Captain Emad:
Just to put that in perspective, in my organisation, below 1000ft, a sustained Vref minus 3 knots would be an automatic fail in the sim.
Is this a common standard in the industry?
Dutch Roll
A sustained speed excursion below Vref and not called by the non-flying pilot would be a fail for the non-flying pilot. Neglecting to call a go-around if the speed is not immediately corrected would also be a fail for the non-flying pilot. That's how it works. Well, in some airlines at least. The importance is placed on noticing the error, and applying an immediate correction, or if that doesn't work, go-around.
If you do this, you won't fail. In fact, in our airline you can screw up your approach but so long as you go-around either of your own accord or when told to, and get it right next time, you generally cannot be failed in the simulator.
I would ask our non pilot participants to review this comment by Dutch Roll. More than once if necessary. The matter of ILS up or not is a red herring. What Dutch Roll points to is some minimum performance metrics that professional pilots adhere to, and that companies require of their professional pilots.
Regarding leading with pitch, or leading with power, I want to thank
Captain Bloggs for his reply and the point on handling heavies in the approach environment, in re inertia and drag. Much Appreciated.
They screwed up the approach - we have all done that.
They knew that the approach was unstable but they failed to go around. STUPID.
This relates to the points made by Dutch Roll.
The aAncient Geek.
Unstable approaches are one of the most common accident causes but pilots still continue into dangerous situations. This happens every day across the industry but most times they get away with it and congratulate themselves on their superiour skills. Time for some serious questions to be asked about human factors. Get-there-itis is a killer.
Course Profile
Well because they turned of a piece of equipment that pilots normally use to land and they ended up crashing.
I am sorry Course Profile, but you are one of the people who needs to review Dutch Roll's points. Please do so. I realize others have made similar critiques of your assertion.
Mary, in re NYC ATC and comms thrills. It ain't just foreigners who run into Laguardia Speak enjoyment.
Some years ago, I was administering an annual instrument check to an Army pilot from Tennessee in the NYC area. His radio comms were smooth, slow, and very clear. Quite a contrast to the speed and brevity of the ATC voices on the radio. As he requested sequencing for an approach, in his unhurried manner, the controller cut in, and said this (from memory, a few words may be wrong)
"Army XXXX, I don't need your life's story, I need your request. Turn right, heading 110 and call me when you know what you want." Being a bit more used to that area's ATC myself, I admit I had to hide my face so he couldn't see me laughing. He calmly did as directed, and we eventually got his approaches in. It was a training flight, not a revenue flight for an air passenger or cargo service.
I appreciate the point you make when dealing with the controllers in the Newark/Laguardia/Kennedy madhouse. It's not for the faint of heart.
PS: it looks to me like the CC did very well under very difficult circumstances. From a few pages up, it appears that one of the CC (purser?) was proactive in working with the flight deck to get the evac initiated. She retained enough SA to coordinate it with the flight deck who among other things are in a position to shut down the engins (engine, at this point) before getting the pax out of the aircraft. When considering the ground loop that aircraft did after impact, I'd not be surprised if the gents on the FD were stunned or in a bit of a daze and had to collect themselves. Her call to the FD may have helped the FD stay in the game and keep the procedures rolling so that an evac could be done as close to "by the book" as could be managed, given the abrupt ground impact and injury to some of the CC. (Guessing, of course).