Checks when calling 'stable' on final approach
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bournemouth
Age: 39
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Checks when calling 'stable' on final approach
Hi all,
I'm currently doing my UK ATC training, specifically Basic & ADI. During the course we've been shown various takeoff and approach/landing videos taken from the flight deck of A320/737 types, to give us an appreciation of the crew workload during these phases of flight. Personally I found them very useful.
I noticed in several videos when on final approach, I think it possibly comes in response to the "500" aural callout, somebody says "stable" or "stabilised".
My question is, what checks have to be completed prior to giving that call? Are they done by the pilot flying? And if stable cannot be called, what happens then? I presume a go-around.
Thanks.
I'm currently doing my UK ATC training, specifically Basic & ADI. During the course we've been shown various takeoff and approach/landing videos taken from the flight deck of A320/737 types, to give us an appreciation of the crew workload during these phases of flight. Personally I found them very useful.
I noticed in several videos when on final approach, I think it possibly comes in response to the "500" aural callout, somebody says "stable" or "stabilised".
My question is, what checks have to be completed prior to giving that call? Are they done by the pilot flying? And if stable cannot be called, what happens then? I presume a go-around.
Thanks.
Gender Faculty Specialist
The stable call means that you're on the correct profile at the correct speed with only minor corrections of the flight path required (notwithstanding environmental corrections) and the landing checks complete.
In my company PNF calls "500 feet" and PF responds with "stable" or "unstable, go around". If you ask me I'm always stable.
In my company PNF calls "500 feet" and PF responds with "stable" or "unstable, go around". If you ask me I'm always stable.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Barcelona
Posts: 658
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In my company "stabilized" has to be called at 1000 AAL otherwise "go-around, flaps".
Parameters to be stable: final landing configuration, on the vertical and horizontal path ( only minor corrections), Vapp +10/-5, engines spool up and landing checklist completed.
Aloa
Parameters to be stable: final landing configuration, on the vertical and horizontal path ( only minor corrections), Vapp +10/-5, engines spool up and landing checklist completed.
Aloa
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: If this is Tuesday, it must be?
Posts: 651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you ask me I'm always stable.
Sorry for the thread drift!
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Barcelona
Posts: 658
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aloa
Join Date: May 2009
Location: london
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you're bored have a look at ICO doc 8168, section 4, chapter 3. That's the document that companies build their stability criteria on.
But I'm talking about being really really bored, not just disinterested or unfocussed. I mean massively bored..
But I'm talking about being really really bored, not just disinterested or unfocussed. I mean massively bored..
If you are bored (but enough to read ICAO Doc 8168, section 4, chapter 3 
) you can have a look at this video about the rationale for the stabilized approach criteria:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HuLGK4zeJY
The whole video is worth watching, but the specific part mentioning the stabilized approach criteria is here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HuLGK4zeJY#t=5m24s
) you can have a look at this video about the rationale for the stabilized approach criteria:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HuLGK4zeJY
The whole video is worth watching, but the specific part mentioning the stabilized approach criteria is here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HuLGK4zeJY#t=5m24s
The stable call means that you're on the correct profile at the correct speed with only minor corrections of the flight path required (notwithstanding environmental corrections) and the landing checks complete.
In my company PNF calls "500 feet" and PF responds with "stable" or "unstable, go around". If you ask me I'm always stable.
In my company PNF calls "500 feet" and PF responds with "stable" or "unstable, go around". If you ask me I'm always stable.
PM: "1000ft"
PF: "Stable" or "Unstable, Go Around"
PM: "500ft Stable" or "500ft Unstable, Go Around"
PF: "Continue" or "Go Around, Flaps"
Notwithstanding the above, either PF or PM can initiate go around at any point on the approach, above or below 500ft, for any reason they feel it justified or prudent. However they must not continue below 500ft unless stable, and it is the PM who makes that call at 500.
For the PF to make the call there is more pressure on them for it to be a stable call, even if it is marginally not. Taking it out their hands and making it PMs decision, there is less pressure on PM as they're not making the approach.
Gender Faculty Specialist
But what about the one time when you, or another pilot in the company, is not... not by much anyway, but doesn't want to call unstable as its a borderline case.
Much easier for the PM to call unstable in that situation than for the PF.
Much easier for the PM to call unstable in that situation than for the PF.
Gender Faculty Specialist
Define borderline?
Notwithstanding that if I am unstable I won't say stable. I can't really speak for anyone else.
By the way I'm not arguing that our SOPs are right, I don't think they are.
Notwithstanding that if I am unstable I won't say stable. I can't really speak for anyone else.
By the way I'm not arguing that our SOPs are right, I don't think they are.
Borderline being on a +/- limit, for say speed or rate of descent.
If already correcting, then being at the limit but getting better is a better situation to be in than within the limit but getting worse.
Having said that, I go by the rule of if there's any doubt, then there's no doubt.
I would like to think that so does everyone else, but that would just be foolish. At least most do anyway.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In my seat
Posts: 822
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Landing checklist can be completed at any time before minimums in my company.
you have to also use common sense, a thing that seems to be lost in Aviation nowadays.
Nothing to do with being stable.
you have to also use common sense, a thing that seems to be lost in Aviation nowadays.
Nothing to do with being stable.
If everything is done, then thats all good. But if it isn't, it doesn't leave you long to do it, and that means PM not monitoring whilst doing necessary actions.
Even just completing the checklist requires PM to not be concentrating solely on monitoring, and PF not 100% focused on flying.
Not saying that just because your company allows it people leave the checklist so late, I'm sure most if not all would get it complete much sooner, but I know certainly I wouldn't like to be focused on doing something else other than flying or monitoring between 500ft and minimums
Gender Faculty Specialist
While various operators may mandate a final approach call-out by a PM of 1000 feet or 500 feet agl, all that is needed is the standard acknowledgement call of "Check" by the PF. After all, both pilots should already be aware of the stabilisation criteria of their aircraft type. That being so, why state the obvious?
.
.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: If this is Tuesday, it must be?
Posts: 651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After all, both pilots should already be aware of the stabilisation criteria of their aircraft type. That being so, why state the obvious?
Before we get the cries of "but it's the Captain's decison, how can a F/O tell him to go around", there is no decision to be made. Unless the Captain has briefed that "due to XXX emergency situation we will be landing regardless", then it is no different from the F/O calling "Rotate" as an instruction.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Wherever I go, there I am
Age: 43
Posts: 806
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After all, both pilots should already be aware of the stabilisation criteria of their aircraft type. That being so, why state the obvious?
So, from one perspective this is just another call that will be forgotten by many a line crew, caught during a sim eval or line check similar to other IFR Standard calls and de-briefed as such.
Another perspective says that those crews who had an accident may very well have not had said accident were this call there.
Unfortunately, I think this is merely a by-product of the way our industry is going. Back in the 90's (here in Canada at least) you couldn't get into the right seat of a Dash-8 without 5,000 hours, never mind something with turbofans under the wings. Now, there are guys in the right seat with 250 hours and guys in the left seat with less than 5,000 hours on Dash-8's AND turbofan aircraft! Therefore, we have to "dumb-down" (pardon the term) the cockpit because the level of experience simply is no longer there.
Consider that...we used to have 5,000 hours just in the right seat, probably 15,000 hours total...now we might have 5,000 hours total on that same aircraft...another thread might ask whether we asked too much in the past or are we asking too little now?