Steve, as you know very well, in certain company, when the subject of "monitored approach" is raised it's like a red rag to a bull. Aah, happy daze :E

Basil, that's why I suggested moving it - let those who want to talk about slippery runways etc. do so in peace!;)
BTW see your PMs...

I think this would be a very interesting discussion in Tech Log - with many of the participants potentially gaining some insight (such as myself) from it.

A320 - PF operates throttles and T/Rs. We have enough guys that are terrified of using more than idle reverse because the company says it costs money. The resultant unexpected consequence is a number of RTOs where idle thrust reverse was so ingrained that full reverse was never selected.

I'd agree. Whether or not in favour of the 'Monitored Approach', the discussion of MA raises CRM aspects of advocacy and assertion on the flight deck which, no matter the particular SOP followed, are an important part of flight safety.
I still replay events where I should have, could have but didn't.
A separate thread in Tech would, I think, be a good move.

p.s. I know all multi-crew approaches are monitored. In this case "monitored approach" is just shorthand for a particular SOP.

Back to the subject, re complacency #53.
Complacency, without elaboration does not identify any issues for improving safety or avoiding similar accidents.
Although this was a side excursion, there are many similarities with overruns, which the FAA are well aware of and hence TALPA. However, the FAA do not proposed to mandate TALPA recommendations, leaving the safety responsibility with operators and in turn with the crew.
Were previous efforts to improve landing distance calculation overruled by operators?

In comparison with Europe, US operations might appear to be complacent given the frequency of encountering similar operating conditions. EASA provides extensive advice on contaminated operations, the performance calculation (1) is one of a few sections of part 25 not copied by FAA; this AMC also has extensive operational advice and cautions (although not the best document for operational awareness).
EASA also supports the implementation of OLD - Operational Landing Distance, which is more relevant on contaminated runways than the 'actual' + factor distances favoured by Boeing.
Another significant difference is that European operators are advised to consider contaminated operations as 'non normal' requiring additional risk mitigation - larger performance margins, crew training/awareness; whereas (complacent) US operators appear to treat contamination as an everyday operation.

(1) CS 25 AMC1591

New thread drift
 

New thread started in Tech Log: "Pilot-in-charge "monitored approach" with all the original comments added - pick up where you left off if you wish!:ok:

The most recent FAA documents (six) on TALPA and avoiding an overrun, @
http://www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/c...&dateSort=desc