the RHS trying to sort out the wisdom imparted.
Maybe just me, out of step with the kneejerk baa-ing communist community.
I'm sitting in my office seat trying to work out why you can't hold a consistent position, and appear to change with the wind simply for the purposes of winning an argument.
Moving on, I've asked you a specific question 3 times. 3 times in succession you have entirely ignored it.
Originally Posted by Das "I love repeating myself" Soldat
No, again, I asked you a specific question. Do you have a list of fatal accidents caused by an FO commanding a go around that wasn't actually required. Yes or, no, I've asked you 3 times now. Further, I asked you think your list will be bigger than my list. Yes or no. I ask you again.
For the record, this is now the 4th time I've asked you this question. Whats amusing about your avoidance of course is..
Originally Posted by Galdian 'Irony is dead' Superpilot
And you pointedly ignore my question about..
I tip my hat to you, if nothing else you've been amusing.