Timely Go-Arounds
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite simple, if I say go around and my FO doesn’t, I take over. 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
"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.
If I say go around and my captain doesn't, captain finds a new FO.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"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]
With a 2 word command, would you execute on the first or second word?
Gear......... up
Go....... [around]
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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 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.
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!
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!
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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."
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."
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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.
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?
Last edited by das Uber Soldat; 13th Jul 2019 at 06:13.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Perth
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garuda...sia_Flight_200
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.
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?
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?
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.
Last edited by neville_nobody; 13th Jul 2019 at 07:13.
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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.