Timely Go-Arounds

[sheppey]

https://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/airline_operators/airline_safety/safo/all_safos/media/2010/SAFO10005.pdf

[morno]

Quite simple, if I say go around and my FO doesn’t, I take over. :ugh:

[umop apisdn]

Quite simple, if I say go around and my FO doesn’t, I take over. :ugh:
If I say go around and my captain doesn't, captain finds a new FO.

[andrewr]

The phraseology is perhaps more interesting than the response.

"Lets" tends to be more a suggestion rather than a command e.g. "Lets have lunch" and the captain didn't actually say "go around" he said "Let's go".

I dug out the original report and it does touch on this:
"the captain’s statement of “let’s go” did not comply with any standard terminology and might have suggested to the first officer that the captain’s command was tentative"

There's probably a lesson there - if you want to give a command be definite, and use standard phraseology that is obviously a command.

[neville_nobody]

If I say go around and my captain doesn't, captain finds a new FO.

Really? What if you have made a mistake, a misunderstanding, or have reached the limit of your experience?

The PIC has the final say on go arounds not the FO. How that is all managed is up to the PIC. Just because the FO thinks you should goaround doesn't necessarily mean they are right. The case in point in this bulletin was that the FO didn't follow a order from the Capt to goaround.

[WingNut60]

Really? What if you have made a mistake, a misunderstanding, or have reached the limit of your experience?

The PIC has the final say on go arounds not the FO. How that is all managed is up to the PIC. Just because the FO thinks you should goaround doesn't necessarily mean they are right. The case in point in this bulletin was that the FO didn't follow a order from the Capt to goaround.

Not according to the report??

This failure to respond did not meet with the NTSB’s expectation that, regardless of which pilot calls for the go-around, the needed response should be executing a missed approach.

[neville_nobody]

Not according to the report??

I've only read the attached FAA statement but it seems clear enough

. . However, when the airplane was at an altitude of 80 feet AGL, the Captain indicated he could not see the end of the runway and stated, “let’s go [around].” The First Officer, the pilot flying, then stated he had the end of the runway in sight and continued the approach.

[Mach E Avelli]

The NTSB may well have an 'expectation' that either pilot can call for a go-around and it is automatically mandatory, but it may take some re-education to become accepted SOP.

Much like the stabilized approach criteria. Almost every operator now has that enshrined in their manuals, but often it is only paying lip service to recommendations or requirements. In certain cultures it would be a very courageous F/O who took over control from a Captain who was not within the parameters and refused to execute a go around.

[andrewr]

"around" is bracketed because the captain didn't actually say it but it has been inserted for clarity. The command was "Lets go".

With a 2 word command, would you execute on the first or second word?
Gear......... up
Go....... [around]

[Rated De]

The NTSB may well have an 'expectation' that either pilot can call for a go-around and it is automatically mandatory, but it may take some re-education to become accepted SOP. Much like the stabilized approach criteria. Almost every operator now has that enshrined in their manuals, but often it is only paying lip service to recommendations or requirements. In certain cultures it would be a very courageous F/O who took over control from a Captain who was not within the parameters and refused to execute a go around.

Precisely.

Isn't the point of the statement is that the debate is over at the point either seat calls Go-around?
Who cares really who is the pilot is command?

Alitalia flight 404 is a classic case.

Get the words right for sure, but who cares who calls it, go-around!

[ScepticalOptomist]

If I say go around and my captain doesn't, captain finds a new FO.

Really? What if you have made a mistake, a misunderstanding, or have reached the limit of your experience?

The PIC has the final say on go arounds not the FO. How that is all managed is up to the PIC.

As the Captain I would Go Around, whoever calls it, fuel permitting, as per my company’s SOP.

The time for discussion is when safely on the ground.

I’d expect nothing less from any reputable Captain. These are multi crew jets, all crew need to be happy to continue the approach.

[neville_nobody]

Precisely.

Isn't the point of the statement is that the debate is over at the point either seat calls Go-around?
Who cares really who is the pilot is command?

Alitalia flight 404 is a classic case.

Get the words right for sure, but who cares who calls it, go-around!

The problem with that system is it overrides the authority of the PIC. Given the ever diminishing experience in the RHS you are creating a whole new can of worms by lowering the experience of the flight deck to the FO's experience and confidence levels.

[A37575]

In another era I was pilot in command flying a GCA into RAAF Base Richmond in rain and low cloud. The aircraft was a Vampire dual seat fighter. In those days Richmond had a long taxiway parallel to the runway.
We became semi-visual at 200 feet agl but the view through the windshield was poor because of rain and the Vampire didn't have wipers. I announced "Going Around." At that instant, the senior Air Force officer in the RH seat who out-ranked me by several stripes (nice bloke though) grabbed the control column on his side and whipped the Vampire into rapid turn saying "there's the runway.."

The only problem was he had seen the parallel taxiway. I was able to regain control from him and said firmly "We are going around, SIR." and told ATC we were diverting to Williamtown. The Vampire had very limited endurance even with drop tanks and we had flown to Richmond from Laverton an hour earlier. At top of decent into Richmond, ATC gave us the latest weather at Richmond which was awful - heavy rain and low cloud. I decided the chances of getting in to Richmond was low particularly because GCA being a radar talk-down aid could be seriously affected by rain attenuation. I informed the senior officer we were diverting to Williamtown RAAF base which was 30 minutes away where the forecast was fine.

The senior officer was anxious to get to Richmond for a high level meeting and suggested we at least have a go at getting in at Richmond as we had the fuel for a diversion if needed. Against my better judgement (after all he was a Group Captain) I reluctantly agreed and commenced descent in preparation for a radar controlled GCA (Ground Controlled Approach).

During the go-around and diversion to Williamtown the senior officer remained silent. After engine shut down at Williamtown I suggested to him we could refuel and have another go into getting into Richmond since we now had plenty of fuel to play with. Plenty of fuel including drop tanks in the Vampire gave us an endurance of 1.5 hours with no reserves!

The Group Captain knocked back my offer (much to my relief as I had enough drama for the day) saying "No thanks - I'll go back to Richmond by train."

[Rated De]

The problem with that system is it overrides the authority of the PIC. Given the ever diminishing experience in the RHS you are creating a whole new can of worms by lowering the experience of the flight deck to the FO's experience and confidence levels.

The confidence of the Captain in Alitalia 404, pushed his command, training and experience over the FO. Yet the FO was right. The result was on profile, into the side of the mountain outside Zurich.
Mistakes are generated in either seat and the modern airliner is multi-crew.
Given a missed approach and another pattern is cheap isn't default to a low risk environment the better setting?

[das Uber Soldat]

Really? What if you have made a mistake, a misunderstanding, or have reached the limit of your experience?

The PIC has the final say on go arounds not the FO. How that is all managed is up to the PIC. Just because the FO thinks you should goaround doesn't necessarily mean they are right. The case in point in this bulletin was that the FO didn't follow a order from the Capt to goaround.


Ive read some total garbage on pprune over the years. This ranks highly.

If someone in the front says go around, you do it. Discussion can occur after. The number of accidents where the FO has called for the go around and the idiot captain thought he knew better, and didn't, are numerous.

I'm yet to find an incident where an FO called for a Go Around that wasn't required and people died. Have you?

[VH DSJ]

The problem with that system is it overrides the authority of the PIC. Given the ever diminishing experience in the RHS you are creating a whole new can of worms by lowering the experience of the flight deck to the FO's experience and confidence levels.

I'm sure everybody's aware of the Garuda B737 GA200 accident in 2007. The Captain had 13,400 hours TT; the FO 1350 hours. The Captain ignored calls for a go-around by the FO and the rest is history. You don't need to have tens of thousands of hours to know what constitutes an undesirable aircraft state; all you need is a sense of survival.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garuda_Indonesia_Flight_200

[Australopithecus]

A good general rule is that it should take two yes votes at all times. A single “no” should be enough to trigger a safer course of action. If the F/O calls for example, “not stable”, are you going to argue or go around? CRM does not allow for a single ego operation.

[neville_nobody]

Ive read some total garbage on PPRuNe over the years. This ranks highly.

If someone in the front says go around, you do it. Discussion can occur after. The number of accidents where the FO has called for the go around and the idiot captain thought he knew better, and didn't, are numerous.

I'm yet to find an incident where an FO called for a Go Around that wasn't required and people died. Have you?

No it is the PIC decision. That is the way the law and aviation has always worked. And I am not saying you ignore the FO, or don't err on the side of caution, however to start officially white anting the authority of the PIC by just having arbitrary rules will just create a laundry list of unintended consequences.

There are numerous reasons why not going around may be the best call. EK 521 is probably the poster child of why arbitrary decision making by people not in the flight deck is not always leads to the best outcome

Similarly if you have a steep experience gradient in the cockpit are you just going to go around because of a cadet pilot in the RHS thinks its a good idea? If that's the way aviation is going noone will be going anywhere unless the wind is down the runway and its CAVOK.

Being a PIC is about knowing your limits and the aircrafts and not being pushed outside of those limits by anyone but by also knowing what you and your aircraft are capable of. By pandering to the lowest common denominator we are just going to grind the whole industry to a halt.

[das Uber Soldat]

No it is the PIC decision. That is the way the law and aviation has always worked. And I am not saying you ignore the FO, or don't err on the side of caution, however to start officially white anting the authority of the PIC by just having arbitrary rules will just create a laundry list of unintended consequences.
There are numerous reasons why not going around may be the best call. EK 521 is probably the poster child of why arbitrary decision making by people not in the flight deck is not always leads to the best outcome

Similarly if you have a steep experience gradient in the cockpit are you just going to go around because of a cadet pilot in the RHS thinks its a good idea? If that's the way aviation is going noone will be going anywhere unless the wind is down the runway and its CAVOK.

Being a PIC is about knowing your limits and the aircrafts and not being pushed outside of those limits by anyone but by also knowing what you and your aircraft are capable of. By pandering to the lowest common denominator we are just going to grind the whole industry to a halt.
I actually can't tell if you're serious, or some elaborate troll.

Similarly if you have a steep experience gradient in the cockpit are you just going to go around because of a cadet pilot in the RHS thinks its a good idea?
Absolutely. A steep experience gradient makes it harder, not easier for a low hour pilot to speak up. If they are seeing something I'm not, then you better believe I'd initiate a go around if in the command seat if they called for it. We can discuss why he/she made that call when the aircraft is safely established above MSA. If it was an erroneous call, we can discuss why that is, then brief the next approach in light of this and try again.

As for the 'cadet' jibe. They are a licensed and endorsed pilot. Do you turn your nose at the 21 year olds with less than 1000 hours total time flying F18's around too?

EK 521 is probably the poster child of why arbitrary decision making by people not in the flight deck is not always leads to the best outcome
What on earth are you on about. Ignoring the fact the Captain of EK521 had less hours than the FO, what decision 'outside the flight deck' affected the outcome here, and how on earth does it relate to your point that a Captain should be able to ignore an FO's call of Go Around?

Being a PIC is about knowing your limits and the aircraft's and not being pushed outside of those limits by anyone but by also knowing what you and your aircraft are capable of. By pandering to the lowest common denominator we are just going to grind the whole industry to a halt.
There is no way you're a transport category pilot. Referring to FO's (even low hour ones) as 'the lowest common denominator' just shows how clueless you obviously are. Please go back and play in the GA forum.

At my airline, if I elevate my concerns and the Captain isn't responding appropriately, not only am I not to accept him/her pressing on, I'm required by OM to takeover and execute the go around myself. The reason is simple and blindingly obvious. To push on when in danger is to risk the lives of all on board. To Go Around when it wasn't required risks nothing more than a few polar bears.

It shouldn't even be a discussion.

[Stuart Sutcliffe]

No it is the PIC decision. That is the way the law and aviation has always worked. And I am not saying you ignore the FO, or don't err on the side of caution, however to start officially white anting the authority of the PIC by just having arbitrary rules will just create a laundry list of unintended consequences.
............

Being a PIC is about knowing your limits and the aircrafts and not being pushed outside of those limits by anyone but by also knowing what you and your aircraft are capable of. By pandering to the lowest common denominator we are just going to grind the whole industry to a halt.
Seriously? Are you sure you don't want to rethink your position?

You are notably out of step with sensible thinking on this subject.

[Rated De]

Being a PIC is about knowing your limits and the aircrafts and not being pushed outside of those limits by anyone but by also knowing what you and your aircraft are capable of. By pandering to the lowest common denominator we are just going to grind the whole industry to a halt.

Generally a walk through a debris field helps. Knowing the limits of one and the aircraft is admirable, however there is ample evidence to suggest that the 'limits of our ability' are not as high as we thought.

Captain Raffaele Liberti, 47, Alitalia, total flying time of more than 10,000 hours.
His junior FO spoke up, wanted to go around, knew something was wrong. It was.
The hills outside Zurich bought the whole aircraft to a grinding halt.

[Judd]

If I say go around and my captain doesn't, captain finds a new FO.

An arrogant and childish assertion. Similar to a recent difference of opinion that arose re use of autobrake for landing on a long into-wind dry runway. Company SOP left it to the captain re autobrake use. Basically if autobrake not needed operationally to meet runway length and conditions there was no requirement to use it.
Captain was PF and during approach briefing elected not to use autobrake. The F/O disagreed saying all the captains he flew with use autobrake for ALL landings regardless if operationally necessary or otherwise..
Captain thanked him for his advice and continued with briefing. F/O got twitchy. On short final F/O calls "Go Around" but gave no explanation for late call. The approach seemed normal so the captain queries the call. F/O states " The autobrake is off."
The landing which was stable is continued with F/O later de-briefed. Common sense prevailed

[turbantime]

Neville_nobody,
I hope you are not involved in any airline because what you’re displaying is a complete lack of understanding of airline ops. Your assumptions of EK521 are completely out of whack. Your assertion that an FO doesn’t know anything is completely wrong.

If if you are indeed an airline captain, you need to be pulled off line as you sir are, to put bluntly, unsafe to operate.

[73qanda]

Neville, if you were at most western airlines your position on this would be well out of step.
Look at it like this, if your F/O calls Go- around, assuming you haven’t cocked up your fuel planning, just go around, enjoy the chance to execute a nice procedure ( I’m sure you know they’re often rushed and poorly executed) , and then discuss why he or she called it later when you’ve landed safely.
Simple. Easy. Safe.

[Rated De]

Neville, if you were at most western airlines your position on this would be well out of step.
Look at it like this, if your F/O calls Go- around, assuming you haven’t cocked up your fuel planning, just go around, enjoy the chance to execute a nice procedure ( I’m sure you know they’re often rushed and poorly executed) , and then discuss why he or she called it later when you’ve landed safely.
Simple. Easy. Safe.

Precisely.
The accident evidence suggests that in several cases this approach killed numerous people.
In Alitalia 404 a highly experienced Captain (and trainer) and a junior FO.
The FO was right, God Bless him.

[TOGA Tap]

If FO commands a Go Around and it is executed by him taking over the controls if he/she was not the Pilot Flying at that moment, the the FO is in fact the commander at least temporarily. My question - how long the FO keeps the command authority - until landing? What is the CPT legal position in that time - Also is there a requirement to write a report after landing in such a case?

[neville_nobody]

Everyone here is missing the elephant in the room which is PIC authority. Just because the FO says go around does not mean you should. It is the captains decision not the FO's. My gripe with the FAA's suggestion is the arbitrary nature of the decision making and the surrendering the command of the aircraft to the FO.

Many of the objections raised in this thread are actually communication or CRM issues rather just than the FO wanted to go around and the Captain disagreed. And if the FO believes things are out of hand or the PIC has lost the plot for whatever reason they are well within their rights to take over.

Your assumptions of EK521 are completely out of whack.

So you believe that a arbitrary goaround is required with 3000M+ of runway remaining? What is the risk assessment of a very low level go around vs just landing normally? My point with that is the decision to Go Around was not made by the PIC but by company policy. In the cold light of day I am not so sure if the risk management was well thought out, given the functions of the aircraft and the apparent lack of awareness of what would happen with the aircraft automation.

I hope you are not involved in any airline because what you’re displaying is a complete lack of understanding of airline ops. Your assumptions of EK521 are completely out of whack. Your assertion that an FO doesn’t know anything is completely wrong.

If if you are indeed an airline captain, you need to be pulled off line as you sir are, to put bluntly, unsafe to operate.

My question to you is if we just blindly follow what the FO wants to do who is responsible if it all gets out hand and the crew get called in for a please explain?

[das Uber Soldat]

Everyone here is missing the elephant in the room which is PIC authority.
The PIC doesn't have the authority to drive the plane into the ground.

Just because the FO says go around does not mean you should. It is the captains decision not the FO's.
Show me a single airline OM in the country that backs up this claim.

Many of the objections raised in this thread are actually communication or CRM issues rather just than the FO wanted to go around and the Captain disagreed. And if the FO believes things are out of hand or the PIC has lost the plot for whatever reason they are well within their rights to take over.
You've contradicted yourself. Above you state its not the FO's decision and the CPT is not bound by an FO's call to GA. Now you say the FO is within their right to take over? Which is it?

So you believe that a arbitrary goaround is required with 3000M+ of runway remaining? What is the risk assessment of a very low level go around vs just landing normally?
This has nothing to do with your original point, the one that has drawn everyones ire. Policy at my airline is that its CPTs discretion. Outside touchdown zone is allowed if CPT believes reasonable runway length remains. Guess what I'm going to do though if we land 3/4 the way down the strip at Ballina?

My point with that is the decision to Go Around was not made by the PIC but by company policy.
Ever heard of this brand new thing called the stabilized approach criteria? A crews decision to GA is governed by a litany of rules outside their control.

My question to you is if we just blindly follow what the FO wants to do who is responsible if it all gets out hand and the crew get called in for a please explain?
So in your scenario, an FO calls for a go around that wasn't required. What happens? A perfectly safe go around. Then, maybe, and I don't view it as likely, but maybe you get called down for tea and bickies. The FO states their reasoning. Perhaps he/she are retrained. Lessons are learned.

My question to you is if we just blindly follow what the CPT wants to do, who is going to be there when it all gets out of hand and the CPT tries to drive the plane into the ground?

Ill give you 3 guesses.

[Poto]

An arrogant and childish assertion. Similar to a recent difference of opinion that arose re use of autobrake for landing on a long into-wind dry runway. Company SOP left it to the captain re autobrake use. Basically if autobrake not needed operationally to meet runway length and conditions there was no requirement to use it.
Captain was PF and during approach briefing elected not to use autobrake. The F/O disagreed saying all the captains he flew with use autobrake for ALL landings regardless if operationally necessary or otherwise..
Captain thanked him for his advice and continued with briefing. F/O got twitchy. On short final F/O calls "Go Around" but gave no explanation for late call. The approach seemed normal so the captain queries the call. F/O states " The autobrake is off."
The landing which was stable is continued with F/O later de-briefed. Common sense prevailed
So the policy states you don’t ‘need’ Autobrake. However it is clearly a safer option therefore most airlines mandate its use. Your F/O, the PM doesn’t feel comfortable landing without it set. No other reason for not using it other than ‘You don’t have to’? You feel, as the PIC, that the clearly uncomfortable co pilot can basically bugger off. May I suggest, use the autobrake. Land safely. Point out to FO at the gate the Autobrake policy. They go home and think about it and your name remains out of FO whinging bar talk. Everyone is a winner

[neville_nobody]

Show me a single airline OM in the country that backs up this claim.
I will hazard a guess that all Ops Manuals have qualifying statements contained within them with certain tolerances. That is very different circumstance than an FO being out of his comfort zone which is what I was referring to.

You've contradicted yourself. Above you state its not the FO's decision and the CPT is not bound by an FO's call to GA. Now you say the FO is within their right to take over? Which is it?

No I haven't. They are two different scenarios. Have a look at CAR 224 and show me where anyone else other than the PIC is responsible for the continuation of flight. If the PIC becomes incapacitated or threatens the lives onboard the FO can take control. Most companies have a framework for this.

So in your scenario, an FO calls for a go around that wasn't required. What happens? A perfectly safe go around. Then, maybe, and I don't view it as likely, but maybe you get called down for tea and bickies. The FO states their reasoning. Perhaps he/she are retrained. Lessons are learned.

Firstly GoArounds are not done all that often, so the risk of people screwing them up, damaging the aircraft (ie flap overspeed) or having some other unintended consequence is a consideration. And there is a risk involved. Goround may mean missing out on landing all together at the airport in question due to weather, curfews, airport issues etc etc. It may mean being forced to divert to a less favourable airport, the options are endless. Maybe the FO gets retrained. But Captains gets demoted which can be career ending so there is a big difference in consequences.

My question to you is if we just blindly follow what the CPT wants to do, who is going to be there when it all gets out of hand and the CPT tries to drive the plane into the ground?

No one is blindly following anybody. My point is that the PIC is the final authority. It is up to the FO to use CRM and whatever other skills/company procedures etc at hand to ensure a safe outcome. I am not suggesting that the FO's
say nothing, however just because the FO says go around does not mean that it should happen. However if the Captain says it then that's what happens. If you and read the FAA Circular the Captain said to go around and the FO didn't do it.

[Judd]

However it is clearly a safer option therefore most airlines mandate its use. Your F/O, the PM doesn’t feel comfortable landing without it set.
Extract from Boeing 737 FCTM under the heading Wheel Brakes;
Quote: "Use of the autobrake system is recommended whenever the runway is limited, when using higher than normal approach speeds, landing on slippery runways or landing in a crosswind."

The original post clearly stated: "Similar to a recent difference of opinion that arose re use of autobrake for landing on a long into-wind dry runway."
Clearly the runway concerned was not limiting. There was no justification for the F/O concerned for such a petulant action which was beyond comprehension.

[George Glass]

Yikes Neville !!!! Didn’t you pay any attention in those CRM courses? Keep going like that and you’re going to have a very unpleasant interview in the subsequent inquiry.

[A320 Flyer]

I’ve worked at three airlines here and OS, and flown with captains and first officers from all over the world. The commonality between policies is exactly as suggested. If someone calls for a go around then it’s executed and discussed later. Every pilot I’ve come across agrees with this.... Except for one captain who didn’t until the FO pleaded with him over the keys and at 300ft (plenty of runway remaining BTW). Guess what happened to him?

EDIT: I hope I never step into the flight deck and find myself sitting next to Neville or Judd

[das Uber Soldat]

I give up with this guy.

[Global Aviator]

It’s a bloody tough one when Capt doesn’t respond to FO, we all have different SOPs on how we challenge/ respond.

As an FO it no matter what you think it is not easy taking over, yes of course if in direct danger, but otherwise?

Yes it did happen to me a few moons ago, Capt blah blah blah, ending with after x times, “Name” you must go around now, a slow go around initiated. Was it pretty? No, was it safe? Yes. Did we have a post flight chat and beers? Kinda? Were we called to the office after FDAP download, sorta. Were reports put in? You betcha.

No one wants to see a colleague in trouble, SAFE operation is however critical, taking over from a Capt is a major move (I was a very senior FO in my above issue), I have actually never heard or read a report on it and consequences?

Safe flying always comes first, its ok to go around!

[Poto]

Extract from Boeing 737 FCTM under the heading Wheel Brakes;
Quote: "Use of the autobrake system is recommended whenever the runway is limited, when using higher than normal approach speeds, landing on slippery runways or landing in a crosswind."

The original post clearly stated: "Similar to a recent difference of opinion that arose re use of autobrake for landing on a long into-wind dry runway."
Clearly the runway concerned was not limiting. There was no justification for the F/O concerned for such a petulant action which was beyond comprehension.
Something that can be pointed out at the gate after you show them how good Autobrake 2 is 👍.
Our manuals say the same thing, they also state “all automatic stopping devices/systems shall be armed for touchdown unless directed otherwise by an aircraft specific operating procedure.”
Maybe your FO is from one of these airlines. Again, a great discussion point somewhere between the Gate and the Pub 👌

[Tankengine]

Something that can be pointed out at the gate after you show them how good Autobrake 2 is 👍.
Our manuals say the same thing, they also state “all automatic stopping devices/systems shall be armed for touchdown unless directed otherwise by an aircraft specific operating procedure.”
Maybe your FO is from one of these airlines. Again, a great discussion point somewhere between the Gate and the Pub 👌
Yep, arm autobrake if time, although in Judd’s example FO had called a go around (after already being briefed on the no autobrake approach). I would severely debrief that FO! ;)
Briefing should fix most differences of opinion leaving a go around call as a safety matter.
One item I will brief involves NP minima calls when Capt is PF. For example some FOs will be nervous at minima when they cannot see the runway while the visibility - “expanding visual segment” may be fine!
Fuel state on arrival does play a part when a go around may cause instant diversion etc.

[Slezy9]

For example some FOs will be nervous at minima when they cannot see the runway


Fixed that for you:

For example some Pilots will be nervous at minima when they cannot see the runway.

[Captain Sherm]

This thread has some great stuff in it. Truly cutting edge wisdom for that last 30 seconds from getting visual to the point where you pull in the reversers and are committed.Yep, that's after touchdown.

and it centers around this from Australopithecus (https://www.pprune.org/members/423601-australopithecus) and all the similar posts:

"A good general rule is that it should take two yes votes at all times. A single “no” should be enough to trigger a safer course of action. If the F/O calls for example, “not stable”, are you going to argue or go around? CRM does not allow for a single ego operation"

It's a two crew machine and the existence of doubt is just the same as excessive sink rate, glide slope deviation or the many other parameters which violate the concept of a safe stable approach . That's the 'EXISTENCE" of doubt not the fact of a reason for doubt. Doubt is itself a reason. A well flown missed approach or rejected landing would have saved countless lives over the years. Reliance on "The Captain is in command" rarely so. When you're cleared for approach you are also cleared for the missed approach or rejected landing. Even a junior Second Officer in the jump seat might have seen something you didn't. And even if you chalk up a missed approach which might cost you 10 minutes and a couple of grand in fuel, big deal.

If you think giving instructions is the key to your manhood get a job with IKEA. This isn't war. The best decisions a civil captain can make are NOT to do something or to delay while something else (de-ice, refuel, wait for a squall to pass, malfunction rectification etc) is done. Rarely, if ever, is the safest option the "I am the Captain" instruction to proceed when others are voicing doubts.

I'd be happy to start a thread listing accidents where, when crossing the fence, someone was unhappy but either didn't speak up or wasn't listened to. It'd be a bloody long thread. And as Davies said 50 years ago in "Handling the Big Jets" if you do crash, and survive, you'll spend the rest of your life wishing you had that 30 seconds to live over again.

[Chesty Morgan]

And then you've got the screwed up startle effect go around. One of THE most poorly executed maneuvers in the industry.

Then you've got the pop up Cb on the MA track.

Bottom line is that there is no right or wrong answer. It's up to the PIC to make a snap decision then and there. And that is why you need experience to sit in that seat.

[aussie1234]

What happens if you’re PIC in the left seat and a check captain has been called out to operate in the right seat on a normal line flight, they say go around but you disagree and you are PIC, do you continue because you have ultimate authority or is it different?

[Slippery_Pete]

Wow Neville. You’re living in 1970s CRM.

Google Jacob van Zanten... that’s what happens when the Captain decides they know best to the exclusion of the FO.

[Car RAMROD]

And if you have a no-fault policy in your opsman, saying that the go-around can be called by anyone, you shouldn’t have the boss back in the office questioning the go-around.
If you do have a boss that questions it (other than the basic “what happened”) you are likely working for a **** boss/company.

Youve got bigger things to worry about as a Captain. Do the go-around, execute it brilliantly (you should be able to do that!) and show the FOs that there’s no problem going around. If you don’t agree with their call, discuss it later- maybe impart some of your knowledge and experience on them and help them, rather than effectively belittling them.
You never know, maybe they might save your arse or another Capts arse one day because of this experience.

Or be a prick and just do it your way and your way only.

[Slezy9]

Or be a prick and just do it your way and your way only.

And wonder why your FOs always seem to be going sick. :yuk:

[neville_nobody]

So you are on final Captain can clearly see the REIL, PAPI, newish FO can't find the runway in the window, wants to Go Around, the general on concenus on PPrune is that we GoAround and probably divert. Cancelled flight, frustrated passengers, Ops are scratching their head because everybody else got in. Is that really where we are at in this day and age?? Captain diverts even though he can see the runway?

[Car RAMROD]

I’ll flip the question around Neville and throw it back...

FO can clearly see the runway but captain cannot and wants to go around. Do you continue to land or do you go around?

If you go around, why? Is it because it’s your the captain and you are making that decision just because you are boss, or because you aren’t happy that both guys have the same picture and are not on the “same page” any more?

I acknowledge that every situation is different- if you can see them from miles out and the FO is struggling, there might be time to give them the chance. If you are at a few hundred ft in horrendous weather, missed might be the safest option.
The Garuda Capt that overran probably thought he was in the right and being captain probably decided that “no, I’ve got this” despite the FO calling a go around. Do you agree with this situation because, whilst maybe not your intent, this is how many seem to perceive your statement.

[34R]

Neville, I’m not sure of the standard of FO you’re used to flying with. If you feel the need to assess the necessity of every go-around call you hear, then that tells me you are more interested in being right than doing what’s right.
As you are PIC, that is your right and prerogative.

“Go Around” is a call that isn’t issued with great regularity on an individual basis, but when it is, it is said for a reason. The merit of its utterance shouldn’t be your first priority, plenty of time to sort that out after you have safely initiated the manoeuvre. None of that diminishes your command authority..... if anything it would enhance it.

Just my opinion.

[umop apisdn]

An arrogant and childish assertion. Similar to a recent difference of opinion that arose re use of autobrake for landing on a long into-wind dry runway. Company SOP left it to the captain re autobrake use. Basically if autobrake not needed operationally to meet runway length and conditions there was no requirement to use it.
Captain was PF and during approach briefing elected not to use autobrake. The F/O disagreed saying all the captains he flew with use autobrake for ALL landings regardless if operationally necessary or otherwise..
Captain thanked him for his advice and continued with briefing. F/O got twitchy. On short final F/O calls "Go Around" but gave no explanation for late call. The approach seemed normal so the captain queries the call. F/O states " The autobrake is off."
The landing which was stable is continued with F/O later de-briefed. Common sense prevailed

Ok, I probably wouldn't be happy with an FO calling go around on a previously briefed point, but the captain is in the wrong here. "GO AROUND" is not a question. Its hopefully not written in any SOP anywhere that it is the captain's discretion to ignore it.

The FO could have been totally happy with the brakes, but got view of a drone on the approach path. Where would you rather be? Rejoining the pattern and landing safely, or deliberately ignoring a call to go around, and suffering the consequences of such a decision?

Its arrogant and childish to expect of a captain that a go around will be flown when it is called for? The reason should not be a question in that moment.

So you are on final Captain can clearly see the REIL, PAPI, newish FO can't find the runway in the window, wants to Go Around, the general on concenus on PPRuNe is that we GoAround and probably divert. Cancelled flight, frustrated passengers, Ops are scratching their head because everybody else got in. Is that really where we are at in this day and age?? Captain diverts even though he can see the runway?


Where did you pick up your CRM training? That isn't the general consensus on PPRUNE, that is the general consensus in most of the developed world. If you truly think continuing is okay when your FO isn't seeing what you're seeing, then maybe this thread will prompt you to have a good think about the way you operate, because the way your are coming off is downright dangerous.

[neville_nobody]

FO can clearly see the runway but captain cannot and wants to go around. Do you continue to land or do you go around?



Captain's call at the time. Maybe he/she does go around or maybe they don't. That is my whole point that is getting lost. It is the captains decision. Some calls are not as black and white as some people here wish to believe.

[wishiwasupthere]

You don’t give your FOs much credit. I hope you’re not one of the captains I fly with!

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

So you are on final Captain can clearly see the REIL, PAPI, newish FO can't find the runway in the window, wants to Go Around, the general on concenus on PPrune is that we GoAround and probably divert. Cancelled flight, frustrated passengers, Ops are scratching their head because everybody else got in. Is that really where we are at in this day and age?? Captain diverts even though he can see the runway?

I’m not sure it’s even a realistic scenario. If the vis is that marginal, you’d expect the Captain to be PF and head free, and the FO to be PM and head down (at least where I work).
And if everything was so clear to the Captain but they’ve gone around, why would they then ‘probably divert’?

[das Uber Soldat]

hat is my whole point that is getting lost. It is the captains decision.
Your 'point' isn't being lost. Its clear as crystal. The issue is that your point is absurd, not coincident with airline procedures anywhere in the developed world and objectively dangerous.

Why you are wrong has been explained to you over and over, with examples provided by a chorus of people here yet you have acknowledged none of it, insisting instead upon your assertion despite it being backed up by no SOP known to anyone in this country, or common sense.

I don't know whats more worrying; that you maintain this belief or that you've demonstrated a personality so incredibly resistant to acknowledging and accepting when you are wrong that you cannot be told. Neither are qualities I want anywhere near me on a flight deck, let alone in command of a few hundred people.

[galdian]

If i'v missed it in the postings apologies - but have we defined the heights and circumstances attached to a "Go Around" call??
If you're doing an approach in bad weather then the potential for a missed approach/go around has been briefed, it's posible a go around could be called BEFORE the minima if hand flying or raw data and out of tolerance.

Thing that gets me is:
- "go around" + no reason = confusion
-"go around" + reason (probably reason then "go around") = understanding

(73NG) if we're at 700' in visual conditions and F/O notices a gear unsafe condition ie a main gear green light is blank and his first reaction is "go around" my first quetion will be "what do the overhead gear lights show", if he say "all green" should I go around because of his forgetfullness of the landing gear indication system??

Due experience and flying in the "real asmosphere" I understand catching a trend rather than an actual speed in gusty conditions, slow to pull off thrust with speed increase but fast to add power with speed decrease, substandard training in SIMs and crappy conforming instructors make too many think the airspeed will NEVER change regardless of the actual wind conditions.
If I'm within nav tolerances on finals but the wind is causing speed fluctuations - which are being corrected - but out of stable approach criteria AT TIMES and the F/O calls out "go around" should I go around??

Appears consensus is that at any time/height someone says "go around" without explanation you don't question, you just do - and as above that's rubbish.
The criteria need to be refined/re-defined, authority of the PIC to use his experience and commonsense (when applicable) needs to be incorperated and I'd suggest companies/ops manuals state clearly that IF a Captain ignores calls and the aircraft is clearly in a potentially dangerous position the copilot will be thrown in gaol if he DOESN'T take over to ensure the safety of the aircraft, assuming he survives any subsequent accident.

[Oriana]

Why are pilots so afraid of a Go Around?

The time you save, could be an eternity.

PS Neville, no offense, but you are way out of step with general good CRM. FO calls Go Around - how do you absolutely know you didn't see something they did. Beware of hubris.

[das Uber Soldat]

If i'v missed it in the postings apologies - but have we defined the heights and circumstances attached to a "Go Around" call??
If you're doing an approach in bad weather then the potential for a missed approach/go around has been briefed, it's posible a go around could be called BEFORE the minima if hand flying or raw data and out of tolerance.

Thing that gets me is:
- "go around" + no reason = confusion
-"go around" + reason (probably reason then "go around") = understanding

What on earth are you on about. How can there be any confusion about "Go around". Its as simple as it gets. Go around. Now you want to introduce a discussion into this time critical flight phase? Thats going to 'clear up the confusion' ?

](73NG) if we're at 700' in visual conditions and F/O notices a gear unsafe condition ie a main gear green light is blank and his first reaction is "go around" my first quetion will be "what do the overhead gear lights show", if he say "all green" should I go around because of his forgetfullness of the landing gear indication system??
So, we're at 700 ft when suddenly we're going to start systems troubleshooting and having a discussion. Under that time pressure, what happens when in a rush and confused as to why you want to have a debate, he/she misreads the overhead gear indication and you end up landing gear unsafe? What do you say to the coroner when asked why you didn't comply with the FO's Go Around call?

Due experience and flying in the "real asmosphere" I understand catching a trend rather than an actual speed in gusty conditions, slow to pull off thrust with speed increase but fast to add power with speed decrease, substandard training in SIMs and crappy conforming instructors make too many think the airspeed will NEVER change regardless of the actual wind conditions.
If I'm within nav tolerances on finals but the wind is causing speed fluctuations - which are being corrected - but out of stable approach criteria AT TIMES and the F/O calls out "go around" should I go around??
Depends on what your ops manual says. Are temporary excursions permitted? If so, this should have been briefed as part of the arrival. "Due to the significant turbulence on final, call me on sustained deviations only. Do you have any questions or complaints about this?"

Appears consensus is that at any time/height someone says "go around" without explanation you don't question, you just do - and as above that's rubbish.
So much rubbish that its literally SOP at every airline in the developed world.

The criteria need to be refined/re-defined, authority of the PIC to use his experience and commonsense (when applicable) needs to be incorperated and I'd suggest companies/ops manuals state clearly that IF a Captain ignores calls and the aircraft is clearly in a potentially dangerous position the copilot will be thrown in gaol if he DOESN'T take over to ensure the safety of the aircraft, assuming he survives any subsequent accident.
So hold on, above youre making a case for the Captain to be able to ignore FO calls of a GA if he/she thinks the call spurious. Now you state however that the FO should be put in jail if they don't take over to prevent an unsafe situation. The entire reason why the FO called GA was for precisely that situation! This literally makes no sense.

I honestly don't understand how people are getting this so wrong. How many hulls needs to be smashed into the ground before some people recognize that it takes 2 people to operate these aircraft, and both of them must be happy and satisfied to continue with a landing. What is the cost of a go around, vs pushing on in an unsafe condition. Because I assure you, in every single case where a Captain has flown the thing into the ground despite the FO's please, at that time, the Captain thought he knew better, just like above.
So when an FO calls go around, your first response is to ask why? Do you think this is a good time to have a discussion? How much time do you allocate for this discussion?

[galdian]

I think you've misread and misunderstood my intent, I just don't think that a go around call AT ANY TIME needs to be blindly followed, that there are a bunch of factors that MAY come into play due different situations/circumstances.

One thing I WILL reiterate, in many cultures there will be a reluctance for F/O's to physically take over even if stated in manuals so why not ram it down their throat that they'll be going to jail if they DON'T physically take over or something similar??
The example I was getting at was if the captains hot and high ie the aircraft is ALREADY in a dangerous scenario and will CONTINUE to be hot and high in many cultures the F/O's will still not physically take over.
Maybe addressing that aspect a worthy consideration as well, any number of accidents THAT would have prevented.

I just don't think you can continue to keep dumbing down things in aviation and trying to make a "one size fits all" scenario, we deal in a dynamic and ever changing environment and less pilots coming through these days are encouraged to realise or understand this.
Just IMHO of course.

[das Uber Soldat]

Which bit did I misread? I replied in detail specifically to every point you made. What part was wrong?

[Mach E Avelli]

Blind or rigid adherance to standard calls, and nothing but, can have a downside.
If I want my co-pilot to go around - and time permits - I will give a reason. e.g. 'Unstable - Go Around" or "Not visual - Go Around" or perhaps something does not seem right like "that aircraft ahead is not going to clear the runway - go around". In such cases I would expect the go around to be executed, and if not, would take control.
In Judd's example - assuming that the F/O had been properly briefed that the Captain did not intend to use autobrake - any objection should have been raised by the F/O immediately, not evinced in a "go around" call on final approach. Had the call been amplified with "we don't have autobrake...go around" it is understandable that some Captains would continue. I probably would continue on the basis that the F/O had paid no attention to the briefing, but would at least acknowledge with "autobrake not required".
Perhaps if said F/O was smart (or simply playing smart ass), maybe he could have said "checklist is not complete...go around". Depending on whether autobrake was optional or mandatory would determine the tone of the subsequent debrief. If it was mandatory I would thank him for saving me embarrassment. If it was optional he would be told firmly to listen up next time.
But should any Captain ignore a bald "go around" call? ...nope, time enough later for the other pilot to give his/her reasons. As others have said, anything is preferable to a smoking hole in the ground.
There are fairly rare occasions when time does not permit amplification - like almost in the flare and drifting too far off the centreline, or loss of visibility below minima (as in the OP here) - when the command must be issued clearly in two words and immediately executed, regardless of who makes the call and who is flying..

[galdian]

Well - if someone tells me to do something without telling me why maybe confusing's the wrong word - but certainly doesn't provide enough info to improve my big picture, situational awareness and understanding.

If you're at a safe height why NOT ask a question or two to understand WHY the call's been made? You can still do the go around, you're not saying "no'.
You're saying all go around calls are always time critical, I disagree.

Fair point about briefing what's obvious to me re gusty aproaches but maybe not obvious to others.

You have chosen to ignore the point I make about the reluctance for F/O's to physically take over even after I clarified the aircraft was ALREADY in a dangerous scenario, sort out that little part of the puzzle and you WILL stop aircraft accidents.

Finally at what stage did I ever say I wouldn't do the go around?

It may be "the law" in most if not all manuals, doesn't mean that the paramaters and criteria couldn't be better defined and I just can't see how the mantra of making one call completely eliminates ANY input from experience and judgement and (the lost arts of) big picture and situational awarness.

Cheers.

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

Well - if someone tells me to do something without telling me why maybe confusing's the wrong word - but certainly doesn't provide enough info to improve my big picture, situational awareness and understanding.

If you're at a safe height why NOT ask a question or two to understand WHY the call's been made?


IMHO any discussion should’ve already happened. E.g. ‘I don’t think we’ll be stable by 500’ or ‘Looks like a tractor’s about to cross the runway’ or whatever. Once someone says ‘Go Round’ (and I don’t care if it’s a junior SO) then discussion ends and we just get on with it. We can talk about the reasons later if we need to.

[Chesty Morgan]

So you've gone around. Now you've got less than minimum diversion fuel and the FO does the same thing again....?

[galdian]

OK maybe part of the crux of the matter, talking two different scenarios.

Your at a safe height in clear conditions, the PM in an excited state puts the cart before the horse and simply states "go around".

No prior qualifying statement, no prior talking, simply "go around".

It would appear most subscribe to the thought that you will blindly just do it without understanding why.
That doesn't seem sensible.

Seems to be the proposition from DuS: any height, any time, any conditions if the phrase "go around" is uttered whether in anger or error then you just leap into action and do it.

Sheep and communists are applauding the initiative!

[Slippery_Pete]

So you've gone around. Now you've got less than minimum diversion fuel and the FO does the same thing again....?

So what you’re saying is you’ve done one go around, you’re on min fuel and have to land, but you haven’t briefed your FO of exactly that before starting the approach?

It amazes me how many people continue to argue this. It’s not the 1950s. I’m amazed that in 2019 CRM dinosaurs continue to exist. I guess if nothing else it reinforces why we have to do the annual CRM course in the first place.

[Chesty Morgan]

On the contrary he will have been briefed but, like the autobrake example above, he decides he doesn't like what he sees yet again.

What are you going to do this time?

[Poto]

I wonder How many of these 4 Star Egos would ask ATC why they have been told to go around if no reason was given? Would they ask for experience level on Tower duties? Ask to speak to a more senior controller before executing the manoeuvre? Same goes for the senior check called out to operate in the right hand seat because all the fo’s keep going sick on “The Legend Cpt”. Gonna question his/her Go around Call. Thankfully whenever this type of D!ck measuring has gone on with my Mob. Cpt Ego is given some Re-Neducation 👍

[73qanda]

Yeah this thread is mildly disturbing.
If you go around it’s not a black mark on your record.
if you go around the money it costs doesn’t even register in the scheme of things.
If you go around the schedule disruption is not even a blip on the airlines radar.
If you go around it doesn’t make you less of a fantastic pilot.
It may however prevent you from making the biggest mistake of your life.
Any one of us posting here can misinterpret a situation, any one of us here can have a moment of subtle/partial incapacitation ( and be unaware of it).
There are lots of questionable trends in modern aviation training but the ability of any flight deck member being able to call a go around is not one of them.
The people here who are not aligned with the majority should probably have a quiet think about what is driving them, is it a desire for increased flight safety? Or is it ego?

[das Uber Soldat]

This thread is doing my head in.

Seems to be the proposition from DuS: any height, any time, any conditions if the phrase "go around" is uttered whether in anger or error then you just leap into action and do it.

Sheep and communists are applauding the initiative!
It's not a proposition from me. Its a OM requirement for effectively every airline in the developed world.

I'll ignore the needless jibe and ask you this, what is the line then? At what point do we have a discussion after the command is given, and at what point do we just emulate your precious soviet sheep and comply? If your answer is 'Captains discretion", I put it to you that every Captain who drove an aircraft into the ground despite his FO's pleas believed that his discretion was more accurate than whatever the FO saw on the day.

[Australopithecus]

[QUOTE=das Uber Soldat;10518997]This thread is doing my head in.

If your answer is 'Captains discretion", I put it to you that every Captain who drove an aircraft into the ground despite his FO's pleas believed that his discretion was more accurate than whatever the FO saw on the day.[/QUOTE

Yeah, me too-and I’ve got a pretty big head.

The crux of the matter is that perceptions are very fallible. Even a shiny gold PIC stripe doesn’t improve your reliability on that score. All of life’s problems in fact begin with a faulty or incomplete model and deteriorate from there.

I have had the good fortune to operate in a crew environment with pilots both plain and fancy for a long time. Every time I go to work I’m confident that we all have the same goal and same serious focus on performing to a high standard. I rely on my other crew members as they do on me. If one of us is unhappy then it gets fixed in a timely fashion. Close to the ground then it’s TOGA first, questions later. It says so right here in my 1984 copy of “So you've got a fourth stripe!”

It

[galdian]

I just don't think an automatic kneejerk reaction is required at 1500' in visual conditions whereas no disagreement at - maybe to pick a figure - 500' or below.
Apparently the majority think otherwise; just don't get it.

What should the criteria be? Well as professionals I'd like to think we could discuss and improve the understanding and paramaters, maybe not.

And you pointedly ignore my question about how to REQUIRE F/O's to take over when the aircraft is out of the slot, calls have been ignored and it appears the Captains intention to try and land hot and/or high.
Sort out THAT and the accidents like Yoyogi (?) and AIExpress10 years ago in Mangalore will be banished and hundreds of lives saved. Apparently not worth addressing.

But hey - 1500' in clear conditions the 2IC says "go around" and off you go, you don't think that can be improved?
And nice touch - you ask a question, pre-empt any answer...then criticise ME for YOUR answer to YOUR question.
Auditioning for a spot on Q&A (ABC TV allegedly balanced discussion program for non Aussies) per chance?

Cheers.

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

And you pointedly ignore my question about how to REQUIRE F/O's to take over when the aircraft is out of the slot, calls have been ignored and it appears the Captains intention to try and land hot and/or high.
Sort out THAT and the accidents like Yoyogi (?) and AIExpress10 years ago in Mangalore will be banished and hundreds of lives saved. Apparently not worth addressing.



If you’ve got a culture where a captain thinks it’s ok to ignore calls for a go-round and instead land long on a 2200m runway at 220 kts, then requiring FOs to take over on pain of imprisonment (as you propose) is kind of missing the point and failing to deal with the root cause of the problem, don’t you think?

I’m also wondering, are the FOs a couple of you blokes seem to be flying with really that badly trained and/or bereft of ability? Is it a serious concern that they’ll be telling you to go round at 1500’ in VMC for no valid reason whatsoever?

[Global Aviator]

The thread is certainly evolving...

If your sitting in an airline where you have generally an experienced cockpit crew (ie QF) it could be different to where you have an experienced Capt or in fact a new Capt and experienced FO. It is never black and white (or PC neutral). As has been mentioned above stable criteria really? GA immediately? Hmm don’t think so, below stable criteria different for sure, however every factor needs to come into play. At or below the minima different again, I’d rather be in the GA realising it was not the right call than being called to tea and bikkies or worse popping the emergency slides or worse! IT IS OK TO GA!

Its a right bowl of worms. I mentioned earlier in a diff moon phase I had the unenviable task of calling a GA, this was after following company procedures (as we had height on our side), Capt insisted on pushing on, it was not pretty but it was ‘stable’. It got to the point where I had decided if he doesn’t GA this time I have no choice but to take over (no FO wants to take over), Capt at the last affirmative CAPT U MUST GA, went around, although not positively and even for a spilt second started to bring back from TOGA (again on the cusp of take over). GA completed and all of a sudden (not really all of a sudden) at bingo fuel... have to land. Capt asked for suggestions (was fairly new to type, whereas I had a few thou in the bank), my suggestion was this time let’s fly it to manufactures advice and not what your used to flying. Second approach not pretty but stable in all the boxes. Landed....... the rest...

My point is it is not black and white to a degree. Then throw in diff cultures which shouldn’t make a diff but do. It’s even harder for FO’s in places, as reference to the YOG crash.

No one sets out to crash (unless suicide), when it’s going pear shaped it not only takes a good FO to speak up but it takes a CAPT to realise and take action, otherwise...

Most airlines are now just culture, a GA is actually a positive not a negative and has been for years.

Hmmmm was I rambling? Probably, the Johnny is good!

[galdian]

The point is that culturally just because it's in the book that they SHOULD take over many will be incredibly reluctant TO take over.
If you have flown in Asia you will understand the age/cultural gradient can be very real, if you haven't you won't quite get it or want to believe that it exists to the extent it does.
It does, so how to fix it?? I was simply using extreme punitive measures to make the point that having it written in the ops man is NOT fixing the problem of F/O's having the guts to take over and "save" the aircraft. And planes crash, people die.
But it's written in the book...that's OK then.

And the devils advocate to a degree regards an unexpected "go around" call at 1500' in clear conditions, are you going to kneejerk?? YES or NO please.

Cheers

[Awol57]

So what do you do when ATC tells you to go around at 1500' in VMC for not immediately ascertainable reason?

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

And the devils advocate to a degree regards an unexpected "go around" call at 1500' in clear conditions, are you going to kneejerk?? YES or NO please.

Cheers

Ok then.

I won’t ‘kneejerk’ (nice try with the loaded language), but yes, I will go around. Because in around 35 years of aviation, I’ve never once encountered a go-round call without a very good reason. Because I have reason to trust the ability and judgement of my fellow crew members. And because even though we’re in clear conditions at 1500’, maybe there’s a flock of geese or another aircraft or something else that I haven’t seen and they have. So I’ll happily go round and we’ll talk about why later on.

That do you?

[blind pew]

Had that once on my annual route check because the italian dc8 crew didn't adhere to speed request..probably didn't understand as new atc trial...BUT at max landing weight, and hot with a young inexperienced SO following the fookish criteria of yanking the stick back at the same time as opening the taps..slow acceleration and back side of the drag curve...had us dangling close to the shaker..so dropped the nose before retracting the under carriage..horn problems with land flap. Live and learn.
Story about a chief with the then new fingy of girls in the cockpit who called for a go around a few times due to hard warnings...tape taken home.
some times I can't believe that I survived...

[SoFarFromHome]

In the airline I used to work for a new FO wanted a skipper to GA because there were multiple helicopters approaching from either side of the main. This was completely normal at this airport but the FO had never seen it and thought there was going to be a collision ( aircraft at about 5 miles )

Skipper explained calmly that if we go around every time a helicopter approached the crossing runway, they would never land. It’s a good example of a new experience being managed, they didn’t go around, they had time to talk.

landing once as a new FO at minimums I couldn’t see anything ( quite maxed out with it all as PM ) I was shocked to hear the captain say continue, he had the lights but they were about 30 degrees off to his side, I literally couldn’t see them as I was looking in the wrong place. Most low vis training in cat 2 stuff it’s calm and fog, this was 40kt fog and the runway wasn’t where I thought it should be!

I was about to say go around but I trusted him, smashing guy, and we got in safely and legally, but no one else did for about 2 hours we just got lucky.

Its all part of what makes you who you are when you get your command which is why I’m so surprised to hear these outdated and dangerous views!

Sometimes there is time for a chat, and others there isn’t.

[galdian]

Why would it be so hard for the patter to be "flock of geese, go around" or "aircraft below aproaching, go around"??

If the intent of CRM is that BOTH crew members are aware of situations so understand and work co-operatively - why would you abandon that and kneejerk a reaction at 1500' on the perception of one crew member only without some explanation??
Do you believe in CRM - or not??

Seems a tad contradictory.

Please remember I am only highlighting a situation where most appear to say they'll react to the call at ANY altitude, I suspect ops man's probably state "on final approach" or similar which can be anywhere below 6,000' on some ILS's, in some countries, the question of whether you're in IMC or using the ILS as tracking in visual conditions probably irrelevant to the wording in the ops manual regards a "go around" call.

Don't see a problem with the "kneejerk" comment as accurately describes how you have stated you'll react in ALL circumstances.
I just think kneejerking is counter productive when you have enough time/altitude to ask "why?" if no explanation was provided, just a "go around" statement.
Believe the paramaters and criteria could be far better defined than at present which seems to upset some.

Cheers.

[das Uber Soldat]

I just don't think an automatic kneejerk reaction is required at 1500' in visual conditions whereas no disagreement at - maybe to pick a figure - 500' or below.
Apparently the majority think otherwise; just don't get it.
That you don't understand isn't an argument. I get the feeling the whole point of you trying to create a discussion at some arbitrary threshold that you've set is to create an opportunity for a Cpt to refuse a Go Around command.

FO - "Go around"
CPT - "Why?"
FO - "Reason X"
CPT - "I disagree, we're continuing"

What happens if the FO still isn't happy? Do they say Go Around again? Do we have another discussion? Practically speaking no FO is going to call Go Around (without an earlier support call) unless they believe (rightly or wrongly) a clear and present safety danger exists. Now they're bound by their OM to escalate their concern, if necessary to the point of taking over.

So now, we've gone from an extremely simple decision and defensive procedure, into having a debate at 500ft, a further disagreement then escalation of the RAISE model to the point that the FO has to take control over the Captain, with all the problems related. Immediately reportable matter, crew stood down, tea and biscuits for all involved.

And this is an improvement?

What should the criteria be? Well as professionals I'd like to think we could discuss and improve the understanding and paramaters, maybe not.
The risk vs reward doesn't add up. Hence SOP at every airline in the developed world. SOPs written in blood, many times over.

And you pointedly ignore my question about how to REQUIRE F/O's to take over when the aircraft is out of the slot, calls have been ignored and it appears the Captains intention to try and land hot and/or high.
Sort out THAT and the accidents like Yoyogi (?) and AIExpress10 years ago in Mangalore will be banished and hundreds of lives saved. Apparently not worth addressing.
I ignored your question because it doesn't make any sense. What are you even asking? How do we require FO's to take over with the aircraft is in a dangerous state? We already do, at least thats my understanding of procedures for airlines all over the world. If you have a specific point, state it clearly.

But hey - 1500' in clear conditions the 2IC says "go around" and off you go, you don't think that can be improved?
Improved how? If the FO had a good reason, whats to improve? If they didn't, then it will be addressed in training and improvements made there. You on the other hand, want to introduce complexity, discussion and time pressure into what is otherwise a very simple and straight forward procedure. No thanks.

And nice touch - you ask a question, pre-empt any answer...then criticise ME for YOUR answer to YOUR question.
Auditioning for a spot on Q&A (ABC TV allegedly balanced discussion program for non Aussies) per chance?
I did no such thing, save your melodrama for someone else. I wrote "if your answer is", and addressed that. If your answer is not as I put forward, then my comment has no relevance to you and you're welcome to go be offended elsewhere.

It simply boggles the mind these 1950's CRM ideas (or lack thereof) still persist.

[Chesty Morgan]

That you don't understand isn't an argument. I get the feeling the whole point of you trying to create a discussion at some arbitrary threshold that you've set is to create an opportunity for a Cpt to refuse a Go Around command.

FO - "Go around"
CPT - "Why?"
FO - "Reason X"
CPT - "I disagree, we're continuing"

What happens if the FO still isn't happy?
We are not in the business of making FOs happy. We are in the business of operating airliners safely and efficiently.

Perhaps HE can bring it up on the ground afterwards. Swings both ways you know.

[Poto]

We are not in the business of making FOs happy. We are in the business of operating airliners safely and efficiently.

Perhaps HE can bring it up on the ground afterwards. Swings both ways you know.
If “Bringing it up On the Grounds Afterward” is no longer an option, Perhaps at the Court of inquiry, or after he gets out of hospital, perhaps his wife can ask you after the funeral? Reason required? Yes! At the time, 220’ sorry no time, at 1500’? Maybe? A Myriad of possibilities hence why you won’t find a Policy in any manual. The expectation is you go around and sort it out above the MSA. Running out of fuel Now? Really? after 1 missed approach? You have options, they may require telling someone you are low on gas but no one turns up normal ops with 1 go and then has to put it on a Highway “Get your hand off it Darryl”

[Chesty Morgan]

How very dramatic.

[das Uber Soldat]

We are not in the business of making FOs happy. We are in the business of operating airliners safely and efficiently.

Perhaps HE can bring it up on the ground afterwards. Swings both ways you know.
Operating airliners safely and efficiently requires both pilots to be happy with the current aircraft state.

[galdian]

There we go again - where have I ever said that I wouldn't do the go around, now apparently (according to you) I'm all about finding ways to refuse to do a go around.
That's really, really dishonest.

How about we'll just leave it that I reckon understanding why the call's made - if time permits - is not a bad thing for a number of reasons, you're happy to kneejerk.

And you still don't understand that a bigger concern is although written in ops mans culturally many F/O's will refuse to physically take over even when clear aircraft is in a state of peril - and people are dying because of this.
If you don't believe this exists you've been fortunate to operate in a very rarified environment which is not true reflection of issues encountered elsewhere in the world.

Enough.
Cheers.

[dr dre]

It simply boggles the mind these 1950's CRM ideas (or lack thereof) still persist.

They definitely exist in a small minority. Not just “old dinosaurs”, but a lot who were trained only recently.

It comes down to either poor screening of bad personality types prior to recruiting or a lack of “attitude adjustment” prior to making it to PIC of a multi crew aircraft.

It would be helped if these problem Captains weren’t just the subject of bar-room talk. If management are going to act on a poor personality type it isn’t going to be because they heard some FO’s complaining about a problem skipper at the bar, they need to be informed formally and precisely of what these guys are like in the flight deck.

There was an incident years back with a so called “problem skipper” who was well known to be an abusive idiot whom everyone who came into contact with him hated him, and was the subject of much discussion between other pilots. Eventually after having problems crewing flights because FO’s were calling in sick on him his managers sacked him. But he sued the company for wrongful dismissal and was given a huge payout. Why? It seems that even there there were many stories circulating about this guy in bars and flight decks about his stupid behaviour there had been almost no formal reports submitted against him, so according to his lawyers this guy was pretty much a model employee.

[novice110]

Fascinating insight here into the flight deck.....

What if approaching on minimum gas, the FO calls for a go around (whatever reason - not 'happy') and you safely land below minimum reserve ?
Who answers to the regulator for breaking the rules, PIC or or other flight deck crew ?

What if after that go around, the aircraft flames out on subsequent circuit ?
Who would be found responsible, PIC or other flight deck crew ?

[das Uber Soldat]

There we go again - where have I ever said that I wouldn't do the go around, now apparently (according to you) I'm all about finding ways to refuse to do a go around.
That's really, really dishonest.
Everywhere in this thread? You have stated over and over, replete with ridiculous loaded language ("kneejerk reaction!") that you wouldn't necessarily do a go around, going as far as to create perfect little tailored situations to try to support your decision making model.

Appears consensus is that at any time/height someone says "go around" without explanation you don't question, you just do - and as above that's rubbish.
I just don't think that a go around call AT ANY TIME needs to be blindly followed
No prior qualifying statement, no prior talking, simply "go around".

It would appear most subscribe to the thought that you will blindly just do it without understanding why.
That doesn't seem sensible.
Seems to be the proposition from DuS: any height, any time, any conditions if the phrase "go around" is uttered whether in anger or error then you just leap into action and do it.

Sheep and communists are applauding the initiative!
I just don't think an automatic kneejerk reaction is required at 1500' in visual conditions

Do you need more? All you've done since the beginning of the thread is try to quantify ways to justify not doing a go around. "What if this, what if that".

To what end do you want to have these discussions with the FO? If in any of your examples, 'from a safe height', you disagreed with the FOs call of GA, what then? Your options are to either do the go around anyway, which then has me asking you, what is even the point of having a discussion in the first place.. Or continue the approach, in which case you have refused a go around.

Its pretty simple mate, there are only 2 options. Lets have an answer.

How about we'll just leave it that I reckon understanding why the call's made - if time permits - is not a bad thing for a number of reasons, you're happy to kneejerk.
Yes, again with the loaded language. I, and every airline in the developed world will continue to 'knee jerk'.

And you still don't understand that a bigger concern is although written in ops mans culturally many F/O's ill refuse to physically take over even when clear aircraft is in a state of peril - and people are dying because of this.
If you don't believe this exists you've been fortunate to operate in a very rarified environment which is not true reflection of issues encountered elsewhere in the world.
I asked you last post to explain what in gods name you're on about with this trope. The issue of FO reluctance to take over has absolutely no relevance to the discussion at hand, which is the merits of the current standard practice of both pilots needing to be happy to continue a landing. If you want to create a thread about cultural factors affecting FO performance then knock your socks off, but it has no relevance here.

I'll tell you one thing that certainly WONT be motivating weak FO's to speak up, and thats a policy that allows Captains to refuse a Go Around command because they think they knew better.

Tell you what, ill create a list of fatal aircraft accidents where the FO expressed his/her unhappiness and/or called for a GA and the Cpt ignored them. You produce a list of fatal accidents where the FO called for a Go Around that wasn't strictly required.

We'll meet back here and compare the body count shall we?

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

That's really, really dishonest.

No more dishonest than your repeated use of the word ‘kneejerk’. A kneejerk is something done automatically without thinking or reasons. I’ve thought about why I’d go around without discussion, and explained the reasons in a previous post. So have others. Hardly a kneejerk.

[das Uber Soldat]

Fascinating insight here into the flight deck.....

What if approaching on minimum gas, the FO calls for a go around (whatever reason - not 'happy') and you safely land below minimum reserve ?
Who answers to the regulator for breaking the rules, PIC or or other flight deck crew ?
That's what reserves are for. I imagine the regulator is happier with you landing safely below the reserve fuel quantity than running into an aircraft crossing your runway? Landing with a gear unsafe indication? Landing unstable?

What if after that go around, the aircraft flames out on subsequent circuit ?
Who would be found responsible, PIC or other flight deck crew ?
More of this extreme scenario creation to try to justify an exception.

I'll respond by asking, if you're so low on fuel that you'll flame out in the circuit, you're already in an emergency situation. Who in their right mind would not brief as part of the approach that a Go Around isn't an option? In that scenario, we are landing, end of story.

[novice110]

The regulator is rarely, if ever 'happy' with things.

You didn't answer my question though, in these two scenarios who answers to the regulator / investigator PIC or anyone else ?

[galdian]

novice110 a fair question but I don't think anyone on these forums would disagree that if it a tight spot then the experience and authority of the PIC would kick in and after stating:

- these are the options I see
- this appears the best option to me
- have I missed anything, any better ideas

the operation would be continued on that common understanding.
Exactly how/terminology used may vary with individuals but something along those lines to achieve the common understanding of the "big picture'.

Some people forget that CRM was never intended to usurp the authority of the PIC but to encourage decisions based on all valid and available data, there always has to be some latent gradient on the flightdeck but in modern ops the times that gradient has to become overt are fortunately few and far between.

Cheers

[novice110]

Thanks galdian, one would hope that the PIC authority would kick in - why it would need to kick in is another matter.

The premise that the PIC must go around because another crew member says so, can be dangerous.
Equally, if the PIC doesn't go around because another crew member says so can be dangerous.

This is why the regulations have one PIC and that person alone is ultimately responsible.

[Poto]

Thanks galdian, one would hope that the PIC authority would kick in - why it would need to kick in is another matter.

The premise that the PIC must go around because another crew member says so, can be dangerous.
Equally, if the PIC doesn't go around because another crew member says so can be dangerous.

This is why the regulations have one PIC and that person alone is ultimately responsible.
Don’t worry you get your ‘One Man PIC decision maker show us How wonderful you are’ between TOGA & V1. Off a normal Approach, from a standard brief and turning up with ‘Normal’ Fuel. You do not have any good reason to ignore another crew member or ATC or the aeroplane telling you to go around. Time for reflection for that call and why It Has happened is above MSA. CAVOK OR LVO. I have taken over from 2 Capt in the last 20years Both would have killed us all. Albiet never during approach or go around. I have also never had anyone, ever, NOT go around when I said it, ATC said it or if the Aeroplane Said it. I have also never been questioned below MSA Why I said it.
Same has gone for when I have had to execute a go around as FO Or Cpt

[das Uber Soldat]

The premise that the PIC must go around because another crew member says so, can be dangerous.
I reject this. As I said to the other guy, show me a list of fatal accidents where the FO has commanded a go around that wasn't required. Ill create a list of the reverse. Let's compare outcomes.

Equally, if the PIC doesn't go around because another crew member says so can be dangerous.

This is why the regulations have one PIC and that person alone is ultimately responsible.
They certainly are responsible. And part of that responsibility is acknowledging the fact that both crew members must be happy to continue an approach. This is why that requirement is built into every OM in the country.

[Gnadenburg]

Late in discussion.

A physical take-over by an FO can be a problem coupled with a "startled" captain. An FO can simply inform the tower he/she is going around. This cancels the landing clearance I believe? Though your problems may have just started if a high energy GA in an Airbus with a disorientated crew member!

It's been mentioned above. Flying with Cadets/ MPL's is difficult as they haven't seen anything significantly untoward. They are also untrained for financial savings in some airlines . Flying visual approaches in a wide body and narrow body aircraft in Asia, I was experiencing distressed input from low hour co-pilots. For example, drifting down into the circuit at say 5000' , yet flying a constant path descent onto finals to avoid TS on the LS approach path. Very safe, verbalising the three times tables and track miles eased the tension and I did write a number of de-identified reports. The problem being NO visual flying training. This is one of many examples that has me wondering how I'm going to manage grossly under-trained and inexperienced co-pilots during typhoons or other significant WX events.

[galdian]

Well there is a third option, if time permits:
- ask "why"
- he says "because"
- if there is something obvious he's missed/misunderstood you point it out
- he says "yeah, sorry I f**ked up on that"
- approach continued with common understanding and agreement.

Yeah real dangerous that is.

As for your list where you allege I'm saying I wouldn't do the go around - I am discussing the basis of the concept and NEVER at any stage have I said I wouldn't go around.
I just think - time permitting - knowing why is not such a bad thing, you disagree. Fair enough.

You may not like it but what you're describing is pretty much the definition of kneejerk - not my fault, blame the english language.
Always liked the quote: "rules are made for the obedience of fools...and the guidance of wise men".
It's in the book, fill your boots- I just think with some thought and discussion it can be defined and done better for the benefit of the overall operation, seems that's where we choose to differ.

Cheers.

[FlightDetent]

das Uber Soldat Man, the way you slice his sentences apart to fit your arguments doesn't look neat from outside, you're not listening.

The other side says the PIC has the legal authority to disregard an F/O's call. The counter-balance to it is, obviously, that the F/O will be protected in case he needs to force-overrule (any) decision made by the captain.

I do not see what's the problem here.

[novice110]

The FO is very important and their input needs to be heard. There are accident reports where the PIC didn't listen to the FO and they crashed. (look fwd to your list btw)
I agree this is why that statement exists in the OM.

I just disagree that any 'FO command' requires to be blindly followed in all cases all of the time. As stated in this thread, there are some very low experience levels in the RHS.
There are many first time experiences that these new FO's get to see these days, in a modern jet with hundreds of people down the back. This is where in some circumstances the safe outcome will be achieved by the PIC drawing on his/her previous experience.

And it is why the sole responsibility rests with the PIC.

[mrdeux]

All very interesting. Especially how any disagreement has you targeted as being a dinosaur.

FO can call "outside limits", and I'll go around. The limits cover just about everything anyway.

But, just because he isn't happy doesn't really cut it.

Whilst I would be extremely unlikely to even want to continue after a call from the FO, it does remain the Captain's choice. It isn't a democracy, after all.... (cue dinosaur commentary)

[galdian]

Gnads I agree a physical takeover by the F/O can be problematic BUT if hot and high and WILL land well down the runway, probably overrun and (probably) kill people what other option exists for the F/O if making calls has not succeeded??

Ask the dead from AIExpress in Mangalore some 10 years ago, sure they would have appreciated the F/O taking over but he didn't.
But it's written in the book...what more can we do??

Used to be when there was an endemic problem you'd try and fix or improve the problem, not so much these days.

Cheers

[Gnadenburg]

I'm just providing an alternative means of taking control of an aircraft from a startled/ disorientated crew member. You can not land without a landing clearance ! A startled crew member's IQ is back around primate level. So cornered, they'll do what they know. That's why crews land unstable when visual. They see the RWY and do what they know. When they disarm the spoilers, the reality sets in!

So, when a startled Captain loses his landing clearance he'll do what he knows and Go Around. Better than wrestling the controls in some circumstances. I've seen this scenario and it works. Problem is now the high energy GA and mode confusion/ spatial disorientation/ somatogravic and PFD speed tape confusion on Airbus aircraft. There's four Airbus GA crashes I'm referencing with the later.

[George Glass]

I flew with an F/O once who thought it was appropriate to call “sink rate” on approach at max. landing weight in severe turbulence with a quartering tailwind near limits. Never could work out whether he was simply being conscientious or was an idiot. A quiet discussion after landing sorted it out but the point was made by him that a briefing beforehand to explain what to expect would have helped. Point taken. It’s all about communication people.

[Chesty Morgan]

Operating airliners safely and efficiently requires both pilots to be happy with the current aircraft state.
No, it does not.

[das Uber Soldat]

Well there is a third option, if time permits:
- ask "why"
- he says "because"
- if there is something obvious he's missed/misunderstood you point it out
- he says "yeah, sorry I f**ked up on that"
- approach continued with common understanding and agreement.

Yeah real dangerous that is.

That's one scenario. But (this is like pulling teeth, but we're gonna get there) what if the FO continues to disagree with you? Then your 3rd option is for naught, and you're left with the 2 options I listed. So I ask you again, what is it? Do you go around or not if you believe the FO is wrong?

Now, I asked you for a list of fatal accidents resulting from an FO's unnecessary call to GA. Do you have it yet? Do you think its bigger or smaller than my list of accidents where a Cpt thought he knew better, that there was no risk and the FO's concerns and commands to go around were ignored?

[das Uber Soldat]

I just disagree that any 'FO command' requires to be blindly followed in all cases all of the time. Not 'any' command. Just one.

As stated in this thread, there are some very low experience levels in the RHS.
And as evidenced by a series of smoking holes in the ground, there are some very low competence levels in the LHS. If one of you loses the plot, its the job of the other to ensure a safe outcome. The Captain may be in command, but it doesn't give him/her the authority to discard critical safety actions by the other pilot. Thats why we keep it simple in every OM known to man. If both pilots aren't happy, GA, get above MSA, sort it out from safety and then have another go. Almost nothing is gained by pushing on because you think you know better. So much to lose.

[das Uber Soldat]

No, it does not.
Not sure many would agree with you there Van Zanten.

[Poto]

No, it does not.
The Mob I work for encourage ‘Flight Crew to conduct a missed approach whenever any doubt exists’. Captain responsibilities are mentioned in quite a few other passages of the “Missed Approach” text but not in that sentence. They are so adamant that a go-round is a better option than, discussing on approach, ignoring juniors concerns, tapping your shoulder and saying ‘Hey I am Bossman’ that they never wanna know why you went around. They most certainly will dig deep if it’s the other way round.

[FlightDetent]

das Uber Soldat Would you agree then, at least, that this habitual, life-saving best practice needs to be in place specifically because of that part of human nature that makes people act

- forcefully, up to a point of insulting to others,
- insist that the only acceptable way is their way
- in spite of numerous though subtle voices carefully sounding from all around the woodwork

?

[73qanda]

I flew with an F/O once who thought it was appropriate to call “sink rate” on approach at max. landing weight in severe turbulence with a quartering tailwind near limits.
You and I must have different definitions of ‘severe turbulence ‘.

[Chesty Morgan]

Not sure many would agree with you there Van Zanten.
Good one. Except you contradict yourself. When the FO calls go around and the captain isn't happy.....

[galdian]

Well you said there were only two options - incorrect.
Having asked, if he'd made an error and understood that then he SHOULD now be happy and approach continued.
If he could concisely tell me why he's made the unexpected call and I therefore understood the danger I'd go around.
If in doubt or confusion go around and deal with it later.

I just don't see why asking, if sitution and time pemits, is such a drama to some.
On this point we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Yeah there are smoking holes caused by improperly continuing, there are some caused by a stuffed up go around as well.

[das Uber Soldat]

das Uber Soldat Would you agree then, at least, that this habitual, life-saving best practice needs to be in place specifically because of that part of human nature that makes people act

- forcefully, up to a point of insulting to others,
Oh dear, I've hurt someones precious feelings. Its 2019 you know, feelings matter
- insist that the only acceptable way is their way
Its not 'my way'. Its standard practice at every airline in the developed world. And for good reason; Its lack of application has killed hundreds of people.
- in spite of numerous though subtle voices carefully sounding from all around the woodwork
As numerous as those in this thread who have also expressed surprise and alarm that this attitude even still exists?
?
But I appreciate your efforts at taking the focus away from the argument at hand, and having a shot at me instead. That'll work.

[das Uber Soldat]

Good one. Except you contradict yourself. When the FO calls go around and the captain isn't happy.....
Where is the contradiction?

[Chesty Morgan]

Where is the contradiction?
Well you just stated that BOTH pilots must be happy in order for a flight to be safe and efficient and yet you are extolling the virtues of only one of them ordering a go around.

[das Uber Soldat]

Well you said there were only two options - incorrect.
Having asked, if he'd made an error and understood that then he SHOULD now be happy and approach continued.

If he could concisely tell me why he's made the unexpected call and I therefore understood the danger I'd go around.
If in doubt or confusion go around and deal with it later.

I just don't see why asking, if sitution and time pemits, is such a drama to some.

Because who is the judge of that, you? I just do not see what advantage to safety is brought about by introducing a discussion at potentially low level (you've quoted 500ft as being acceptable) for the resolution of a matter of safety. Are FO's calling Go Around spuriously so often that there is a problem? Can you honestly say in your direct experience, on your flight deck, and FO has commanded a go around at 1500 ft in VMC as you describe for an incorrect reason?

On this point we'll just have to agree to disagree.
OK.

Yeah there are smoking holes caused by improperly continuing, there are some caused by a stuffed up go around as well.
No, again, I asked you a specific question. Do you have a list of fatal accidents caused by an FO commanding a go around that wasn't actually required. Yes or, no, I've asked you 3 times now. Further, I asked you think your list will be bigger than my list. Yes or no. I ask you again.

Regards Chesty's remark understand where he's coming from, maybe better to say it's desireable for the F/O to be happy but at the least he should be accepting of a decision when input has been gathered, an opinion stated and open for rebuttal or improvement and a decision taken which does not lessen safety and/or deals with a situation that may be outside the experience level of the F/O.
Chesty remarked that you can operate an airliner safely and efficiently with one of the operating crew unhappy with the aircraft state. It terms of ridiculous comments in this thread, that one rates highly. As for the rest of your comment, no doubt that in situations where time permits, and FO can be educated and corrected when making a mistake by the Captain. That's learning, and invaluable. I just don't believe that on approach below the MSA, regardless of VMC or not is the time for it.

The reason I give is that every Captain who pushed on and eventually drove it into the ground would have believed, just as strongly as you in your example that the FO was wrong with their calls and that they had the situation equally under control. When you're loaded up, your focus narrows and you may not realize what the other guy sees. Facts like confirmation bias can come into play and risks are introduced into the approach that simply just do not need to be there. We mitigate this by just doing the Go Around.

There is nearly nothing to be gained, yet so much to lose.

[das Uber Soldat]

Well you just stated that BOTH pilots must be happy in order for a flight to be safe and efficient and yet you are extolling the virtues of only one of them ordering a go around.
Ive never remarked that the FO having to take over constitutes the safe and efficient operation of an airliner. Far from.

It is better than dying though.

So again I ask, what contradiction?

[Chesty Morgan]

Ive never remarked that the FO having to take over constitutes the safe and efficient operation of an airliner. Far from.

It is better than dying though.

So again I ask, what contradiction?
Theres a difference between taking over and being happy about something.

Stop shifting the goal posts.

[das Uber Soldat]

Theres a difference between taking over and being happy about something.

Stop shifting the goal posts.
No mate, the posts remain happily parked where they have always been.

Ill state again, the safe and efficient operation of an airliner requires both pilots to be happy about the current aircraft state. The notion that this isn't true is an anathema to safety born out time and again by previous accidents, with your mate Van Zanten at the top of the list.

And yes, there is a difference between being unhappy and taking over. But rest assured, if I'm unhappy and you don't do something about it in a timely fashion, that's exactly what I'll be doing. It won't constitute safe and efficient operation, but it'll be the lesser of 2 evils and that's precisely the point of why the RAISE model exists in the first place.

Still waiting for that contradiction.

[George Glass]

73qanda, I’ve had the dubious pleasure of many approaches in Wellington in bad weather. If your are too picky about the definition of “stable” in those conditions you’ll be going round all day. Better to come to an agreeable consensus beforehand.

[j3pipercub]

This thread is honestly, truly conerning. If I was a professional I would be alarmed...

I think I’ve flown with some of you silly fools. If your offsider says go-around, GO-AROUND. It’s not your f*cking fuel. If you think it was a mis-step, talk about it after the go-around and subsequent landing.

That 4th bar really has affected some of your judgement.

j3

[Chesty Morgan]

No mate, the posts remain happily parked where they have always been.

Ill state again, the safe and efficient operation of an airliner requires both pilots to be happy about the current aircraft state. The notion that this isn't true is an anathema to safety born out time and again by previous accidents, with your mate Van Zanten at the top of the list.

And yes, there is a difference between being unhappy and taking over. But rest assured, if I'm unhappy and you don't do something about it in a timely fashion, that's exactly what I'll be doing. It won't constitute safe and efficient operation, but it'll be the lesser of 2 evils and that's precisely the point of why the RAISE model exists in the first place.

Still waiting for that contradiction.
Oh good. So you're going to take over if you're not happy but someone keeping control if you're not happy is somehow worse if they're happy.

Clever.

[das Uber Soldat]

Oh good. So you're going to take over if you're not happy
Yes. As I am required to do.

but someone keeping control if you're not happy is somehow worse if they're happy
Worse than what? Me taking control? Are you saying if I'm not happy and take over, this is a worse outcome for safety than just letting the Captain continue on whatever course of action has led us to this moment? Surely you don't mean this, I must be reading it incorrectly.


The sentence is a bit of a plane crash so forgive me if I didn't make correct sense of it.

Hows that contradiction coming?

[Chesty Morgan]

Well you know, sometimes it's a requirement that the captain keeps control. In the interests of safety and all that. So who's right?

I've explained your contradiction. If you don't agree then fine, I'm not going to keep repeating myself.

[das Uber Soldat]

Oh wow, that's actually what you meant. Remarkable.

[Chesty Morgan]

Oh wow, that's actually what you meant. Remarkable.
No more remarkable than someone taking control really.

You know sometimes it could actually be safer to continue with something than possibly end up fighting for control and during a go around which is one of the most poorly flown maneuvers in the industry anyway. Straight into that Cb that you haven't seen (See? I can throw random nonsense into the argument too just to make a point too).

[Slippery_Pete]

Chesty Morgan shall from this point forward be known in this thread as Van Zanten.

His invincibility complex and complete contradiction to every CRM course and any multi-crew research produced in the last 20 years still is not enough to convince him at 500’ to go around, but rather to have an argument with his FO while continuing.

The mind boggles.

[FlightDetent]

But I appreciate your efforts at taking the focus away from the argument at hand, and having a shot at me instead. That'll work. You must have mis-read me, US. It was a genuine question to find if we have a common start. That the policy of "one G/A vote is all it takes" is a necessary one, to shield us from the effects of the Van Zantenesque traits we all have to some extent. Would you agree then, at least, that this habitual, life-saving best practice needs to be in place specifically because of that part of human nature that makes people act
- forcefully, up to a point of insulting to others,
- insist that the only acceptable way is their way
- in spite of numerous though subtle voices carefully sounding from all around the woodwork
? Care to answer?

[Chesty Morgan]

Chesty Morgan shall from this point forward be known in this thread as Van Zanten.

His invincibility complex and complete contradiction to every CRM course and any multi-crew research produced in the last 20 years still is not enough to convince him at 500’ to go around, but rather to have an argument with his FO while continuing.

The mind boggles.
Strawman argument. Laughable.

[das Uber Soldat]

You must have mis-read me, US. It was a genuine question to find if we have a common start. That the policy of "one G/A vote is all it takes" is a necessary one, to shield us from the effects of the Van Zantenesque traits we all have to some extent. Care to answer?
I think it exists because the benefit to introducing complexity into what is currently the clearest of procedures is next to nothing, but the cost is potentially everything.

[exfocx]

Those of you sticking it to Judd and N_N over the auto brake go-around need to reread the FO's response.......

"The F/O disagreed saying all the captains he flew with use autobrake for ALL landings regardless if operationally necessary or otherwise."

This wasn't someone whom felt that they should go-around for any other reason than the FO didn't like the CA's choice of A/B. He was the childish one, the CA pointed out the Co policy and he didn't like it!

And I'm going to get screamed down on this one, but boy have standards dropped when an FO calls for a go-around based on the A/B setting on a non critical runway.

[das Uber Soldat]

And I'm going to get screamed down on this one, but boy have standards dropped when an FO calls for a go-around based on the A/B setting on a non critical runway.
Why would you get screamed down for it? If its not policy that autobrake is mandatory and the runway isn't limiting, I agree a go around call wasn't warranted. One can only assume the FO was retrained.

[morno]

Easy way around that, arm it and then the moment you touch down touch the brakes and disarm it. Then it keeps everyone happy. But an FO insisting on other people’s techniques, rather than sticking to policy, is pretty stupid.

[Oriana]

Geez John, I tod ya!!

https://youtu.be/VaCZ0Ey0Imw?t=84

[junior.VH-LFA]

This thread is eye watering.

[josephfeatherweight]

I wonder if sheppey ever imagined the simple link he posted in the original post would turn out to be such a hand grenade?
Has certainly evoked some interesting discussion.
I guess better to discuss it here than in the air...

[novice110]

Well according to das Uber Soldat there is no discussion allowed in the air.

If the safety warrior FO calls for something (even if they are 300hr cadets in their first job after school) the PIC must comply immediately !

[dream747]

I do assume soldat will go-around for the A/B if the FO calls for a go-around there and then... and then send the FO to be retrained later?

[Ollie Onion]

I don't think that is what he is saying at all. Obviously if the FO raises something or calls something during a phase of flight when you have time to discuss it then you can discuss it and 're-educate' if needed. From my point of view though if the FO were to call go around on me during the last 1000' of the approach then I am going to go-around and have the discussing somewhere more appropriate. A go-around is a standard procedure and perhaps the more worrying trend here is the number of pilots on this thread who see a normal go around as a 'risky' task that should be avoided if at all possible. From a command point of view of course we hold ultimate power in the decision making area, however your job as the Captain is to also run a cohesive team both in the Cabin and Flight Deck which gives rise to an atmosphere where anyone can voice concerns, we have seen may accidents in the past when FO's have kept quiet about deviations as they have previously been ignored or berated for speaking up. The Autobrake example above is a prime example, if their is a disagreement about the need to arm it, as the Captain why not just put the FO's mind at ease on that approach and arm the bloody thing whilst briefing that you will take it out on landing. Then at an appropriate point on the ground get the manual out and have a discussion? Having flown all over the world I was quite surprised when returning to OZ at just how the FO's are treated, never being able to fly to the x-wind limits of the aircraft, unable to fly an instrument approach to minima, not being able to call stop at all during take off...... all things I was allowed to do as an FO at a major legacy carrier overseas. My first sim ride here as a Captain I was marked down as I handed control to the FO during a LOFT so that I could 'manage' the overall situation, the check captain told me that to ensure the aircraft was flown safely that I should have retained control throughout and directed the FO to talk to the Cabin, do perf numbers, talk to ATC etc. I told him I was confident that the FO could probably handle flying the aircraft on A/P into the hold at the top of the ILS while I freed up a bit of capacity to talk to everyone else whilst monitoring, he even told me off for requesting delaying vectors as I was passing my responsibility of navigation to ATC. Now some Captains out there may be superhuman in their abilities but I am not and need to be able to utilize all resources at times including a competent FO, I respect their ability to 'keep' me honest should I miss something and as such will go-around if they call it during the latter stages of the approach. I saved prevented a serious incident once when the Captain was taxying onto the gate, out of his view on my side a catering truck drove right across us, I called STOP, he stopped and the catering truck ended up 2 meters from our number two engine, with the above attitude he might have just ignored me as it looked fine to him, yes I could have slammed on the brakes but to be honest by the time I realised he wasn't going to stop to when I stopped we would have hit the truck. Ignore the other pilot at your peril.

[Snakecharma]

Good god,

What a hornet’s nest!

The scariest thing about this thread is the absolute fixation on a particular course of action or theory, at the absolute rejection of any other position.

Bit like climate change or other topics de jour in the paper at the moment.

I have no idea how many times a FO has called “go around” and a captain has ignored said call, but I would wager that it isn’t all that frequent an event, and here we are getting all wrapped around the axle discussing an event that might happen infrequently at best.

There are different personalities in the flight deck, that is the nature of human interaction, and some times we will get it right and sometimes we will get it wrong, no shame in that in my opinion, we are, after all, merely human.

In most cases, as someone else has already posited, the problems can be nipped in the bud by a proper brief. But we tend to make brief “longs” and talk about all manner of crap. Make the briefings relevant, succinct and understandable and offer the opportunity for discussion at the end and most dramas will go away in my opinion. Whether that is true is in the eye of the beholder I guess, but that is my view.

I do not believe that there can be a fixed, predetermined view, on many things as they are very contextual, so stating with absolute certainty that you will do x or y actually, again in my view, goes against the crm or nts principles of using all the resources available to you to make an informed decision.

Captains are not infallible, and neither is any other crew member, and in many cases the FO is in a better place cognitively to make an observation about something going pear shaped before the Capt gets there, but that does not mean that the captain is not ultimately responsible and the ultimate decision maker. As someone else also said, it isn’t a democracy - the regulations are written as “the PIC shall...” don’t get me wrong I am not advocating a Capt Bligh like approach to life, but the buck has to stop somewhere and the person with the four bars is it.

Use your noggins and most things will work themselves out.

But I might be wrong (and I am a captain!)

[novice110]

Thanks Onion I am honestly learning from input like yours, keep it coming.

Ignore the other pilot at your peril indeed, but just don't blindly follow an inexperienced 'command' is what I was getting at.

Interesting that you had that experience after returning from flying all over the world. I guess we are known for doing things bloody differently. Did the years / months back here when you came home not reacclimatise you before you got the command ?

[Ollie Onion]

To be honest, I think I have adapted but the culture in OZ is also changing for the better, slowly but surely.

[das Uber Soldat]

Well according to das Uber Soldat there is no discussion allowed in the air.
According to me or your ops manual?

if the safety warrior FO calls for something (even if they are 300hr cadets in their first job after school) the PIC must comply immediately !
The contempt you hold for fo's in general and cadets specifically is remarkable. But let me ask, what does the ops manual at your airline say on the issue?

[das Uber Soldat]

I do assume soldat will go-around for the A/B if the FO calls for a go-around there and then... and then send the FO to be retrained later?
You assume correctly. Mostly because for all I know, old mate has seen something entirely unrelated and 500ft isn't the time I want to get into a discussion. So yes, round I go.

Now if he/she incorrectly insists on its use, I just turn the thing on, keep him happy then we look at the books on the ground. Simples. Intentionally insisting upon a course of action that though may be technically correct, but has one of you offside doesn't seem like a great way to build teamwork, at least to me.

What's telling in my opinion is that I have challenged a few from the 'I want to have a debate at 500ft about a go around' brigade' to provide examples of accidents that have resulted from these mythical incorrect fo initiated go arounds. Nobody has provided one. Not one.

Yet, the notion put forward is to complicate an intentionally clear and simple procedure and create a window to allow the captain to ignore a call to go around if in his view there is no problem.

And how many accidents and fatalities have we seen when this has played itself out over the years?

Scores.

As a result, I just don't see what the benefit to safety is.

[Tankengine]

Going around is not totally without risk.
A 777 was lost in Dubai. It is something to prepare for and think about.
I go around without question when called. I have also in the past briefed the crew that we would NOT go around from the approach unless the runway, and taxiway, was blocked! (Fuel!)
In the case of the autobrake “discussion” the FO would get a serious debriefing or more later, (depending on company paperwork.)

[novice110]

Briefing is a great idea but it can't cover the unexpected.

Das, I don't have the ops manual here, what does your precious one say ?

And I don't have contempt for FOs at all, or cadets. I just think that some very inexperienced FO's don't have the time in the seat to get the big picture. This can for instance mean they take 'ops manual' quotations as absolute and finite. The real world is different, and the PIC is there to ensure the ultimate safety.

Relax, we are on the same team.

[Global Aviator]

Briefing is a great idea but it can't cover the unexpected.

Das, I don't have the ops manual here, what does your precious one say ?

And I don't have contempt for FOs at all, or cadets. I just think that some very inexperienced FO's don't have the time in the seat to get the big picture. This can for instance mean they take 'ops manual' quotations as absolute and finite. The real world is different, and the PIC is there to ensure the ultimate safety.

Relax, we are on the same team.

Very level headed and accurate, couldn’t agree more.

[neville_nobody]

Geez John, I tod ya!!

For those who don't know that entire scenario is fictitious and made up for CRM purposes as the CVR was destroyed. The accident had more to do with an unstable approach, failure of the FE/FO to speak up and the fatal decision to try to go around after selecting reverse thrust. Interestingly the lack of food consumed by the Captain may also have been a factor.

And I don't have contempt for FOs at all, or cadets. I just think that some very inexperienced FO's don't have the time in the seat to get the big picture. This can for instance mean they take 'ops manual' quotations as absolute and finite. The real world is different, and the PIC is there to ensure the ultimate safety.

This is becoming more of an issue in Australia as more airlines implement RHS Cadet programs. There have already been a several incidents of low time FO's doing unexpected things during flight critical periods.

Whilst it's all well and good for Das to bang on about FO rights and the like, when you have a 15000 hour+ experience imbalance in the flight deck it makes some situations difficult. Personally I would never have ever been 'happy' landing a Jet with 200 hours Total Time in a 35kt gusting crosswind. However that is why the Captain is there. Same with turbulence on final. You can't just divert because the FO hasn't been there before and the speed tape is rolling around. The key is good briefing and an explanation beforehand of what is expected so everyone is on the same page. However it is hard and CRM is not really built around large experience imbalances. Add to this fact that alot of these airlines only truly pay lip service to CRM, as when the chips are down they are just out to blame someone, usually the Captain.

[Slezy9]

And I don't have contempt for FOs at all, or cadets. I just think that some very inexperienced FO's don't have the time in the seat to get the big picture. This can for instance mean they take 'ops manual' quotations as absolute and finite.

so I assume you do an in depth meet and greet to establish the experience level of your FO each time you fly with a new one.

How do you score them? Who do you trust? Will you go around unquestionably when an ex military FO with 5000 hours and 20 years under the belt calls go around? But only after a discussion with a cadet with 300 hours?

I just don’t get the contempt for FOs in this thread. You must have all been born with 4 stripes.

[novice110]

Crikey, another one needs to chill out.... just relax I don't hate cadets.

I think 'in depth' would be pushing it, but yes I try and ascertain the experience of level of every pilot I fly with.
How else could I give a sector away ? - what's wrong with this approach ?

And no, the prior employment history of an FO should not change the outcome of a PIC's decision to go around or not.

I have found however that anybody with real world flying experience makes my job easier.

[P2bleed]

On the lighter side of this thread, a zillion years ago a friend landing after a very long day had one of those yellow D O T trucks dive out in front of him on short finals.

Fuming he commenced the go around and when it came to raising the gear he found it was still up!

His thinking then changed to buying the diver a carton.

[j3pipercub]

Novice110,

The language you used in post #135 definitely suggested some form of animosity toward FOs and cadets who you seem to see as ‘less than’. The use of the words ‘safety warrior’ and ‘first job out of school’ don’t suggest a nice shallow cockpit gradient now do they?

j3

[novice110]

j3pipercub,

Yes I agree the 'safety warrior' was unjustified. I didn't want to upset anyone, my apologies.

The 'first job out of school' is a reality that I have flown with though. Good luck to them, honestly. I just prefer pilots with some experience, that's all.

At least you are not upset with me politely asking new FOs their experience levels before we fly. I hope the others aren't !

[morno]

j3pipercub,

Yes I agree the 'safety warrior' was unjustified. I didn't want to upset anyone, my apologies.

The 'first job out of school' is a reality that I have flown with though. Good luck to them, honestly. I just prefer pilots with some experience, that's all.

At least you are not upset with me politely asking new FOs their experience levels before we fly. I hope the others aren't !

Novice some of the first things I ask for after the niceties are out of the way, if I haven’t flown with a particular FO before, is a bit of their background experience. How am I supposed to know how comfortable the guy is going to be if I don’t ask.

So I completely agree with your idea on that

[exfocx]

d_u_s,

I cannot find the post where you said you'd brief the FO not to call speed excursions unless they were sustained, but while SOPs stipulates the parameters for what is a stabilised approach and in this case we're considering speed, and while SOPs states minor temporary excursions outside of the envelope can be ignored, it doesn't allow you to brief the FO NOT to call excursions unless they are sustained (regardless of how much sense this makes, not having a PM call "speed" continually in trying conditions all the way down on an approach). So you're being somewhat hypocritical having a go at (N_N I think).

Those of you asking would you query ATC issuing go-around instructions..... really.......since when does ATC instruct an A/C to go-around because they're unhappy with the way you're conducting the approach? Anytime ATC instructs you to go-around you bloody well should know it's to do with THEIR end of the operation (runway availability, traffic conflict etc). This argument is nothing but a red herring / straw man argument. The same goes with what if he saw a drone, well what if he saw a flock of birds and sent you around and you flew into them and ended up in a nearby river? I'd rather take a few birds or a drone on, on or near the the ground rather than and a few hundred feet in the air on a missed approach, thank you!

I spent a LONG time in the RHS and if I was going to call for a GA I'd give a reason and over 20 yrs a number of times I gave my opinion on track miles Vs altitude, made suggestions that some speed brake may be in order or suggest the gear out of sequence, but never got into the situation of having to make that call (go-around) at low level, and I think doing so may, depending on the circumstances, may reflect poorly on the FO.

In most circumstances I'd be hard pressed to think why I'd ignore the call, and the ****tier the conditions the more likely I'd be likely to go around as your picture may not be what you think it is; what you think are the approach lights may be highway lights etc. But on a beautiful day, when everything is lined up, I think I'd want a quick reason. I guess what you know of the other crew member also matters.

Those of you saying what could go wrong, well history suggests a lot could go wrong. Go-arounds from my time in the industry have been the most frequently screwed up manoeuvre around, and that isn't my opinion. Go-arounds off an approach, not so much, but last minute unexpected ones not so pretty. From reports I've read the subsequent approaches are also usually not so flash either.

[das Uber Soldat]

d_u_s,

I cannot find the post where you said you'd brief the FO not to call speed excursions unless they were sustained, but while SOPs stipulates the parameters for what is a stabilised approach and in this case we're considering speed, and while SOPs states minor temporary excursions outside of the envelope can be ignored, it doesn't allow you to brief the FO NOT to call excursions unless they are sustained (regardless of how much sense this makes, not having a PM call "speed" continually in trying conditions all the way down on an approach). So you're being somewhat hypocritical having a go at (N_N I think).
Not sure I agree but for the sake of argument, lets say thats correct. The FO then calls all exceedences down a rough as guts approach and we're all over the shop. Say we're landing at the rock on a typical day.

The post you refer was a conversation with galian. His question was;
If I'm within nav tolerances on finals but the wind is causing speed fluctuations - which are being corrected - but out of stable approach criteria AT TIMES and the F/O calls out "go around" should I go around??
My answer is yes. Follow the go around call. To mitigate this from happening however, it should have been part of the brief, so that the crew are on the same page regarding proper application of the stable approach criteria. How is being wrong about specifically what the FO has to call hypocritical in the context of this debate? He asked a question, i gave an answer and explained how the situation could have been avoided in the first place. Perhaps correct my statement to "brief the FO that a not stable call must only occur for sustained deviations, and that temporary fluctuations should be announced with the appropriate support calls only'

Better?

[galdian]

D u S
Now I've gotta have a bit of a chuckle - in the "discussion" regards go arounds I bow to exfocx who with simplicity and directness pointed out that on a beautiful day a bit of an explanation/quick reason for a go around call wouldn't be such a bad idea.

From your postings it is clear you see nothing but death and destruction from such an idea as "complicates things".
Fair enough, your opinion.

Then in response to exfocx you say "brief the F/O that not stable call must only occur for sustained deviations, and that temporary fluctuations should be announced with the appropriate support calls only".
Personally find that a lot to take in, I assume you'd further brief YOUR interpretation of "sustained deviation" Vs "temporary fluctuation" unless they're defined in your OM so should be used in everyday operations and briefings.
Are they?

For someone who appears to want to "uncomplicate things" I'd be sitting in the RHS trying to sort out the wisdom imparted.
Maybe just me, out of step with the kneejerk baa-ing communist community.

Cheers

[novice110]

'My answer is yes. Follow the go around call. To mitigate this from happening however, it should have been part of the brief,'

Why is it necessary to brief SOPs ? And if you don't brief this SOP, (that unsustained deviations are allowed) you MUST go around ? Crikey !

[das Uber Soldat]

'My answer is yes. Follow the go around call. To mitigate this from happening however, it should have been part of the brief,'

Why is it necessary to brief SOPs ?
You don't brief threats? Flying into Wellington or the Rock on a hot day you make no mention at all of the wind and possible turbulence? Interesting.

And if you don't brief this SOP, (that unsustained deviations are allowed) you MUST go around ? Crikey !
Eh? The entire point of the brief is to mitigate the possibility of a new FO from calling not stable incorrectly. If he still says 'not stable' at some point, then I still have to go around.

Now, did you ever find your OM? Whats the answer to my question that you've ignored? Mines pretty clear on the issue.

[das Uber Soldat]

From your postings it is clear you see nothing but death and destruction from such an idea as "complicates things".
Fair enough, your opinion.
I see nothing but an increase in risk, for virtually no reward. Do you understand the difference?

Then in response to exfocx you say "brief the F/O that not stable call must only occur for sustained deviations, and that temporary fluctuations should be announced with the appropriate support calls only".
Personally find that a lot to take in, I assume you'd further brief YOUR interpretation of "sustained deviation" Vs "temporary fluctuation" unless they're defined in your OM so should be used in everyday operations and briefings.
Are they?
Brilliant.

Just so we're on the same page, you find it "a lot to take in" to be briefed on a provision of the stable approach criteria, in the cruise, on autopilot?

Yet at 500 ft, with an FO calling 'go around' on you, you are happy to enter into a debate about something like a systems related problem, correct their lack of understanding of this technical matter by referring to a backup system, seeking confirmation of this new found understanding from the FO, then continuing with the approach.

That's to be believed is it?

Further to this, and even more amusingly, we've covered this little topic before.

Galian - "If I'm within nav tolerances on finals but the wind is causing speed fluctuations - which are being corrected - but out of stable approach criteria AT TIMES and the F/O calls out "go around" should I go around??"

Soldat - "Depends on what your ops manual says. Are temporary excursions permitted? If so, this should have been briefed as part of the arrival. "Due to the significant turbulence on final, call me on sustained deviations only. Do you have any questions or complaints about this?""

Galian - "Fair point about briefing what's obvious to me re gusty aproaches but maybe not obvious to others."

So which is it mate? Is it a fair point, or is it now suddenly 'a lot to take in'. ?

Are they?
Yes.

For someone who appears to want to "uncomplicate things" I'd be sitting in the RHS trying to sort out the wisdom imparted.
Maybe just me, out of step with the kneejerk baa-ing communist community.
I'm sitting in my office seat trying to work out why you can't hold a consistent position, and appear to change with the wind simply for the purposes of winning an argument.

Moving on, I've asked you a specific question 3 times. 3 times in succession you have entirely ignored it.
No, again, I asked you a specific question. Do you have a list of fatal accidents caused by an FO commanding a go around that wasn't actually required. Yes or, no, I've asked you 3 times now. Further, I asked you think your list will be bigger than my list. Yes or no. I ask you again.
For the record, this is now the 4th time I've asked you this question. Whats amusing about your avoidance of course is..
And you pointedly ignore my question about..
I tip my hat to you, if nothing else you've been amusing.

[novice110]

I do brief threats, just not SOPs.

What do you do when the unexpected happens and you haven't briefed it ? Fly a hold and brief ? Hit pause ?

No, I don't have the OM handy. Seeing you do what does yours say ?

Think I will now elaborate my prior experience questions with new crew members after reading all this.

All the best.

[das Uber Soldat]

I do brief threats, just not SOPs.

What do you do when the unexpected happens and you haven't briefed it ? Fly a hold and brief ? Hit pause ?

No, I don't have the OM handy. Seeing you do what does yours say ?

Think I will now elaborate my prior experience questions with new crew members after reading all this.

All the best.
Quite a few guys I know, if flying with a brand new FO will brief an SOP if operationally due to a threat there is an increased likelihood of an adverse outcome. Eg into Wellington, they might run through the Windshear procedure etc.

What do we do if we haven't briefed it? We do it anyway obviously. Briefing is a tool to mitigate risk, not a framework to perform only those actions spoken about. Stop being intentionally disingenuous.

My OM says either pilot calls the GA. Yours? The fact you need to look it up worries me I confess.