it does not. Maybe your airline if you’re in fact an airline pilot, but there’s nothing regulatory that I’ve heard of. There’s several airports that require turns below 500’

First sector back after Covid LWOP..?

He actually did turn something off, it’s the rightward one of the 3 override switches at the F/O knee. It’s been a while since the 737, don’t remember what it,s supposed to do but it is certainly not GPWS and it looks like the flaps are 40 too..

Yes I am an airline pilot, for a little while actually :) What about You?

The fact that some procedures require banks below 500 ft has nothing to do with my remark as it is specific to the procedure.
Stabilization criteria must include a lateral element to be applicable for straight-in approaches, circlings and Rnp-ar. Maybe your Operator does not specify a bank angle value, but most likely it does specify where You must be laterally positioned to be considered stable for different types of approaches. My operator (Airbus fleet) does not allow bank angles greater than 15 deg below 500 ft (400ft for circlings). Cat C airports with special procedures obviously have specific approved differences to the above. If Your operator allows you to close a visual approach at 100 ft with 30 degrees of bank then you must have good fun.

Seems to be airline specific. At mine the stable approach criteria explicitly does NOT include a lateral element and yours is the first ive heard of that does, especially AOB.

We do have a totally separate rule that no “turns” are allowed below 400’. A “turn” is a change of heading of more than 15 degrees. E.g. Dalaman on the southerly runway RNAV app it has a very low change in direction on the approach after the MAP but it is less than 15 degrees change of heading so is not a “turn” as per ICAO definitions. Any turn more than 15 degrees after the FAF counts a “circling” approach not a straight-in, such as in Nice on the 04 and 22 approaches over the bay. Is there a chance you could be getting stable approach criteria and turn limitations muddled up?

I believe this is one of the youtube clips referred to.
What we are seeing in this clip makes rather more sense now.

I’m calling BS on the “ Guide Pilot “ concept.
Either you have done the special airport qualification or you haven’t.
Its cheap and nasty and dangerous.
I’m also calling BS on the “Humanitarian Flight” idea.
How precisely do you help a humanitarian effort by totalling an aircraft , losing your most valuable assets , or over-loading the hospital system with casualties ?
Rule one-o-one for relief efforts is don’t make things worse.

Call it what you will, but it was a Bhutan CAA requirement some years ago .

edit. Yep Still is.

• "- or Request guide pilot (navigator) from the Authorised Clearing Agent."
  

No, because You haven’t read my post carefully and You are the one muddling-up banks and turn requirements especially because you are talking about turning departures and we are just discussing stabilization criteria.

Just give it another try, read again where I do highlight differences between straight-in approaches, circlings, specific rnp-ar procedures and CAT C specific limitations and then we can continue our lovely chat.

If Your operator limits your bank angle at a certain value below a certain height it means you should not need to bank any further if the approach is flow satisfactorily.
I’ll say it again: my Operator (EASA Flag carrier) prescribes a maximum bank of 15deg below 500 ft/400 ft in circlings except where specific requirements apply (usually Cat C). In 28 years of service with them I never had the need to go beyond that intentionally.

Can’t think of anything worse than somebody yelling instructions at me on short final.
Its not a cargo ship. Marine “Pilots” have full authority went they take control.
Really bad idea.
This airport is in bad need of an RNP approach.

Banking like this on final is just crazy. Hitting the ground like this as well. It's a crash not a landing.

Marine Pilots are there to offer advice only, the Captain of the ship is still 100% responsible for the operation.

You mean like MV Ever Given ?
I fully understand Command responsibility. But start chopping up responsibility and manipulation of the aircraft and you will very quickly be in a world of pain.
Really bad idea.

RNP cannot replace visual manoeuvring and dynamic trajectory changes, as much as it is a blessing of a substitute for old-school IAPs.

I wonder how many visiting pilots who actually flown there share the opinion the assistant was an obstruction in the workflow. The one I spoke with had but praise what a joint effort it was to nail it perfectly on the first attempt.

Regardless, the key point of having a guide is he'd tell you when to abandon, their most valued experience is knowing how bad is too bad in case you keep pushing...

Similiar, the CAA does not care if you divert, the not-crashing part is their concern.

Copy from another forum:-
“To improve safety, what could be learnt from this.
Paro is one of those airports “that you don't fly into unless you have done it before”; a guide pilot is recommended - required for authorisation, the third crew member.

There is little or no part of the required approach path which can be described as ‘stable’, thus little value in comparing fixed requirements vs required adaptations.

High altitude airport - high TAS, faster over the ground, possibly slower aircraft response. Need to change gear, speed up, think ahead, well briefed - a flight plan for the mind.

Impressive, awe-inspiring mountainous terrain - subconsciously challenges thoughts of a Go Around; ground-loving, ‘land’ goal dominated biases.

Many incidents with two Captains (or more); PM thinks ‘Captain thoughts’, may not adequately monitor (as a lesser ranked pilot might do).
Jump seat does not intervene; how to impart tacit knowledge of this approach.

Briefing - knowledge, what to expect - 3D imagination. Beware distraction; attention on the task. Have a plan which includes a change of plan - GA, know the trigger points for this: final turn abeam and same altitude as ‘Mr Smiths’ house (local knowledge).”

Many more opportunities for learning by looking at the overall situation, greater value than blaming people.
Also aircraft with FMS RNAV approach (A318 ?) may have EGPWS ‘softening’ logic for reduced alerting compatible with the terrain during a visual approach.

P.S. Boeing evaluation and demonstration flights: https://www.boeing.com/commercial/ae...-700Bhutan.pdf
Did not achieve any aircraft sales.
‘Mr Smiths House’ top centre in photo on opening page ?
.

It has one to a point ca 3400’ AAL. From there it’s too tight for a RNP. It’s visual only.

There is a real world out there outside of the Galapagos.

There are some airfields around the world where that is physically impossible. Granted this seemed a tad on the rushed side.

Please, those that are coming up with wild opinions with no facts, watch the videos on posts 57 and 66 and then you will understand.

57 is how it should be flown, by the local pilots of Druk Air, 66 shows how not to, in many different ways. The approach plates are available online and it is a very interesting and complex procedure.

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....a8f54f63ef.png
From Avcom via Bhutan CAA
https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....026cf10c5f.png
Avcom via Bhutan CAA


When you feel confident you can fly this approach, start your criticism :}

it doesn’t. So stop making irrefutable claims that are incorrect. If that were the case, the visuals into DCA and the LDA into Honolulu are incompatible with the worlds largest airline.