The Junior First Officer's Challenge
On approach in poor visibility, a captain with 18 years' experience is flying. The first officer, 9 months on type, is monitoring. At 1,000 feet the first officer notices the aircraft is slightly high and fast, and the localiser is drifting half a dot. The captain says 'I have it, it's fine.' The first officer says nothing further. At 500 feet the drift is a full dot and the speed is 15 knots high; the captain calls 'stable, continue.' The first officer again stays silent. The landing is long and firm but safe. In the debrief the captain says the approach was 'perfectly acceptable' and the first officer agrees.
1. Why did the first officer not speak, and what is the human-factors term for this?
Read the worked answer
The first officer faced a steep authority gradient: an experienced captain, a junior pilot new to type, and a captain who had already closed the conversation with 'I have it, it's fine.' Speaking again risks being seen as insubordinate or incompetent. This is a failure of assertiveness driven by the authority gradient and by the desire to preserve the relationship. The first officer's silence is not a knowledge failure; they saw the drift. It is a social and psychological barrier to speaking up, and it is exactly the situation CRM training exists to address.
2. What should the first officer have said, and when?
Read the worked answer
The first officer should have spoken at 1,000 feet, using a clear, specific, non-accusatory format: 'I'm not comfortable with the drift and speed; I'd like a go-around.' Naming the observation, the concern and the proposed action makes it hard to dismiss and gives the captain a face-saving route. If the captain declines, the first officer should repeat the concern with the same clarity rather than softening it. Silence after a rejected challenge is the failure mode; persistence with evidence is the correct behaviour.
3. What should the operator take from the debrief, and how should the captain's 'perfectly acceptable' be handled?
Read the worked answer
The debrief should be evidence-based: the approach was not stable at 500 feet by the operator's own criteria, regardless of the outcome. A safe landing does not validate an unstable approach, and treating it as acceptable teaches the crew the wrong lesson. The captain's assessment should be gently but firmly corrected with reference to the recorded parameters, and the first officer should be praised for noticing and coached on speaking up earlier. The operator should review whether its stable-approach criteria and its assertiveness training are working, because a junior pilot who stays silent after one rebuff is a systemic risk, not just an individual one.