No one answered my previous question (although I suppose it was rhetorical) so I'll try another couple:
If you're stable at 501RA, was your approach "safe/not dangerous"?
If you're stable at 499RA, is your approach "unsafe/dangerous"?
Some contributors appear to have a notion that risk is
digital.
These might be the same kind of people, who, when queried about whether their feet were on the rudder pedals for the duration of a particular flight, might argue that because there is nothing in the flight manual advising such action, they ought not to be chastised for not doing so... After all, an engine failure is only an issue at V1 surely? (if you have a rudder channel, lucky you.)
They'd also find the Oscar Wilde quote:
Consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative.
abhorrent!
Unfortunately, you
do have to have a gate, I agree, but one ought to look at excursions with a degree of common-sense.
You mean you haven't seen whether you can stay in ground effect (4' RA) for longer than XX seconds onto 18R at AMS?
Or was that memo apocryphal?
