Originally Posted by
Adlerdriver
So, if the FO
says the right thing, he bears no responsibility for the improper operation of the aircraft? I don't think so. If the FO has an approved procedure or course of action available to him to deal with whatever the situation is and chooses not to exercise that option, then he's just as responsible. It's the Captain's show, but he's not going to get me killed, fired or violated.
After the "unstable" callout, there is supposed to be a go-around. The FOM gives no wiggle room. If the CA doesn't initiate a go-around, the next call-out is "Go around" by the FO. You can't "unsay" that and it must be complied with.
.....and just to clarify, before I get a barrage of shots over the bow. I'm not referring to the crew in the video. I obviously have no idea what was going on in their cockpit.
I'm only discussing the attitude that an FO can sit on his side of the aircraft, fill a square with a call-out and be absolved of all responsibility.
Since you're addressing my comments you ARE talking about the video.
You're trying to put words in my mouth that weren't spoken or implied. We all know about the Go-around call out. That might have been warranted here but falls into a grey area. Did you feel you were in danger? Only the crew can answer that.
So you think the FO should have taken the airplane if the CA was flying, or vice versa since we don't know who was PF.
If you think there was a risk metal would be bent without intervening it's appropriate. For a violation you see about to happen I'm not sure the FAA would approve of the FO taking the airplane (which addresses your what if about a violation). Anyway, I don't think it was warranted in this case. Most will never be in a position that absolutely requires that option.
Maybe you're addressing some other FO's attitude if you aren't addressing this crew/thread. Just don't point that at me.