Timely Go-Arounds

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by neville_nobody

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.

Originally Posted by neville_nobody

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.

Originally Posted by neville_nobody

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?

Originally Posted by neville_nobody

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?

Originally Posted by neville_nobody

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.

Originally Posted by neville_nobody

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]

Originally Posted by Judd

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]

Originally Posted by Judd

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]

Originally Posted by Poto

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]

Originally Posted by Tankengine

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 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.