Angels - my post was in response to your:
Para...your assuming the capt flew an unstabilized approach, so much so that he should have gone around based on the 600 hr FO making that call. We know that captain landed the plane, how bad could the approach have been?
Not trying to disparage the FO, but I tend to agree with other posters on this forum that I tend to side with the 20,000 hour captain before I would the 600 hr FO when it comes to judging the difference between a stabilized approach or not.
Note my bolding. I too would like to hear the 'Captain's story' although I doubt very much we will. We have to judge the 'story' as told - this is a forum, not a court of law. It does, however, bring out some illuminating facets to some people's attitudes.
I assume that like the others who have hit the forums en masse lately, you are a 'single crew approved' pilot? No, you do not NEED to be 'airlines' but you DO need to at least understand how multi-crew works to comment here. Like another before you, no airline will touch someone with the 'I'm on my own and I'm great' attitude.
To put another crew member so far out of the comfort zone is not on. To push that member out of the comfort zone likewise, UNLESS you are going to help, and finally to breach your employers 'rules' and ignore the comment on such from the other member is totally wrong. the approach sounded very 'bad'.
It is worth remembering that this '600 hour' co-pilot is well-versed in the rules and requirements of the company regarding a/c operation - probably fresher/better than the 20,000 hour Captain. The definition of a 'stabilised' approach is so clear that the odds are extremley high that the co-pilot was ABSOLUTELY right in the call and the 'story' as told supports that. Flap exceedance is also not 'rocket science' to see, is it?