According to me or your ops manual?

The contempt you hold for fo's in general and cadets specifically is remarkable. But let me ask, what does the ops manual at your airline say on the issue?

You assume correctly. Mostly because for all I know, old mate has seen something entirely unrelated and 500ft isn't the time I want to get into a discussion. So yes, round I go.

Now if he/she incorrectly insists on its use, I just turn the thing on, keep him happy then we look at the books on the ground. Simples. Intentionally insisting upon a course of action that though may be technically correct, but has one of you offside doesn't seem like a great way to build teamwork, at least to me.

What's telling in my opinion is that I have challenged a few from the 'I want to have a debate at 500ft about a go around' brigade' to provide examples of accidents that have resulted from these mythical incorrect fo initiated go arounds. Nobody has provided one. Not one.

Yet, the notion put forward is to complicate an intentionally clear and simple procedure and create a window to allow the captain to ignore a call to go around if in his view there is no problem.

And how many accidents and fatalities have we seen when this has played itself out over the years?

Scores.

As a result, I just don't see what the benefit to safety is.

Briefing is a great idea but it can't cover the unexpected.

Das, I don't have the ops manual here, what does your precious one say ?

And I don't have contempt for FOs at all, or cadets. I just think that some very inexperienced FO's don't have the time in the seat to get the big picture. This can for instance mean they take 'ops manual' quotations as absolute and finite. The real world is different, and the PIC is there to ensure the ultimate safety.

Relax, we are on the same team.

For those who don't know that entire scenario is fictitious and made up for CRM purposes as the CVR was destroyed. The accident had more to do with an unstable approach, failure of the FE/FO to speak up and the fatal decision to try to go around after selecting reverse thrust. Interestingly the lack of food consumed by the Captain may also have been a factor.

This is becoming more of an issue in Australia as more airlines implement RHS Cadet programs. There have already been a several incidents of low time FO's doing unexpected things during flight critical periods.

Whilst it's all well and good for Das to bang on about FO rights and the like, when you have a 15000 hour+ experience imbalance in the flight deck it makes some situations difficult. Personally I would never have ever been 'happy' landing a Jet with 200 hours Total Time in a 35kt gusting crosswind. However that is why the Captain is there. Same with turbulence on final. You can't just divert because the FO hasn't been there before and the speed tape is rolling around. The key is good briefing and an explanation beforehand of what is expected so everyone is on the same page. However it is hard and CRM is not really built around large experience imbalances. Add to this fact that alot of these airlines only truly pay lip service to CRM, as when the chips are down they are just out to blame someone, usually the Captain.

Crikey, another one needs to chill out.... just relax I don't hate cadets.

I think 'in depth' would be pushing it, but yes I try and ascertain the experience of level of every pilot I fly with.
How else could I give a sector away ? - what's wrong with this approach ?

And no, the prior employment history of an FO should not change the outcome of a PIC's decision to go around or not.

I have found however that anybody with real world flying experience makes my job easier.

On the lighter side of this thread, a zillion years ago a friend landing after a very long day had one of those yellow D O T trucks dive out in front of him on short finals.

Fuming he commenced the go around and when it came to raising the gear he found it was still up!

His thinking then changed to buying the diver a carton.

j3pipercub,

Yes I agree the 'safety warrior' was unjustified. I didn't want to upset anyone, my apologies.

The 'first job out of school' is a reality that I have flown with though. Good luck to them, honestly. I just prefer pilots with some experience, that's all.

At least you are not upset with me politely asking new FOs their experience levels before we fly. I hope the others aren't !

d_u_s,

I cannot find the post where you said you'd brief the FO not to call speed excursions unless they were sustained, but while SOPs stipulates the parameters for what is a stabilised approach and in this case we're considering speed, and while SOPs states minor temporary excursions outside of the envelope can be ignored, it doesn't allow you to brief the FO NOT to call excursions unless they are sustained (regardless of how much sense this makes, not having a PM call "speed" continually in trying conditions all the way down on an approach). So you're being somewhat hypocritical having a go at (N_N I think).

Those of you asking would you query ATC issuing go-around instructions..... really.......since when does ATC instruct an A/C to go-around because they're unhappy with the way you're conducting the approach? Anytime ATC instructs you to go-around you bloody well should know it's to do with THEIR end of the operation (runway availability, traffic conflict etc). This argument is nothing but a red herring / straw man argument. The same goes with what if he saw a drone, well what if he saw a flock of birds and sent you around and you flew into them and ended up in a nearby river? I'd rather take a few birds or a drone on, on or near the the ground rather than and a few hundred feet in the air on a missed approach, thank you!

I spent a LONG time in the RHS and if I was going to call for a GA I'd give a reason and over 20 yrs a number of times I gave my opinion on track miles Vs altitude, made suggestions that some speed brake may be in order or suggest the gear out of sequence, but never got into the situation of having to make that call (go-around) at low level, and I think doing so may, depending on the circumstances, may reflect poorly on the FO.

In most circumstances I'd be hard pressed to think why I'd ignore the call, and the ****tier the conditions the more likely I'd be likely to go around as your picture may not be what you think it is; what you think are the approach lights may be highway lights etc. But on a beautiful day, when everything is lined up, I think I'd want a quick reason. I guess what you know of the other crew member also matters.

Those of you saying what could go wrong, well history suggests a lot could go wrong. Go-arounds from my time in the industry have been the most frequently screwed up manoeuvre around, and that isn't my opinion. Go-arounds off an approach, not so much, but last minute unexpected ones not so pretty. From reports I've read the subsequent approaches are also usually not so flash either.

Not sure I agree but for the sake of argument, lets say thats correct. The FO then calls all exceedences down a rough as guts approach and we're all over the shop. Say we're landing at the rock on a typical day.

The post you refer was a conversation with galian. His question was;
My answer is yes. Follow the go around call. To mitigate this from happening however, it should have been part of the brief, so that the crew are on the same page regarding proper application of the stable approach criteria. How is being wrong about specifically what the FO has to call hypocritical in the context of this debate? He asked a question, i gave an answer and explained how the situation could have been avoided in the first place. Perhaps correct my statement to "brief the FO that a not stable call must only occur for sustained deviations, and that temporary fluctuations should be announced with the appropriate support calls only'

Better?

D u S
Now I've gotta have a bit of a chuckle - in the "discussion" regards go arounds I bow to exfocx who with simplicity and directness pointed out that on a beautiful day a bit of an explanation/quick reason for a go around call wouldn't be such a bad idea.

From your postings it is clear you see nothing but death and destruction from such an idea as "complicates things".
Fair enough, your opinion.

Then in response to exfocx you say "brief the F/O that not stable call must only occur for sustained deviations, and that temporary fluctuations should be announced with the appropriate support calls only".
Personally find that a lot to take in, I assume you'd further brief YOUR interpretation of "sustained deviation" Vs "temporary fluctuation" unless they're defined in your OM so should be used in everyday operations and briefings.
Are they?

For someone who appears to want to "uncomplicate things" I'd be sitting in the RHS trying to sort out the wisdom imparted.
Maybe just me, out of step with the kneejerk baa-ing communist community.

Cheers

'My answer is yes. Follow the go around call. To mitigate this from happening however, it should have been part of the brief,'

Why is it necessary to brief SOPs ? And if you don't brief this SOP, (that unsustained deviations are allowed) you MUST go around ? Crikey !

You don't brief threats? Flying into Wellington or the Rock on a hot day you make no mention at all of the wind and possible turbulence? Interesting.

Eh? The entire point of the brief is to mitigate the possibility of a new FO from calling not stable incorrectly. If he still says 'not stable' at some point, then I still have to go around.

Now, did you ever find your OM? Whats the answer to my question that you've ignored? Mines pretty clear on the issue.

I see nothing but an increase in risk, for virtually no reward. Do you understand the difference?

Brilliant.

Just so we're on the same page, you find it "a lot to take in" to be briefed on a provision of the stable approach criteria, in the cruise, on autopilot?

Yet at 500 ft, with an FO calling 'go around' on you, you are happy to enter into a debate about something like a systems related problem, correct their lack of understanding of this technical matter by referring to a backup system, seeking confirmation of this new found understanding from the FO, then continuing with the approach.

That's to be believed is it?

Further to this, and even more amusingly, we've covered this little topic before.

Galian - "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??"

Soldat - "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?""

Galian - "Fair point about briefing what's obvious to me re gusty aproaches but maybe not obvious to others."

So which is it mate? Is it a fair point, or is it now suddenly 'a lot to take in'. ?

Yes.

I'm sitting in my office seat trying to work out why you can't hold a consistent position, and appear to change with the wind simply for the purposes of winning an argument.

Moving on, I've asked you a specific question 3 times. 3 times in succession you have entirely ignored it.
For the record, this is now the 4th time I've asked you this question. Whats amusing about your avoidance of course is..
I tip my hat to you, if nothing else you've been amusing.

I do brief threats, just not SOPs.

What do you do when the unexpected happens and you haven't briefed it ? Fly a hold and brief ? Hit pause ?

No, I don't have the OM handy. Seeing you do what does yours say ?

Think I will now elaborate my prior experience questions with new crew members after reading all this.

All the best.

Quite a few guys I know, if flying with a brand new FO will brief an SOP if operationally due to a threat there is an increased likelihood of an adverse outcome. Eg into Wellington, they might run through the Windshear procedure etc.

What do we do if we haven't briefed it? We do it anyway obviously. Briefing is a tool to mitigate risk, not a framework to perform only those actions spoken about. Stop being intentionally disingenuous.

My OM says either pilot calls the GA. Yours? The fact you need to look it up worries me I confess.