Originally Posted by
FlightDetent
1) The procedure puts an absolute stop to willingly busting minima/stabilization criteria by PIC under older-generation CRM environments (with steep cockpit gradients and more). Hopefully, superfluous now.
2) On paper it looks much worse than it actually is.
3) It requires a positive decision to proceed towards the landing. Very different from the required positive decision to G/A, which is not easy to build under all circumstances.
Pages 19-20 here [year 2000] and
Page 48 here [year 2018]. You don't need to be go-around minded, the procedure is.
I think that’s a good summary of some of the important plus points. I can’t speak for any other operation, but where I work it’s not one person telling another what to do; it is HOW we as a crew are going to carry out a successful conclusion to the flight. A good briefing is interactive and can lead to changes of plan when problems and solutions are identified, whether you are doing a monitored approach or not. The P1 saying I’m going to do this, this and this while P2 sits in silence is no better than the P1 instructing the P2 to do it this way and no other. As FD says, monitored approaches help with cockpit gradients, even unintentional ones, plus checks and balances are more built-in.
After a while operating like this, it just feels natural, and handing control over after a nicely flown NPA or whatever, with the aircraft stable and in the best position to land that you can achieve is professionally rewarding in the same way that flying all the way down and putting it on the numbers is. It is easier, IMO, to one-man-band / fighter pilot an aircraft than it is to bring everyone one along with you, but the second scenario is the safer and often more successful one.