The copilot was blamed for failing to take control from the captain when it was obvious the aircraft flight path was seriously unstable. The wording being:
Quote: The copilot was completely unaware of the hazardous situation unfolding and did not challenge the PIC and attempt to take control of the aircraft from the PIC and execute a go-around, in accordance with company instructions that require taking over when an unsafe condition exists. Unquote.
Conveniently, there were no directions in the FCOM exactly how the copilot physically snatches control from a captain who doubtless would strongly object to his subordinate wrestling the controls from him and in attempting to do so, compound the already dangerous situation.
If, as the report suggests, the captain was already "fixated" on getting in, one can only imagine the utter confusion if the copilot attempts to wrestle the controls away from the captain. Make no mistake, the captain would not meekly relinquish the controls just to keep the copilot happy.
While companies have SOP's requiring the PM to warn the PF of an unstable situation, there is no advice of the step by step procedure for wrestling the controls away from the PF. And wrestle it would be.
During previous Pprune discussions on this very subject, there was a suggestion that the most expeditious method of forcing a go-around was for a PM to call "Go around - gear coming up" and select gear up without delay. It is doubtful if a PF (assuming the captain) will deliberately land wheels up just to make a point. The captain would have no choice but to go-around; which after all was the point of the exercise. That way there would be no confusion of who has control.
The report also stated: Quote: The Air Niugini Simulator training and checking policies and procedures did not require training and testing in the practical application of the challenge and response requirement for the monitoring pilot to take control of the aircraft if a challenge to an unsafe situation, including EGPWS aural alerts went unresolved. Unquote.
That is not surprising. . During simulator training exercises this correspondent has yet to see the situation where a PM (captain or copilot) suddenly decides an approach by the other pilot has become dangerous and unilaterally takes over control to correct the situation. Normally it is not a regulatory box ticking exercise. Such an action is prone to confusion since pilots are not given dual instruction in the simulator on how to physically take control (apart from an incapacitation) from a PF who doesn't expect it to happen. One would think a Regulator would demand that competency be demonstrated in such an event. Challenge and response words are fine initial warnings but actions speak louder than words. The report's criticism could apply to most operators involved with airline pilot training.