First, an easy question, for “
AirRabbit”, about something you mentioned in slot #62, thrust – energy management proposal for “stabilized approach”:
“… a bit more specificity for a “stabilized approach.” … the engines spooled and stable.” [???]
There it is again! “
stable” thrust???
AirRabbit, Where are you getting this? The airline pilot has always been free to move TURBOJET’s Thrust Levers while on final.
The “Energy Management Element” of FSF’s ALAR TASK FORCE [ALAR Briefing Note 4.2] doesn’t say anything about “stable” thrust. Nor does FAA’s AC120.71, Appdx 2. Nor does 8400.10.
I’m curious about where you get this notion about “
stabilized thrust”??? Is there something from FSF? Maybe from FAA Flight Standards? Or, maybe this is another “alternative” from FAA’s SW Region?
= = = / / = = = =
This thread is about
Approach Speed. Our industry previously debated factors that affect a pilot’s
ability to control that SPEED during “unusual” conditions (fatal 11Nov65, and inflight breakups post- ARC-events). The TURBOJET engine
as used in civil ops (lacking the engineered safety feature of Thrust Attenuators), still suffers the spool-up delays of decades past. To insure that any THRUST LEVER advances of a pilot yield a more intuitive linear THRUST response from his TURBOJET engines, the “engine spooled-up” criteria was established for use during final approach.
Contributed by “
AirRabbit”, in slot #62, dated 22nd November; regarding
-- any US airline and it’s regulator
-- FAA’s 8400.10 and
-- FAA’s “standards” for airline pilots:
“… the material … referenced are “orders” and “advisory circulars,” … in aviation within the US … are not requirements that anyone must follow….”
Hmmm,
not a requirement?
The FAA’s “standard” for AIRLINE pilots employed by US operators, re’ “stabilized approach” is published in 8400.10.
As you’ve asserted (as did FAA's AFS-2 Flt Stds), FAA’s SW Region seems free to disregard the engines spooled-up “standard” included in FAA Order 8400.10, meant for checking US air carriers. An alternative “standard” was created by an operator, and accepted by FAA’s SW Region. The operator did something more, operator cited FAA’s 8400.10 as the source for that “alternative” standard, a deception inflicted upon their own instructors and Check Airmen.
FAA Order 8400.10,
_Air Transportation Operations Inspector's Handbook_, Volume 4, chapter 2, section 3, paragraph 511 discusses stabilized approaches [8400.10 CHG 10 page # 4-158, left column, on FAA web-site, page dated 12/20/94,]
http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/e...4/4_002_03.pdf
Paragraph 511 defined a
stabilized approach, for
TURBOJET ops’ it established the old
“engines spooled-up” as the FAA’s standard, then in the right column has this note to POIs:
“NOTE: Principal inspectors shall not approve an operator’s procedure unless the stabilized approach concept is used for all turbojet aircraft operations....”
Later in 1995, there is this:
On June 26, 1995, the FAA issued
FSAT 95-10A,“The ‘stabilized approach concept’ of 8400.10, [paragraph] 511, will be considered essential for safe operations for all aircraft in air carrier operations....”
Still later, May 26, 1998, the FAA issued _
Flight Standards Handbook Bulletin for Air Transportation _ (HBAT) 98-22,
“… 3. ACTION….
"B. POIs shall ensure that their operator's operations ... manuals contain criteria for the stabilized approach as referenced in FAA Order 8400.10, Air Transportation Operations Inspector's Handbook , volume 4, chapter 2, section 3, paragraph 511. …”
“… POIs shall make a PTRS entry to record the actions directed …”
?? AirRabit? That FAA standard, only in 8400.10, is not a requirement?
For SMS gurus, ?? does an airline management pilot have an obligation to comply with such an FAA "standard", even when his local regulator accepts non-compliance? Lacking an "accountable executive", maybe the very big US airlines are designed to overlook such details, and avoid such "changes" to their manuals: the airline is so big, there is no manager to take charge, no manager obligated to insure compliance.