Gunter,
I'm not putting words in your mouth. You posted this:
How else am I supposed to interpret that comment. If you want to clarify what you meant, then please do.

Now, you're putting words in my mouth because I never discussed an FO taking the aircraft. As you said, it's very unlikely any of us would ever encounter a situation where that is appropriate.
What I did say was an FO that identifies an approach as unstable and calls it out still has another mandatory duty (per the FOM) if the CA chooses to continue an unstable approach and that is to direct a go-around.

And I am talking in generalities related to our FOM guidance and our entire crew force, not the crew in the video. Just because your comments referred to them doesn't mean my response to your opinion is.

 

OK, It's probably a matter of semantics here, but where does it say the PM has to call for a go around. I know it says a go around shall be initiated if stabilized criteria is not met and the PM has a responsibility to call Unstable and the condition, but I don't see where it directs the PM to call for a go around if one is not initiated.

 

FOM: (immediately after the list of stable approach parameters)
If at any time any of these parameters are exceeded and timely corrections are not made, the PM or S/O shall state that the aircraft is not stable and identify the condition. A go-around shall be initiated.

If something shall be done, it isn't optional. So, therefore, if a go-around is supposed to be happening and it isn't, then the next step is to direct it.

 

And in my quote I posted that the FOM stated a go around shall be initiated. It doesn't state that it is a responsibility of the PM to call for a go around which you indicated in previous posts. If the PM happens to be the FO and he calls unstable and the Captain makes the decision to continue, I think the FO is pretty much in the clear unless he sees an obvious dangerous situation developing. Not arguing that a go around should be initiated.

Only reason I even talk about this is because I had a similar situation about 18 months ago during a line check. The Captain got slam dunked on a visual and ended up just outside the airspeed parameters at 500'. I called unstable airspeed and the Captain didn't initiate the go around. I said we should go around and the Captain said he was continuing. He managed to land safely in the TD zone. I was expecting the Check Airman to slam the Captain, but he said it was OK. He said the Captain could make that decision if he felt it was safer and he never saw an unsafe situation develop. It sorta shocked me but that's what happened.

 

It sounds like we may be getting into the practical/realistic application of FOM guidance vs. the intent of the author.

Based just what I see in the excerpt I posted, the required response to an unstable call (which would occur when "timely corrections" are not made) is a go-around. There doesn't appear to be room for interpretation. If there is, then I think that needs to be spelled out. I remember in S/O new hire training when they told me a possible response to my "unstable" call might be "continue" from the Captain. Maybe that option has been removed over the various FOM revisions.


The airspeed situation you encountered might fall under the "timely correction" caveat, at least in the eyes of the LCA you dealt with. I don't think any Captain has the option to call for the gear and respond "continue" to an "unstable, gear" call at 500' considering there's no way the 21 second gear extension time on the MD-11 can be considered a timely correction.

 

Whats the big deal ?? I do this in my Microsoft Flight Sim game all the time.

 

FOM page 2-16. Crew Duties - Pilot Monitoring. See particularly the note at the bottom of the right hand column.

 

Every company SOP may be slightly different but I think it's common to be fully configured by 1,000' AGL in IMC conditions and 500' in VMC. Before you "lock and load", every carrier may be slightly different.

In my freight dogs days in the three-holer, we used to have contests going into the hub whenever it was VMC. The rules were that once you pulled the thrust levers to idle on approach above 5,000', you could not move them again until the completion of the landing roll. The A/C had to be fully configured by 500' AGL as per company SOP. Talk about a great exercise to learn how the aircraft performs during the configuration process.

The good old days.

G'Luck Mates

 

IF anyone becomes unemployed over this, said unemployement WILL NOT be "caused by" someone posting a link to a video on this message board.

It will be because someone operated an aircraft in a manner deemed unsafe and/or not in accordance with FedEx's/FAA's standards - PERIOD.

Please place blame/responsibility where it belongs.

 

Because I never drove 56 MPH.