Originally Posted by
CBreezy
First, your argument does not apply because in all of those scenarios, the FO isn't flying then suddenly handing the controls to the captain to accomplish the landing portion of a Cat3. And a FO doesn't ever land or take off in lower than standard visual conditions. It makes sense not to certify them to autoland in lower than standard conditions purely from a training cost perspective.
It does not take additional training (a week, really?) to know the criteria on an RTO. FOs already accomplish 90% of the maneuver. By the time the captain takes control during an RTO, the vast majority of the maneuver is already accomplished. Every FO should already know the abort criteria. I know I do.
Originally Posted by
DWC CAP10 USAF
But you aren't relieved by the phrase (which was my gripe earlier)....you aren't relieved until you feel said Captain come on the control to take the rudder from you.
IMO it *should* be the phrase....don't say it until you are actually ready to do it.
99% of the disagreement and discussion about RTO could be resolved with a clearly established plan for transfer of control. I've trained with some Captains where "Abort, I have the aircraft" is one syllable and they are hamfisting the controls before they finish speaking. Those are scary high speed aborts. I've trained with others where the pacing is
"Abort"
,
,
Watches the FO maintain centerline
,
,
"I have the aircraft"
Those are almost as benign as the low speed regime.
If I were setting policy, the captain would take control at taxi speed unless intervention was required for proper directional control and braking. The PM Captain is in a better position to note the abort speed, verify spoilers and verify auto brakes because they are already cross checking the instruments while the PF FO is primarily looking outside during the takeoff and already maintaining directional control. Transfer of control at high speed during an abort is just adding risk.