Originally Posted by
safetypee
IL thanks,
In the first instance where the Captain decides and acts, it is assumed that s/he has recognised the situation. If not, then the P2's alert (as a handling PM !) starts the Capts time consuming assessment, decision, and action.
I always (from the West side of the Atlantic) thought P1 means Captain and P2 means FO. Before we continue, is this right? Honest question. If so, then the only way I can interpret your phrase "P2's alert (as a handling PM)" is a tongue in cheek note that under the system of only CA aborting, the P2/FO (while handling/PF) is simultaneously being saddled with the other's role as PM and thus overloading him and making him ineffective (while leaving the CA doing nothing.) Well, if we take that PM role off of that pilot and put it in the left seat, then we have the CA/P1 doing the PM job (which is the actual case), thus equipping him perfectly to do the assessment and decision with no clock needing to be started by the other seat.
Are there any scenarios that have a significant chance of going unnoticed by the Captain so that he's reliant on the FO telling him?
Who has the wider scope of attention available to look at the engine instruments, and caution/warning system, and overall totality of the situation, and integrate all of these things into a decision?
Re 'stop'; yes I assumed a decision.
An alert as above is more relevant, but the opportunity for dissidence remains - thoughts opposed to actions, although the latter is a risk with over emphasised assertive training - CRM.
If there's cognitive dissonance on the part of the FO or they get locked into some decision tree that is too complicated to make the right call in a second, and I'm riding in the back, I would sure hope the system is designed around defaulting to simply continuing what's already happening, and completing the in-progress maneuver as is already habit over dozens or hundreds or thousands of repetitions in normal flying; and not triggering a high speed abort based off that.