Why can't the fact that there is a disagreement between the Captain and the FO, IN AND OF ITSELF, be a requirement to go around when it occurs during an approach? That seems to me a simple solution. How often do such events occur?
This is the type of proposal that strikes me as "trying to solve the last accident". I am skeptical that it would do much good for two reasons. First, it might just transfer the indecision of a FO from one dilemma to another dilemma viz. from does he take control to how much disagreement is enough disagreement to call for a go around. Second, if the mere existence of any level of disagreement is enough to cause a go around then the number of go arounds will go through the roof. While a go around in an isolated location such as the one in this accident is no big deal a large increase in go arounds in congested airspace like NYC might cause far more problems that it solves.
One should avoid the temptation to solve the last accident. In this case the PNF was correct and the PF was incorrect. But how many times have the PNF been wrong and the plane landed without incident?