Originally Posted by YoDawg
But in the incident quoted in the title, the FO indicated a voluntary breach of SOP's , even beforehand, and that needs immediate reaction from the left side.
Bit harsh to hang the guy because of a couple of sentences in written form, especially not knowing the context in which it was said.
If Flap45 landings are normal then it appears to me this FO might be guilty of no more than a bad landing. Not everyone's a test pilot. Seems like he flared high, then held it off trying to make a good landing instead of putting it down regardless.
"Seems" - from what's written there. Maybe you are in possession of more facts? Or did I miss something?
Well, some here don’t believe it’s too harsh to acknowledge what happened. What happened was that the aircraft landed and then struck the tail … or … it landed on its tail (the facts will be obtained after reading the FDR), and there was substantial damage to the aircraft … to the extent that the NTSB has classified this as an aircraft accident rather than an aircraft incident.
The F/O was operating the aircraft … of that there is little doubt. The Captain is in charge of what goes on in his aircraft … of that there is little doubt as well. According to the information available, the F/O made the incredible statement to the NTSB, that he briefed on the fact that his landing technique was
not in accordance with standard procedures. That isn’t speculation – that is what the F/O said. On that basis alone, the questions being asked are the basic questions that should be asked at some point - at least in my opinion. 1) Why did the Captain not question the F/O as to what it was he was describing that was considered “non-standard” before allowing him to fly the landing approach? 2) Why did the F/O think it was acceptable to hold the aircraft off the runway until the stick shaker sounded? 3) Why did the Captain not take the aircraft away from the F/O at the first sign that he was raising the nose beyond that which is necessary to safely land the airplane?