Having pilots fighting over the controls is not a situation anyone wants. The pilot monitoring saying go around should have caused an immediate reaction, the human factors behind why it didn't will probably feature prominently in the post-accident actions.
If any of the two pilots feel uncomfortable about the approach, they are actually drilled to just order a go-around, not politely ask and hint that they would prefer to do it like this FO did (wastes time). Ideally the pilot flying should then do it, but if they don't, the pilot monitoring can also take control (while clearly stating "my controls, going around") and do it. One major issue that I bet the NTSB will note in the final report is that both pilots were relatively new to the aircraft and to the airline, usually it's preferable to pair an inexperienced FO with more experienced captains.
(not an aviation expert, just summarizing various bits and pieces I gathered from various YouTubers over the last days)
Also not an expert, I wonder if there's some rule where a "Go around!" order has precedence over any other activity anyone in the cockpit wishes to perform.
As a passenger I had my first go around a few days ago, but we were 5km away from the runway.
I experienced my first go-around a few months ago, in an A321 that was landing in Tampa.
The clouds had been very thick for awhile. The plane was making those weird low-and-slow vibes that it makes on final approach.
We popped out of the clouds and there was a highway with cars! A huge parking lot! (An airport, too? Certainly, but I didn't really see a runway or any runway-adjacent stuff.) To my inexpert eyes, we just looked to be impossibly low for our location.
The folks in the cockpit apparently didn't like what they saw with their eyes, either. In an instant, the engines roared as they simultaneously pointed the thing upwards. My little pea brain was very impressed by the immediacy of the forces on my body as we disappeared back into the clouds after what was at most just several seconds of visibility.
Anyway, it was very clear that there was no hesitation to the go-around. However that decision was reached, it was then simply executed.
The next attempt went very smoothly about ten minutes later.
It totally does. Every approach briefing includes instructions on what they will do in the event of a missed or unstable approach. The procedure is generally full throttle, nose up, gear up, retract flaps, head in the direction briefed, and notify ATC. All automatic from memory.
When either pilot calls for a go-around, both are supposed to drop literally everything else, execute the go-around without delay or hesitation, and then pause to analyze the situation once ATC gives them a heading and altitude or holding pattern to regroup.
The only thing lost in a go-around is fuel and time.
Any sane airline will never punish a call to go-around if done so in good faith.
Including the complete failure of the FO to act assertively, order a go-around, and to take the controls when it was clear the captain was not responding appropriately.
If this had happened and the captain had fought over the controls and still caused an accident, we’d be having a very different conversation. The FO would be lauded as a hero who fought to save the lives of those on the ground.
> The pilot monitoring saying go around should have caused an immediate reaction
Is there evidence that PM ever called for a go around? I mean earlier, when it would have actually been possible, not 15 seconds before the end of the flight data recording.
From what I've heard, PM stated (repeatedly) that they were too high and/or too fast, and PF was not heard to respond.
The power dynamic in training is obviously very different during training where the instructor is pilot in command.
Making the assumption the PM could have taken control cleanly if the power dynamic was so poor that they weren't able to demand a go-around seems iffy, typical stabilised approach gates are 500ft in VMC, with an aircraft travelling 3nm a minute, 40 seconds before touchdown.
But as I said, the human factors involved will be a huge focus of the accident investigation.
My response was to your point about “fighting over the controls”, as if there would have been a tug of war on the yoke as the FO tried to wrest control of the plane from the captain which is nonsense.
If anything, it would have been yet one more opportunity to avert catastrophe and perform a go-around. Pilots are trained for this, and it makes less than zero sense for a PM to fail to take the controls from a PF who is flying unsafely over some imagined fear of a battle for control while the plane jostles around hurtling toward the ground. The PM is obligated to do this by every written regulation.
If you have never actually been behind the controls of an aircraft, please just stop trying to confidently assert things about this subject.
Wouldn't be a case of "if I fix it then there was nothing wrong"? How do you, as an inferior rank, step in to correct something that you think is going to happen? Imagine the inferior officer steps in and lands the plane, wouldn't the superior officer say well duh that's what I was doing why did you intervene? It's an interesting conundrum, I think, and may exacerbate the reaction or lack thereof..
This is a completely pointless debate, because even if it's true the people who currently be benefit from copyright have far more money, power and influence than any rational argument against it.
This is a even more pointless debate, because the largest-scale trampling of copyright in human history has produced several of today's hottest tech companies.
Unfortunately that one's on the operators. I can complain for days about CF, but nobody is forcing the companies to default to giving everyone a managed challenge page. Some do, because either they don't care or don't realise the extra cost.
I remember back in the days a Car Insurance website which only allowed you to use it during working hours. Never understood the mechanism, surely they weren't getting quotes live from actuaries or anything.
On holiday in the Florida we walked to the gated entrance to the community to ask whether delivery drivers got access or we needed to pick it up at the gate. The way they looked at us, you would think we had two heads for arriving on foot.
I got into an argument with a security guard at a gated community who tried to demand we give him a name, address, and "what's going on?" before he'd let us in.
Fixed that when I asked if he personally called 911 and when he said no, "So, before we make this a lot more formal, are you understanding that you are now obstructing emergency services personnel in the performance of duty?"
I once walked into a drive through in Texas (Galveston) with a group of scientists there for a conference (because main restaurant was closed), we almost got shot (no not really but people felt very very threatened and threatened us)!
You should check out a Japanese show called "Old Enough!".
I have a 7 year old and a 4 year old. The 7 year old started back at school after the summer holidays and some of her friends had to be taken into class early, showed signs of having anxiety attacks and distress. While I'm slightly hypocritical here, we live on a busy road so it's not really suitable for them to go wandering alone, we do try to give them as much autonomy as we can.
I'm pretty sure the societal pressure to helicopter around children constantly is a net negative to their well-being.
I'm not sure if Clarkson's farm has much of a following outside of the UK. Last year they had several crops fail due to the drought over summer and honestly this year was far worse. I believe he may not have even bothered planting the normal cash crops, so it will be interesting to see how that works out. That said, the year before I think it was so wet early in the year that farmers really struggled to get crops in the ground.
In areas like Valencia there are ancient irrigation systems and water rights controlled by water councils older than many countries. I wonder if the UK will need to do similar, irrigation ponds, flood control structures and canals to control the flow of water through the landscape.
This is the challenge of extreme weather, it's either drought or floods, and wild swings from the one to the other. As a kid growing up in Australia, we heard many such stories, especially if the rains came on too suddenly, since then the ground can't absorb the water, and you get flash floods.
> I'm not sure if Clarkson's farm has much of a following outside of the UK. Last year they had several crops fail due to the drought over summer and honestly this year was far worse.
The Clarkson who ran a popular car show and for years mocked Greta Thunberg and called her an "idiot" that deserved a "smacked bottom" for raising the alarm on global warming?
Oh, noe, I feel so sorry for him. Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy!
> Oh, noe, I feel so sorry for him. Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy!
In reality he now has the most popular show on Amazon. Even his brewer is probably a bigger contributor to his income than the "farming" side of his farming.
The difficulty he faces though is very common amongst British farmers but most don't have a camera crew producing 4k video of the entire growing season.
I don't know if it is gloating so much as it is recognition that unlike most injustice that happens in the world the people most responsible for it are going to suffer at least some of the consequences along with the hoi polloi.
A refreshing change of pace, even if the end result is horribly tragic for everyone.
As someone who hope global warming is man-made becuase that woudl be FIXABLE at least in theory, this is EXTREMELY deceptive report and graph and for the sake of humanity these scientists should be doing MUCH better.
Comparing sample rates during the spike to sample rates for the rest of the graph? Hidden inside those sample rates can be dramatic changes (some of which we know if that ARE NOT IN THIS GRAPH) for example the little ice age and the volcanic warming periods of europe as recently as the last 1000 years which dramatically changed the climate.
Im not arguing against human-climate change, I'm arguing that this type of junk science does no one any favors.
The little ice age is in the graph, it was just completely insignificant on a global scale, as opposed to global warming which as you can see from the graph is extremely significant on a global scale. You are expecting to see the little ice age on the graph because you think that was a comparable event to global warming, but the fact is it wasn't.
Local changes due to global warming are even more significant than the global average shows, for example the arctic has, on average, warmed more than 3 times as much as the global average.
This chart shows direct measurements where available (generally like 1800 to present), our best estimates for earlier temperatures, and expected future temperatures based on what we've seen so far.
Here is Google's AI description of DPG:
> the German Physical Society (Deutsche Physikalische Gesellschaft, or DPG) is held in exceptionally high regard and is recognized globally as one of the most prestigious scientific organizations in the world
That's the organization whose work you refer to as "junk science".
We are discussing aridification in europe, a specifically local event? Also one that can happen regardless of global warming and has happened severalt times in the last 5000 years.
Do you not even track what conversation context you're in before going off?
edit: im editing here to respond to the absurd response below. The reponder, while lecturing rabidly missed several things like the difference between aridification and heat, local vs global, and europe not being the world.
I want to point out that its poeple exactly like this poster who ruin global warming debates with demonstratably false, confused, or foolish comments. Is polution bad and causing warming, yes most likely. Has the commentor below proven that? no. And in fact repeated danced around proving it while insulting me. This person is not the ally you need.
> missed several things like the difference between aridification and heat, local vs global, and europe not being the world.
I didn't miss any of that. I have already pointed out that difference in earlier comments, like when I informed you that the little ice age was local and that the arctic is warming much faster than most other places. Europe has also warmed more than many other places. And obviously the aridification is a direct result of the warming and prolonged heat waves. This article comes right after Europe experienced it's hottest summer ever recorded.
You haven't demonstrates that anything I've said is false. You referred to the article I linked as "junk science" despite the fact that it's from a very well respected organization, then you went on to just move the goal posts entirely and now you're just slandering me.
And I have in fact proved, as well as reasonably possible in an internet comment section, that the planet is warming. That was the very first thing I did, by linking an article that proves it beyond any reasonable doubt, and highlighting a chart that visualizes the severity and clear cause of the issue in a way any moron could understand if they weren't willfully ignorant.
Calling people morons is again the wrong move. You are the problem.
In fact I believe that global warming caused this but was trying to illustrate that YOU ARE THE PROBLEM.
The proper response would have been explaining that 1540’s comparable drought by tree ring analysis lasted only 1 year and our samples yearly from church grape harvests help us understand direct correlation and magnitude change.
Compared to the recorded 11 month 1540 heat wave with corresponding small rings, early harvest and a dry Rhine river; 5 year consecutive heating acts as a vapor lock which then compounds aridification.
This is causality not correlation.
Instead you used a correlative and foolish argument of “line go up so you’re a moron”
Stop and think man. You are using the wrong facts and junk science to prove your point and you look foolish doing it.
What are you even talking about? At no point during this conversation have you brought up a 1540s drought, yet the proper response from me would have been to address this event you never mentioned?
An isolated freak event is not relevant to our current situation, this is not an isolated freak event. This is a trend that has been going on for centuries and for Europe it has severely worsened in the past decade or two. That straight line in the chart I showed isn't this year, it starts in the 17/1800s corresponding with the industrial revolution and continues to today. The point i am highlighting is that natural variance looks like what you see before the industrial revolution, whereas anthropogenic global warming looks like the straight vertical line you see after the industrial revolution. This makes it extremely clear that the burning of fossil fuels are having a severe effect on the climate, as soon as we started doing it you can see the temperature goes vertical, contrasting strongly with the lazy meandering it does before. In shorter-term charts it is less obvious how drastic this change is, which is why I think this chart is a good way to really show the severity of the situation.
Courtesy of the Copernicus junk science organization. They do this dumb junk science thing where they measure temperatures and stuff and report their findings, total baloney. The chart shows that the warmest years on record have all been the past few years, and this year is on track to set yet a new record. But sure let's talk about some 1540s freak year instead I'm sure that's more relevant to the current situation.
A local event that is closely related to the unprecedented anthropogenic global warming that is indisputably responsible for the half decade of back-to-back-to-back heat record breakage streak we're currently on yes. And no, as far as we know this has never happened before unless you count mass extinctions millions of years ago where nearly everything on the planet died. That's what breaking a record means, we have never seen these temperatures before and now we're breaking those records every. single. year. And for the record, in those mass extinctions the global warming happened over thousands of years. This global warming is happening over decades.
Also I forgot to address this point in your earlier comment:
> As someone who hope global warming is man-made becuase that woudl be FIXABLE at least in theory
The fact that I am able to shoot you in the face does not imply that I am able to fix you afterwards. We are in no way capable of removing all the carbon we have added to the atmosphere within a reasonable timeframe, it would probably take about a thousand to a few thousand years if we really went for it.
And as I've shown you with the graph, global warming is indisputably, without a doubt, anthropogenic which means man-made.
Arguing about whether this heat wave is related to the severe global warming we are currently is experiencing is absolutely asinine, there is literally not a single fucking thing about the climate on our planet right now that wouldn't be different without climate change. The heat wave in Europe would be less hot, and/or it would be shorter, or it wouldn't be here at all. The general severe warming Europe has seen over the past decade would not have occurred.
The reduction in biomass at the boundary was possibly much greater. For example, no coal was formed for 10 million years, and the shell part of marine sediments was reduced by 97%.
My friend that show is legendary. Not on the same watchers level as original Top Gear (who can surpass 300 million), but its extremely good and literally eye-opening to millions about woes and challenges of modern agriculture.
I must admit I was utterly clueless before watching that show, what an eye opener. I hope Jeremy will be OK regarding his health, he is a national treasure.
He used to mock global warming and its advocates but thats visibly thing of the past once he got off his high ego horse behind the wheel and proverbially smelled the grass/coffee out in the countryside.
He might be a treasure, but's he's also a prick. He has a long history of letting his on-screen persona leak into meatspace (or maybe it's the other way around) and that's not a good thing.
Edit - since people seem to not believe me, at minimum, he punched his producer [1]. Which wasn't the first time he turned violent - he punched Piers Morgan [2] for letting Clarkson's extramarital affairs go public. Oh, he also had poorly concealed extra-marital affairs.
And I'll admit I watch his shows. The first two seasons of Clarkson's Farm were good TV. And with May and Hammond, he provided years of entertainment for car enthusiasts. None of which should excuse his boorish behavior off-screen.
Same here. Watch it, it's good entertainment, he's still an asshole that uses people. In fact, even in the current show, where he used that insult on one of his employees who someone said she looked like pre-transition Caleb — that's exactly the kind of thing he does and he found that funny so couldn't help himself but use it.
I don’t know, in a world where dictators bomb whoever they want, if punching someone is the worst thing you can do. People continue to follow and fangirl the politicians who enact violence, so why should one go on a crusade against a tv star who gets a little hands on?
I wasn't conversing in the first place, I'm just bored of reading through exchanges where at some point someone says Aha! That's a fallacy! Got you, I win!
I know you weren’t. Which was my point: the conversation was not shut down. If pointing out someone’s manipulation is not OK to you, then you’re probably better off trying a different discussion board.
reply