Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

Timely Go-Arounds

Old 16th Jul 2019, 04:19
  #101 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Melbourne
Age: 68
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
George Glass is offline  
Old 16th Jul 2019, 05:35
  #102 (permalink)  
Gender Faculty Specialist
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Stop being so stupid, it's Sean's turn
Posts: 1,870
Received 4 Likes on 3 Posts
Originally Posted by das Uber Soldat
Operating airliners safely and efficiently requires both pilots to be happy with the current aircraft state.
No, it does not.

Chesty Morgan is offline  
Old 16th Jul 2019, 06:05
  #103 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 281
Received 110 Likes on 34 Posts
Originally Posted by 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.
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 is offline  
Old 16th Jul 2019, 06:12
  #104 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 281
Received 110 Likes on 34 Posts
Originally Posted by novice110
I just disagree that any 'FO command' requires to be blindly followed in all cases all of the time.
Not 'any' command. Just one.

Originally Posted by novice
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 is offline  
Old 16th Jul 2019, 06:13
  #105 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 281
Received 110 Likes on 34 Posts
Originally Posted by Chesty Morgan
No, it does not.
Not sure many would agree with you there Van Zanten.
das Uber Soldat is offline  
Old 16th Jul 2019, 06:30
  #106 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: centre of my universe
Posts: 309
Received 7 Likes on 3 Posts
Originally Posted by Chesty Morgan
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.
Poto is offline  
Old 16th Jul 2019, 06:32
  #107 (permalink)  

Only half a speed-brake
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Commuting not home
Age: 46
Posts: 4,302
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
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

?
FlightDetent is offline  
Old 16th Jul 2019, 06:41
  #108 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Nz
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 12 Likes on 5 Posts
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 ‘.
73qanda is offline  
Old 16th Jul 2019, 06:47
  #109 (permalink)  
Gender Faculty Specialist
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Stop being so stupid, it's Sean's turn
Posts: 1,870
Received 4 Likes on 3 Posts
Originally Posted by das Uber Soldat
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.....
Chesty Morgan is offline  
Old 16th Jul 2019, 06:49
  #110 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: australia
Posts: 916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.

Last edited by galdian; 16th Jul 2019 at 07:05. Reason: length
galdian is offline  
Old 16th Jul 2019, 06:51
  #111 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 281
Received 110 Likes on 34 Posts
Originally Posted by 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,
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 is offline  
Old 16th Jul 2019, 06:52
  #112 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 281
Received 110 Likes on 34 Posts
Originally Posted by Chesty Morgan
Good one. Except you contradict yourself. When the FO calls go around and the captain isn't happy.....
Where is the contradiction?
das Uber Soldat is offline  
Old 16th Jul 2019, 06:54
  #113 (permalink)  
Gender Faculty Specialist
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Stop being so stupid, it's Sean's turn
Posts: 1,870
Received 4 Likes on 3 Posts
Originally Posted by das Uber Soldat
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.
Chesty Morgan is offline  
Old 16th Jul 2019, 07:03
  #114 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 281
Received 110 Likes on 34 Posts
Originally Posted by 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.
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?

Originally Posted by galian
On this point we'll just have to agree to disagree.
OK.

Originally Posted by galian
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.

Originally Posted by galian
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 is offline  
Old 16th Jul 2019, 07:04
  #115 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 281
Received 110 Likes on 34 Posts
Originally Posted by Chesty Morgan
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?
das Uber Soldat is offline  
Old 16th Jul 2019, 07:11
  #116 (permalink)  
Gender Faculty Specialist
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Stop being so stupid, it's Sean's turn
Posts: 1,870
Received 4 Likes on 3 Posts
Originally Posted by das Uber Soldat
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.
Chesty Morgan is offline  
Old 16th Jul 2019, 07:16
  #117 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 281
Received 110 Likes on 34 Posts
Originally Posted by Chesty Morgan
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.
das Uber Soldat is offline  
Old 16th Jul 2019, 07:21
  #118 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Melbourne
Age: 68
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
George Glass is offline  
Old 16th Jul 2019, 07:24
  #119 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Your Grandma's house
Age: 40
Posts: 1,387
Received 8 Likes on 2 Posts
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
j3pipercub is offline  
Old 16th Jul 2019, 07:26
  #120 (permalink)  
Gender Faculty Specialist
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Stop being so stupid, it's Sean's turn
Posts: 1,870
Received 4 Likes on 3 Posts
Originally Posted by das Uber Soldat
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.

Chesty Morgan is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.