re:Re: Go Around

John Wiley (jwiley_at_mindspring.com)
Fri, 16 Jan 1998 08:24:33 -0500

At 11:06 AM 1/13/98 MST, you wrote:
>
>Colleagues
> A clarification is in order I think, on the issue of the bad approach and
>required go around. By "initiating a go around" I took Mark to mean
>verbally prompting the Captain--emphatically NOT a physical takeover of
>the aircraft. If however, no response to repeated challenges is
>forthcoming, the issue of subtle incapacitation is certainly in play, with
>precious little time for further analysis. In the military we teach the
>"two-challenge rule" with an pre-approved solution of copilot (FO)
>physical intervention inside of 200 AGL and with no response from the
>Captain. I know that this muddies the water a bit, but I don't think we can
>fully address a go-around at low altitude caused by poor Captain
>performance without considering some form of incapacitation -- which I
>think changes the nature of the response. Comments?
>
> Tony Kern

This thread seems to have hit some sensitive chords. The rule when I was in
the right seat was "don't let the SOB kill you and don't let him bend the
airplane." <G>

Obviously, the best solution is to present this problem on the ground and
set the limits. Once the discussion is opened, one can then define the
rules.. ie, if we are 20kts high, we will go around. Once that happens, no
one should be angry nor should there be a problem fighting the controls. The
rules have been discussed.

True, most companies have published guidelines for a required miss and many
have regs that require to be in the landing config over the marker for
instrument approaches. Odd how I continually hear guys doing 180kts to the
marker in min wx. <G>

The paradox is if one does not fly by the book and bends metal, the FAA
asks, "Why were you not flying by the book?" On the other hand, if there is
a labor dispute and one flies by the book, the judge says, "Why are you guys
participating in a illegal slow down?"

Judgement...

Wiley