Originally Posted by RadioSaigon
I'm of the opinion that trainees need to be taught appropriately to fly what they are flying now, not what they may or may not fly several years and thousands of hours down some future track -when they can be properly and appropriately trained in what they need to know, in what they need to know it in.
The majority of pilots issued with a new CPL in Australia transition to a multi-crew aircraft with less than 250 hrs total time, and normally do so within 6-12 months of being issued with the CPL (some are asked to sit and wait for a bit longer like during the last downturn). A lot of those CPL holders are trained for overseas airlines (be around 30-40%).
Originally Posted by RadioSaigon
The "consistent picture they need to hang their hat on" when training and in the early stages of their career does not come from attempting to fly an inappropriate "stabilised" approach. They need to be getting trained to see and accurately perceive the sight-picture in front of them and manage their approach path and appropriately respond to managing their profile to achieve the desired result.
A stabilised approach means being on the final approach course from where a landing can be carried out in the landing configuration without exceeded acceptable speed, pitch, and roll variations.
It does not mean a 3 degree ILS approach from 3000'/10nm.
Originally Posted by RadioSaigon
Had a stabilised approach been the only trick in their arsenal, how do you think that would have wound up?
Do you mean if they had not changed configuration ? They still would have landed within the airport perimeter on the runway centreline. The lights and antennae in the clearway are frangible by design. Even after changing configuration, they resumed a stabilised approach.
Originally Posted by RadioSaigon
Likewise, Captain Sullenburger of Hudson River fame -how "stabilised" do you reckon his approach was?
That was also stable, for a ditching. Gear up, on speed, wings level, and pitch attitude within the stabilised approach criteria. If they were unstabilised, they would have ended up like the Ethiopian 767.
Originally Posted by eocvictim
It is important to recognise that its not just airlines that use stabilised approaches.
I think most people do, they just do not recognise what they are doing is actually a stabilised approach. Airlines give the crews direction as to what parameters trigger an unstabilised approach, I have only similar words in the upper levels of GA where high performance aircraft are operated.
Originally Posted by eocvictim
If you fly most bugsmashers the way the book says I'm sure you'll find yourself very close to the glide profile anyway. Personally I would argue that this is stabilised; I haven't seen a broad definition that states a requirement to be on a 3degree profile in order for it to be called stabilised.
Flight manuals and pilot operating handbooks of light aircraft are not that specific in a lot of cases as to what the standard landing configuration is, it may just say flap "as required" or "as appropriate", if you have fixed undercarriage that landing configuration deviation is also removed from the equation. It would them come back to what performance figures are available, if a pilot decides to land in a configuration for which they do not have performance figures, it may void their insurance.
In larger aircraft, manufacturers get more specific with their published procedures, and hence their operations are less variable.
Originally Posted by SpyderPig
I hardly think this is airline stuff?
If you are doing it without large variations in configuration, speed, and attitude, and complete your landing checklist, it is airline stuff. That is a what airlines call a stabilised approach. Flying a circuit in a airliner is still much the same as a C-172, the speeds and heights are a little higher, but the principle is the same.