Interesting discussion on go-arounds. When Greg wrote...
>Yesterday in a CRM refresher class I was asking the students why a
>co-pilot would not tell the other pilot to go-around from a poor
>final approach. One of the answers I got was "we are allowed only one
>go-around."
>Explanation: When a pilot is receiving a flight check, he is allowed
>to take himself around on the first attempt at landing. If his second
>attempt at landing results in a go-around, he fails the landing skill
>portion of the evaluation.
>How many "go-arounds" do the flying organizations on this net allow?
>Is this really a hidden signal to the pilots? Should this really be
>the excuse for allowing a poor final approach to continue through to
>a failed landing?
... I think we have come upon an interesting dichotomy. Greg's
description sounds like the standard for go-arounds during checking is
being applied by the crews to the line, causing confusion for the crews.
The ensuing discussion by the group has focused on one world
(training/checking) or the other (the line). My observation is that
there shouldn't be a difference. If there is, it needs to be
eliminated.
As an aside, I once lost a job because I made a go-around and divert on
a non-precision approach to near-minimum conditions. Not a very
enlightened operation and I'm sure I am far better for having left.
BTW, the correct URL for the 747 picture is:
http://visualtours.com/cail/45degree.htm
Best regards,
Neil Krey
neilkrey_at_why.net
http://users.why.net/neilkrey/
http://users.why.net/neilkrey/
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com