Your situation is colored a perfect "grey". We develop standard
procedures for poor weather and practice them over and over in the
simulator. 99% of the time, the decision is easy. If they would don't
acquire the runway, they go-around. If they do acquire prior to decision
height, they land. Rarely, do we really study the fine line between the
two.
I take a slightly different tack on this situation. I was not
there, but I tend to support the IP's decision to land. His experience and
situational awareness was good. His co-pilot's was not. Besides, he is
the IP. The conduct of the flight was his responsibility.
Where he possibly erred was in his lack of direction to his novice
co-pilot. One skill that sets experienced, proficient pilots apart from
new-bees is something I call "goal-shifting". Good pilots know when to
shift from one goal (flying an approach and landing) to another
(going-around). When you watch good pilots, you see this shift happen very
quickly. When the IP goal-shifted from a go-around to a landing, he needed
to bring the co-pilot with him. This was essentially and "double
goal-shift" from approach with intent to land, to go-around, and then back
to landing. Yes, this is treacherous territory, but it is real life.
Since it was not a standard event sequence, the IP should have made more
than his standard sequence call-outs. This situation required more than
"visual, full-stop". If "visual, full-stop" is a standard call, he must
say it first. Then, he needs to reinforce the co-pilots "mind-set" to
bring him along. Perhaps, he should have said, "visual, full-stop. Within
safe landing parameters. Continue your standard call-outs." In these
`grey' moments, the crew needs extra information to settle their doubts and
redirect them to perform their required duties.
Now, if after the the modified IP call, the co-pilot redirected a
go-around, then the IP should go-around. To put it simply, if the co-pilot
is behind, but complies with the IP's decision, land. If he is so lost or
scared that he redirects a go-around, then go-around and sort it out.
Way down where the rubber meets the road, CRM is about good
leadership and follwership. Sometimes the leader is the Captain/IP/Flight
Lead as he directs his FO/Co-pilot/Wingman to perform the correct action.
Sometimes the leader is the subordinate directing the boss to follow a
safer course because the boss has lost situational awareness, violated
procedure, etc. In each case, the person with the superior awareness leads
the other party to the safe place.
Steve Swauger
B-737 Captain
TheSwaugers_at_Compuserve.com
Jeff wrote:
<<Greetings to all the CRMers,
I've been reading these messages for a few months now and have not
seen a question like mine, so please let me know if this is the wrong
forum for this, but: I'm flying c-21's (US Air Force's version of a
Learjet 35) here in Stuttgart, Germany. With the bad weather and
two-man crew things can get quite busy. Thus, deviding up duties is
essential. The division of duties that concerns me here is that our SOP
for callouts on a low vis approach is that they are made by the pilot
not flying (PNF). This caused a significant problem recently as we had
a very experienced pilot (IP) flying with a very new copilot. At
decision height the copilot was unable to acquire visual cues for
continued approach and called go around as per SOP. The experience
pilot started to push up the power for a go-around and immediately
acquired the runway. The pilot checked the glideslope indicator and was
still in a safe position to land (less than one dot high) and told the
PNF that he was "visual, full-stop". The landing was uneventful, but it
was obvious the copilot (PNF) was shaken by the experience. The IP and
the copilot debriefed and then the IP came to me to relate the story.
My question to you all is this: how do we convince the copilot that
his input is very important and at the same time make a consession that
the IP's experience put him in a situation to better recognize the
lighting and evaluate a safe position to land? Asking the IP's around
here, the majority (actually all that were asked) said they would have
been comfortable continuing because the aircraft was still in a safe
position for landing and because a go-around at Sarajevo airport can be
quite tricky. My main concern is the copilot's belief in CRM and his
position in it. I appreciate your time and inputs.
Jeff Cuoio
cuoiojeffrey_at_hotmail.com
P.S. I would also like have a contact or two with any major US civilian
carrier for questions outside this forum. Thanks.