The audio argument I'm not a huge fan of because these are issues that could easily affect both. What if the FO calls out something that's within the normal abort criteria and the captain does nothing? "Oh well I'm not allowed to abort so f#$k me I guess"

Like I said, if abort criteria and maneuver was something that was standard and periodically trained by both pilots just like go arounds and V1 cuts, it would be a non-issue (and I don't mean the physical maneuver alone, I mean the identification and execution through proper decision making). This is my first flying job where the authority to abort is strictly the Captain's.

I would even argue that starting to train FO's to properly identify and execute better prepares them for when they upgrade. Then it doesn't become some new, added responsibility.

And what if the captain is the solely responsible? Who's going to get in trouble for backing their FO after an abort? This line of thought would have more teeth of FOs were aborting for erroneous indications and putting aircraft in unsafe conditions. That's not happening anywhere.

 

I remember being an FO getting all spun up about this reject decision and who gets to call it.

Everyone needs to relax, follow the guidance the company has given us to execute the abort. Do you really think Flight Ops has this policy because they are just stubborn and don't want to give FO's more control? Seriously? Relax. You'll be in the captains seat soon enough arguing against the points you are making today.

It isn't a hit against your ego and no one is saying you aren't ace of the base and can make those decisions. We get it. You guys rock and you keep us out of trouble ALL THE TIME, but the reject policy is what it is because of past incidents and accidents.

 

I would have no problem with the FOs being trained to properly identify. Make a decision and execute a Reject.

so let’s go further why not let the FO conduct an autoland to CAT3/Land3 mins? Why not let the FO takeoff at 300/500 RVR? Why not let FOs land at special airports when less than 100 hours? Why not let FOs fly into CA only airports?

the answer is above my pay grade whether it’s insurance, FAA requirements or simply money for proper training.

if the company came out tomorrow and said we are going to add a week to training so the FOs can do all of this then I would have no problem with it.

 

This might blow your mind, but I upgraded and I didn't start thinking I was gods gift to aviation. I have upgraded on two fleets here. I'm fine with the idea of FO's aborting as PF. I know it's not how we do it and I stick to the manual, but if it changes tomorrow and FOs could do it I would lose zero sleep.

 

This is why the CA is designated to decide and execute. The ultimate responsibility dictates the CA be the one executing an abort. If the FO does it and messes it up the fault still lies with the CA. This is also why CAs are encouraged to land single engine. The reason we have a highspeed regime is to simplify the decision and speed the execution of an abort. Anything distracting from this adds additional risk unnecessarily. It's not about the FOs experience or ability but about a methodical approach to eliminating risk.

As PIC the option always exists to take control of the airplane. CFIs who train new students are good at identifying and intervening because they have a much wider SA and are trained to react when the aircraft (by malfunction or pilot action) is not performing as anticipated. The transfer of controls should be a non-issue. The only thing that has made it an issue is automated RTOs. The captain has to decide if the spoilers are up and the brakes are working. I actually default to manual brakes and grab for the spoilers more than DAL would like because that's the way my primary training was in a non-autobrake and spoiler airplane. A hesitation after saying "abort I have the airplane" doesn't mean incapacitation. It is likely tracking center line or being corrected to it and if the systems are working the airplane is slowing itself when thrust is idle and then emergency reverse. It is difficult to stay off the brakes and allow the spoilers to deploy automatically.

 

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.

 

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.

 

Re: captains are encouraged to SE Land, this is absolutely not true. In fact, I've been here quite awhile and I've never heard a single person say the CA will land single engine. Every single brief is that the FO lands in every abnormal.

 

So much of this is based on the historical "the captain is the one that has experience". There is plenty of experienced FOs flying with less experienced captains. I am an FO, and I have over 10k TPIC. Most of the captains I fly with have less than that. So the whole "the FO might freeze" does not sit right. And when I was the experienced captain flying with low time FOs I felt the same. If we have an engine failure after V1 we don't hand over controls, why do we do it when we have an engine failure before V1? I can see where in the high speed regime the call should be made by the captain, but I see no reason to hand over controls at that point. I flew pax abroad for a company where everything including starting engines and taxiing was PF/PM (dual tillers). Only the captain could call for the abort, emergency descent and evacuation, but the role did not change. Still feel strongly that was the best way.

 

The reason for all of that is that historically the captain had more experience. When I was new, had a green/green pairing where the captain had to do the landing due to winds. We both had less than a 100 hours on type, he was a 787 bunkie for the 2 years prior, and a regional FO before. I just came of 10 years as a NB captain......