One of my captains, a few airlines ago, briefed us before we started a limits approach with these words: "Ok guys, if you see anything you don't like, let me know." My leader was asking for input and advice. He was seeking, although he didn't need it, all the help he could get from his supporting cast so that "we" had the best chance of getting in.
What he didn't ask for (or get) was a "decision." He made those. That was his job. He was the captain, the boss, our leader, and the decision to land or miss, was his.
Brock's question today was, "When is CRM not CRM?" The answer to that is when the copilot tries to make decisions that belong to the captain (aircraft commander, leader, Code A, the left seat, the four striper - whatever).
The specific aviation culture, it seems to me, determines who makes the call outs and who makes the decisions. The SOPs, the briefing, the company manual, the ops specs, the regulation should have been worked out so that words like "go-around" mean just that. It seems to me, also, that if the supporting crewmember who is encouraged to "help" (and not "decide") will offer more toward the success of the approach and contribute more toward the completion of a safe landing.
The ambiguity in call outs and decisions is solved through briefings, SOPs, regulations, instructions, and company manuals. Course, the culture kinda determines this anyway. The 121 guys seem to have a better handle on standard call outs than some of the rest of us.
Let's go back to 8 Dec to Jeff Cuoio's question (he is the one who started all this in the first place). Willett says they should have gone around. Krey asked questions about Cuoio's SOPs. Berger said the input of the junior pilot was disregarded and Collier suggests that they "fly what you brief" or miss. However, Cuoio's very poignant question was: "...how do we convince the copilot that his input is very important and at the same time make a concession that the IP's experience put him in a situation to better recognize the lighting and evaluate a safe position to land."
The answer is letting the copilot help with his supporting call outs. Let him be the eyes outside (if that is what they briefed or is called for in the company manual). Let him help; indeed, that is what he gets paid to do. Let the captain decide to land. Having concise, clear, approved, and helpful call outs by the PNF will help the captain make the decision to land or miss.
The Stuttgart copilot's "input" was a decision and not input because the C-21A guys (I am not being rude) do not have standard call outs. Their Air Force culture, like some other cultures, does not define exactly what is said at limits and they can let the copilot make the decision (or at least make the call out). I know of one airline that lets copilots make call outs like "go around"-- at least on paper. [In a good airline the training on exactly what to say, how high to sit (to see the runway at 30 meters) and practice in the simulator will take at least two full days].
The Stuttgart IP does not need any concessions. He might consider briefing for help on the next low limits approach rather than asking for decisions. Sometimes experience sees more than inexperience. He did what should have been done, and, without being presumptuous, profane, pithy, or pretentious, he did what probably the rest of us would have done, well, I sure would have.
The crew should work as a team when making low limit approaches. They should have standard call outs. The copilot should support the operation; for sure, his input is appreciated, demanded, and required. The captain, however, is the one who should make the decisions.
Cheers,
Gary Heartsill
G. Heart Aviation
Denton, Texas 76208
(940)321-3117