No, it does not.

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?

Not 'any' command. Just one.

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.

Not sure many would agree with you there Van Zanten.

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

?

Good one. Except you contradict yourself. When the FO calls go around and the captain isn't happy.....

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.

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.

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.

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?

OK.

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.

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.

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.

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.