go-arounds
CRMDEEN (CRMDEEN_at_aol.com)
Tue, 13 Jan 1998 17:03:38 EST
What an interesting debate about "go around". On one extreme, we have a
suggestion that if the FO thinks the airplane should not be landed he simply
will raise the gear handle, and keep the Capt from landing. The other
philosophy suggests the FO should not intervene against the Captain's wishes,
even if the result would be a catastrophy. Since I routinely orchestrate such
a debate in my CRM seminars, allow me to toss in a few questions.
1. Why would a "go-around" be a good idea? Why do it? Policy, regulations, and
SOPs should dictate most of the conditions. "Not in a position to safely
land" is one I grew up with, and to this day I'm not sure I could explain that
to a co-pilot. Airspeed, sink-rates, crosswinds, landing distances or landing
ground-roll would all enter into a list of things to evaluate before touching
the rubber to the road. Can numbers be assessed to these? Of course they can,
and they should, because that makes the decision easy. If the plane needs
4000 feet of ground roll to stop, and the pilot is floating the landing to the
midpoint of a 6000 foot runway, should a go-around be executed? Unfortunately,
I've met too many pilots who do not comprehend that landing too fast increases
the landing ground roll and by not just a little. And, I know too many
organizations that won't specify numbers for behavior. They want to leave the
simple physical ability of the aircraft (which can be quantified)to "pilot
judgment" (which can't be quantified).
2. What is the job of a copilot, or FO? (I think we've been here before) While
we can agree the FO is an additional resource for the PIC to use in managing
workload, let's ask why should that workload be managed in the first place.
Yes, the simple answer is no human can do an infinite amount of work
simultaneously. Humans are limited in their ability to cope and act. In my
opinion a two-pilot aircraft requires two pilots to work as one, not to "solo"
pilots taking turns. One item on many lists of "Copilot duties" I hear is
"back up the pilot". I often ask what that means, and the answer is "if the
pilot isn't doing something he should be, then . . .". Does that imply that
the copilot should intervene?
3. What is the purpose of CRM training? I don't think it is to make us more
chummy than we already are. Holding hands in the hot tub doesn't make
airplanes perform better. I have always considered our task is to improve the
operation of the aircraft: safe and efficient operation of airplanes should be
the goal of CRM training. Landing an airplane so fast it can't stop in the
available runway is not efficient operation, in my opinion.
4. Who does the copilot work for? The PIC may have supervisory authority
during a flight, but doesn't an FO work for the airline? If a PIC clearly,
and seriously, briefed the FO that it was his intention to damage the
aircraft, to whom does the FO have a responsibility? I don't mean to imply
that a PIC might have that action planned, but if the behavior of the pilot is
putting the aircraft into jeopardy, what does the professional culture
(pilots), and the organizational culture (company) believe is the duty and
responsibility of the FO? Does command authority have a limit?
5. Why would a PIC put an aircraft into jeopardy? The recent papers from Bob
Helmreich's team give some interesting insight into human error, and the
challenge that we should acknowledge not only its ubiquitousness, but find
ways to reduce it.
6. My client is still trying to understand and recover from a mishap in which
the PIC became task-saturated and dysfunctional during the final approach into
a challenging airport. The result was a long, fast, illegal landing,
destruction of the aircraft, and loss of 3 lives. Every class that studies
this event asks me, "why didn't someone say "go around"? To which I ask them,
is that a behaviour skill that could be taught, practiced, evaluated, and
required by policy to occur? Would that be a part of "safe and efficient
flight operations?"
7. Perhaps what I don't understand is why would a pilot NOT go around, even if
it were not a clear reason? Does the pilot lose "cool points" if he does not
accept a imperfect landing?
8. The final question for this entry: does a pilot get training on "go-
arounds"? Surely we don't emphasize during early pilot training that a go-
around is a sin, and that "good pilots don't do this". That theme of training
would imply that pilots are not allowed to make errors, as humans are prone to
do.
And let the debate continue.
Greg Deen
Raytheon