Looks like the OP might have caused some to become unemployed. Just sayin, food for thought.

 

While I certainly don't think anyone should lose their jobs over this, I don't think the ASAP program would have helped these guys.

When they decided to continue an unstabilized approach, they intentionally disregarded SOP, which will exclude them from the ASAP program.

If they would have gotten the warning, went around, and filed an ASAP, then they would have been covered.

Hindsight is always 20/20, I hope these guys get back in the air.

 

NOQ does not equal unemployed. Go re-read all four issues of FOQA Facts and tell me that there aren't people out there who either think rules don't apply to them, or who completely lost all SA during an approach. If it's the former, I'm all for them getting a pp spanking. If the latter, maybe a couple of sim rides might actually help them. Either way, I'm all for FOQA and love the ASAP program (2 so far).

 

Not so sure about that. If the Captain used his authority and decided it was safer to land than go around in the congested airspace in Chicago, I think it would have been accepted. It all depends on how he wrote the report. Of course, if you don't write one then you have zero chance of it being accepted.

 

I agree an ASAP should have been filed. But you are lumping the CA and FO together with equal responsibility. If the CA is flying the FO is a monitor. It's still the CA's show. If the FO made unstable callouts but did not see a danger to landing the FO did not do anything wrong.

Lots of ifs....

 

..deleted..

 

Don't worry everthing will be better next year when we completely revamp the way we fly Cat 2/3 approaches.

 

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.