Originally Posted by
USMCFLYR
There was a thread on this very question sometime ago. Basically the question was what do you (the FO) do when the CA continues the approach below minimums (interview question). Seems from this report that the NTSB has their opinion.
"6. When the captain called for a go-around because he could not see the runway environment, the first officer should have immediately executed a missed approach regardless of whether he had the runway in sight.
7. When the first officer did not immediately execute a missed approach, as instructed, the captain should have reasserted his go-around call or, if necessary, taken control of the airplane."
I remember one the strongest opinions on this forum was **against** taking the controls.
"17. Both flying and monitoring pilots should be able to call for a go-around because one pilot might detect a potentially unsafe condition that the other pilot does not detect. "
Also - in 121 operations - even if the FO in this case had the runway in sight and the captain calls for a GA because he does not have the runway environment in sight then a GA shall be executed? Is this SOP at many airlines? If any one calls for a missed approach then one is required regardless of the reason or who called it? I can understand this - it works the same way on the aircraft carrier; there are numerous LSOs who can called for the waveoff.
USMCFLYR
At Freedom we have a "proactive go-around policy". This is all our book really has to say about the procedure. Every crew change, I brief the FO on the existence of the policy and that we will communicate the intention to one another when the time comes, and that it is not a commentary on pilot performance when it happens. It's not an ego thing, it's a safety thing. [Heck, it's more block time for that upgrade worksheet after all, right?] This way, it is less of a surprise when the GA happens. I liked these two bullet points below especially, as there is a culture behind the scenes at MAG not to use reverse thrust in the EMB... well, I will add my 2 cents that here's what happens when you build that kind of culture. Same applies with the tendency not to use speed-brakes for descent or slow-down, and taxiing into the gate at Vr.
- The flight crewmembers did not use reverse thrust and braking to their maximum effectiveness; if they had done so, the airplane would likely have stopped before the end of the runway.
- Specific training for pilots in applying maximum braking and maximum reverse thrust on contaminated runways until a safe stop is ensured would reinforce the skills needed to successfully accomplish such landings.
Fly safely!
I know it's probably not the most comfortable for the PAX, but does anyone ever practice aggressive stops on the runway in good conditions just to see exactly how quickly you can stop and exactly how effective braking/reverse thrust can be? I've tried it in the EMB, and the thing can stop on a DIME on a clean rwy...