The copilot wasn't calling "go around" because he couldn't see the
runway, he was calling "go around" because the pilot was lined up on the
edge lights, mistakenly believing they were the center line lights of the
other runway.
What's the point?
Sometimes the input that is given is not for the reason you thought!!
You could expand this discussion to ask ....
What if the copilot had called "abort"... and the Pilot saw a light come on
that did not require an abort....
Point? Maybe he didn't see the other light that came on that DID require an
abort
Capt Pete Hahn
----------
From: Hahn Pete Capt 76AS/DOLP
Sent: Friday, December 11, 1998 4:24 PM
To: 'Andre Berger'
Subject: RE: Advice
Excellent point about "avoiding discussion at the minima". That's what the
military SOP is supposed to do. This may be a little simple, but once
called, if no immediate pressing reason dictates otherwise, a go-around
should be accomplished. Suppose for a second that the "go-around" call was
being used as an assertive statement to avoid some other danger (i.e. a
vehicle on the runway etc.)
The SOPs are setup to preclude an excessive amount of creativity at
a point where the ground can rise rapidly and smite thee..... call me the
totaltitarian, but I think the rules should be adhered to unless there's a
compelling reason not to.
Pete Hahn
----------
From: Andre Berger[SMTP:Andre.Berger_at_village.uunet.be]
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 1998 9:07 AM
To: crm-devel_at_db.erau.edu
Subject: RE: Advice
Hello all,
Except from the points made by Neil, which I support fully, I think
letting
acquire visual cues by BOTH pilots in a 2 crew cockpit at the minima
is
poor resource management.
Why not design the low visibility landing procedure as follows (like
most
companies):
PF looks outside, the PNF scans instruments inside calling out any
deviation. It depends a bit if you are shooting a non precision, a
CAT 1, 2
or 3 approach.
But transitioning from the instruments to the outside world takes a
few
seconds and should not be done at low minima in a multi crew
aircraft. Even
when flying with a HUD, tasks can better be split.
This technique avoids discussions at the minima.
The story that the IP flying on instruments initiated go-around,
acquired
visual contact, scanned the glide slope, saw that it was less than a
dot
off, decided that he could land safely, disregarding the junior
pilot input
(who is wrong thing anyway?), all that in a split second below
minima in
marginal weather is made up afterwards.
I do not believe in superman. Worse, I am afraid this is a scenario
for
disaster.
Andre Berger
Capt B737
Training Manager Sobelair
Andre.Berger_at_advalvas.be