Timely Go-Arounds
 

If I say go around and my captain doesn't, captain finds a new FO.

The phraseology is perhaps more interesting than the response.

"Lets" tends to be more a suggestion rather than a command e.g. "Lets have lunch" and the captain didn't actually say "go around" he said "Let's go".

I dug out the original report and it does touch on this:
"the captain’s statement of “let’s go” did not comply with any standard terminology and might have suggested to the first officer that the captain’s command was tentative"

There's probably a lesson there - if you want to give a command be definite, and use standard phraseology that is obviously a command.

Not according to the report??

The NTSB may well have an 'expectation' that either pilot can call for a go-around and it is automatically mandatory, but it may take some re-education to become accepted SOP.

Much like the stabilized approach criteria. Almost every operator now has that enshrined in their manuals, but often it is only paying lip service to recommendations or requirements. In certain cultures it would be a very courageous F/O who took over control from a Captain who was not within the parameters and refused to execute a go around.

"around" is bracketed because the captain didn't actually say it but it has been inserted for clarity. The command was "Lets go".

With a 2 word command, would you execute on the first or second word?
Gear......... up
Go....... [around]

Precisely.

Isn't the point of the statement is that the debate is over at the point either seat calls Go-around?
Who cares really who is the pilot is command?

Alitalia flight 404 is a classic case.

Get the words right for sure, but who cares who calls it, go-around!

The problem with that system is it overrides the authority of the PIC. Given the ever diminishing experience in the RHS you are creating a whole new can of worms by lowering the experience of the flight deck to the FO's experience and confidence levels.

In another era I was pilot in command flying a GCA into RAAF Base Richmond in rain and low cloud. The aircraft was a Vampire dual seat fighter. In those days Richmond had a long taxiway parallel to the runway.
We became semi-visual at 200 feet agl but the view through the windshield was poor because of rain and the Vampire didn't have wipers. I announced "Going Around." At that instant, the senior Air Force officer in the RH seat who out-ranked me by several stripes (nice bloke though) grabbed the control column on his side and whipped the Vampire into rapid turn saying "there's the runway.."

The only problem was he had seen the parallel taxiway. I was able to regain control from him and said firmly "We are going around, SIR." and told ATC we were diverting to Williamtown. The Vampire had very limited endurance even with drop tanks and we had flown to Richmond from Laverton an hour earlier. At top of decent into Richmond, ATC gave us the latest weather at Richmond which was awful - heavy rain and low cloud. I decided the chances of getting in to Richmond was low particularly because GCA being a radar talk-down aid could be seriously affected by rain attenuation. I informed the senior officer we were diverting to Williamtown RAAF base which was 30 minutes away where the forecast was fine.

The senior officer was anxious to get to Richmond for a high level meeting and suggested we at least have a go at getting in at Richmond as we had the fuel for a diversion if needed. Against my better judgement (after all he was a Group Captain) I reluctantly agreed and commenced descent in preparation for a radar controlled GCA (Ground Controlled Approach).

During the go-around and diversion to Williamtown the senior officer remained silent. After engine shut down at Williamtown I suggested to him we could refuel and have another go into getting into Richmond since we now had plenty of fuel to play with. Plenty of fuel including drop tanks in the Vampire gave us an endurance of 1.5 hours with no reserves!

The Group Captain knocked back my offer (much to my relief as I had enough drama for the day) saying "No thanks - I'll go back to Richmond by train."

The confidence of the Captain in Alitalia 404, pushed his command, training and experience over the FO. Yet the FO was right. The result was on profile, into the side of the mountain outside Zurich.
Mistakes are generated in either seat and the modern airliner is multi-crew.
Given a missed approach and another pattern is cheap isn't default to a low risk environment the better setting?

Ive read some total garbage on pprune over the years. This ranks highly.

If someone in the front says go around, you do it. Discussion can occur after. The number of accidents where the FO has called for the go around and the idiot captain thought he knew better, and didn't, are numerous.

I'm yet to find an incident where an FO called for a Go Around that wasn't required and people died. Have you?

I'm sure everybody's aware of the Garuda B737 GA200 accident in 2007. The Captain had 13,400 hours TT; the FO 1350 hours. The Captain ignored calls for a go-around by the FO and the rest is history. You don't need to have tens of thousands of hours to know what constitutes an undesirable aircraft state; all you need is a sense of survival.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garuda...sia_Flight_200

I actually can't tell if you're serious, or some elaborate troll.

Absolutely. A steep experience gradient makes it harder, not easier for a low hour pilot to speak up. If they are seeing something I'm not, then you better believe I'd initiate a go around if in the command seat if they called for it. We can discuss why he/she made that call when the aircraft is safely established above MSA. If it was an erroneous call, we can discuss why that is, then brief the next approach in light of this and try again.

As for the 'cadet' jibe. They are a licensed and endorsed pilot. Do you turn your nose at the 21 year olds with less than 1000 hours total time flying F18's around too?

What on earth are you on about. Ignoring the fact the Captain of EK521 had less hours than the FO, what decision 'outside the flight deck' affected the outcome here, and how on earth does it relate to your point that a Captain should be able to ignore an FO's call of Go Around?

There is no way you're a transport category pilot. Referring to FO's (even low hour ones) as 'the lowest common denominator' just shows how clueless you obviously are. Please go back and play in the GA forum.

At my airline, if I elevate my concerns and the Captain isn't responding appropriately, not only am I not to accept him/her pressing on, I'm required by OM to takeover and execute the go around myself. The reason is simple and blindingly obvious. To push on when in danger is to risk the lives of all on board. To Go Around when it wasn't required risks nothing more than a few polar bears.

It shouldn't even be a discussion.