Originally Posted by
CVividasku
Unstable approaches are forbidden, so when they happen, it's a sign that the pilot is behind the aircraft, or that he voluntarily disregards the rule. The latter case is not necessarily dangerous. At least, in my opinion, less than the first case. Again, do you think airbus test pilots fly stabilized approaches ? They disregard this safety rule, yet they're not dangerous.
I think I’m going to have to disagree a bit here. If someone is behind the aircraft
but complies with the rules according to stabilised approaches, GPWS warnings, etc. then it is a safer situation than them deciding that rules are for other people and carrying on, in this case to a hull loss. There is always the hope that if things got away from them the first time round, they’ll have another go with a bit more caution and try to stay ahead of the aircraft next time.
I would think that test pilots fly stabilised approaches, just like everyone else, unless they are doing something that has been pre-briefed as non-standard and a safety case made for it. Airbus lost a jet and four test pilots in one go at Toulouse, due to an unplanned/unbriefed engine shut down on a perfectly serviceable aeroplane, when one of them decided to show how good the automatics were in this scenario but hadn’t thought it through fully, or involved the other crew members in the decision. I would expect that test pilots are in reality pretty cautious as a group (certainly the ones I know, the older, less bold ones), as I would be if operating much closer to the edge of the flight envelope than in normal ops.
It has been well established that the captain on the PIA flight was more akin to a crash test dummy than a test pilot, and would be a perfect example of the
Dunning-Kruger Effect. He was disregarding the rules in some part because he was incompetent; it seems he got away with it up until then because PIAs FOQA was almost non-existent and/or serious issues were flagged but nothing done about them, breeding
Normalization of Deviance.
There is a clear disregard for the rule, but the fact that the CPT could say "they're gonna be amazed we did it" when indeed his flight path was consistent with a landing (assuming the gear was let down...) pleads, in this case, for the second part.
Hmm. To me that equates to one of the more common radio transmissions made immediately before many accidents: “Watch this!!”...