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.