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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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' ?

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?

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?"

So much rubbish that its literally SOP at every airline in the developed world.

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?

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.

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

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..

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.

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

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!

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?

This thread is doing my head in.

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.

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.

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

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

Go around 1500 ft
 

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...

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.

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.

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?

The risk vs reward doesn't add up. Hence SOP at every airline in the developed world. SOPs written in blood, many times over.

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.

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.

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.

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.