I disagree with your handling of the situation. But it is not because
people disagree with you that you have seen the "grey" where others see
only black and white, as you suggested.
For example, I would not quantify the ability *to switch at the minima from
a landing decision to a go around decision to a land anyway decision* as a
characteristic of "an experienced" pilot. On the contrary! We have a very
different perspective here, that is clear.
I think an "experienced captain" always goes around when the F/O (he is
rated, isn't he?)calls for a go around near the minima. Believing that the
"extra brain cells" can handle the job means in this case: disregard the
most professional advise the "experienced captain" can get! I would not
call the work of "extra brain cells" what we used to call "impulsivity".
Guess why the F/O was upset? Because he saw "extra brain cells" at work?
Hmm, I don't think so.
Impulsivity is what we call in our CRM course (amongst other things): The
wrong stuff. You correctly write that the experienced captain should take
the time to take the less experienced crew member with him at all times.
Great, I agree! Add that you can not do that at the minima, except if you
go around first and then communicate more in detail about what happened.
Jeff wrote:
> .... I
> drove home the idea that the copilot's inputs were both valued and
> necessary. Obviously, there is a difference between words and deeds,
> and I wanted to know what those more experienced than I would do. Any
> suggestions?
Yes I have:
make sure there is no difference between the words and the deeds.
That is: if you are serious about having good CRM in the cockpit.
No way to convince that young "inexperienced F/O" any other way, certainly
not by adding more "words".
You see, there are different perspectives to this. Not black and white,
just different shades of grey.
Kind regards,
Andre Berger
Capt B737
Training Manager Sobelair
Andre.Berger_at_advalvas.be