not even close to my point but it does highlight a problem with pilots.

a good conversation cannot be had because it always ends the same way…..”you are an ignorant arrogant ******* Captain that I would hate to fly with because you think all pilots that aren’t you suck and no one knows how to fly an airplane but you”.

 

You are the one who said you wouldn't trust FOs with an abort decision and specifically sited a pilot with experience that is almost impossible to see here. And you ignore the fact that 121 trained pilots with 2500 hours are flying large RJs all over the country/Caribbean with zero issues. But somehow these same pilots should be trusted here

 

My previous mil, 135 and 121 experience PF could abort. Abort criteria was standard and everyone trained to it. It didn't lead to any issues or some artificial increase in frivolous aborts.

I was trusted to make an abort as a measley 750 TT RJ FO

(Now my regional did do control transfer at minimums during CAT 2's but that's a different discussion)

 

Ok

Filler

 

then how have they been doing exactly that at the regionals for decades?

 

which regional is having the FO fly with their hands on the throttles and making the reject decision?

 

I spent over a decade at one that allowed either pilot to call the abort and do the braking.

 

From what I remember on the ER (757/767, what CXT is on) they taught that the master caution/warning light drives the abort. If you get an eicas message with no light, you continue, if you get the light you abort.
On our 757/767s master caution is inhibited above 80 anyway IIRC.

 

I don’t disagree with you regarding the loss of audio comprehension during a high stress situation. The only reason I said the Captain could retain abort authority is to satisfy your idea that FOs doing so would cause a massive increase in unnecessary RTOs.

The reality is, I believe the safest course of action is dual abort authority, as others have said. Whoever sees the issue, calls the abort and the PF accomplishes the procedure without question. Just like a go-around. We can work out the “why” after. If it causes a delay, so be it. Better that than take an aircraft in the air when one or more pilot isn’t comfortable with the situation or is missing the big picture of what is actually going on.

During the high speed regime, especially with the acceleration rates of our aircraft, there isn’t time to discuss “what you see” or maybe even process it to make a decision. I’ve flown 24 years in environments where this was the normal policy, have had a few RTOs over that time and it always worked very well. I’ve never experienced unnecessary aborts becaming a problem.

If FOs aren’t experienced enough to make the call or if they are making the call incorrectly, it’s a training and / or hiring problem.

 

I agree 100% and at United either pilot can call a reject no questions asked. I’m not advocating for the removal of CRM.

I also fly the 756 so I am aware of the inhibits but at United we have had rejects for a simple caution EICAS. That’s specifically why I DONT mention Cautions or Warnings. At United cautions and system failures are CONSIDERATIONS for a reject. So as A CA I have the authority to say CONTINUING for any EICAS message. The FO has the responsibility to bring the issue to my attention.