Timely Go-Arounds

[Chesty Morgan]

How very dramatic.

[das Uber Soldat]

Originally Posted by Chesty Morgan

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]

Originally Posted by das Uber Soldat

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by galdian

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.

Originally Posted by galdian

I just don't think that a go around call AT ANY TIME needs to be blindly followed

Originally Posted by galdian

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.

Originally Posted by galdian

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!

Originally Posted by galdian

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.

Originally Posted by galdian

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'.

Originally Posted by galdian

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]

Originally Posted by 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 ?

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?

Originally Posted by novice110

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by novice

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.

Originally Posted by novice110

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.