Checks when calling 'stable' on final approach

[rich_g85]

Hi all,
I'm currently doing my UK ATC training, specifically Basic & ADI. During the course we've been shown various takeoff and approach/landing videos taken from the flight deck of A320/737 types, to give us an appreciation of the crew workload during these phases of flight. Personally I found them very useful.

I noticed in several videos when on final approach, I think it possibly comes in response to the "500" aural callout, somebody says "stable" or "stabilised".

My question is, what checks have to be completed prior to giving that call? Are they done by the pilot flying? And if stable cannot be called, what happens then? I presume a go-around.

Thanks.

[Chesty Morgan]

The stable call means that you're on the correct profile at the correct speed with only minor corrections of the flight path required (notwithstanding environmental corrections) and the landing checks complete.

In my company PNF calls "500 feet" and PF responds with "stable" or "unstable, go around". If you ask me I'm always stable.

[aloa326]

In my company "stabilized" has to be called at 1000 AAL otherwise "go-around, flaps".

Parameters to be stable: final landing configuration, on the vertical and horizontal path ( only minor corrections), Vapp +10/-5, engines spool up and landing checklist completed.

Aloa

[BizJetJock]

If you ask me I'm always stable.
Which is why runway excursions due to unstable approaches are still common, and a lot of operators are moving to it being the Monitoring Pilot who calls stable/go around.
Sorry for the thread drift!

[aloa326]

Which is why runway excursions due to unstable approaches are still common, and a lot of operators are moving to it being the Monitoring Pilot who calls stable/go around.
Sorry for the thread drift!

That's correct, for us is the PM calling " 1000, stabilized or not stabilized "

Aloa

[rich_g85]

Thanks all :)

[GlenQuagmire]

If you're bored have a look at ICO doc 8168, section 4, chapter 3. That's the document that companies build their stability criteria on.

But I'm talking about being really really bored, not just disinterested or unfocussed. I mean massively bored..

[aerolearner]

If you are bored (but enough to read ICAO Doc 8168, section 4, chapter 3 :) ) you can have a look at this video about the rationale for the stabilized approach criteria:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HuLGK4zeJY

The whole video is worth watching, but the specific part mentioning the stabilized approach criteria is here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HuLGK4zeJY#t=5m24s

[LlamaFarmer]

The stable call means that you're on the correct profile at the correct speed with only minor corrections of the flight path required (notwithstanding environmental corrections) and the landing checks complete.

In my company PNF calls "500 feet" and PF responds with "stable" or "unstable, go around". If you ask me I'm always stable.


In my company "stabilized" has to be called at 1000 AAL otherwise "go-around, flaps".

Parameters to be stable: final landing configuration, on the vertical and horizontal path ( only minor corrections), Vapp +10/-5, engines spool up and landing checklist completed.

Aloa


PM: "1000ft"
PF: "Stable" or "Unstable, Go Around"

PM: "500ft Stable" or "500ft Unstable, Go Around"
PF: "Continue" or "Go Around, Flaps"


Notwithstanding the above, either PF or PM can initiate go around at any point on the approach, above or below 500ft, for any reason they feel it justified or prudent. However they must not continue below 500ft unless stable, and it is the PM who makes that call at 500.



For the PF to make the call there is more pressure on them for it to be a stable call, even if it is marginally not. Taking it out their hands and making it PMs decision, there is less pressure on PM as they're not making the approach.

[Chesty Morgan]

Which is why runway excursions due to unstable approaches are still common, and a lot of operators are moving to it being the Monitoring Pilot who calls stable/go around.
Sorry for the thread drift!

No, it's because I'm always stable. :rolleyes:

[LlamaFarmer]

No, it's because I'm always stable. :rolleyes:

But what about the one time when you, or another pilot in the company, is not... not by much anyway, but doesn't want to call unstable as its a borderline case.


Much easier for the PM to call unstable in that situation than for the PF.

[Chesty Morgan]

Define borderline?

Notwithstanding that if I am unstable I won't say stable. I can't really speak for anyone else.

By the way I'm not arguing that our SOPs are right, I don't think they are.

[LlamaFarmer]

Define borderline?

Notwithstanding that if I am unstable I won't say stable. I can't really speak for anyone else.

By the way I'm not arguing that our SOPs are right, I don't think they are.


Borderline being on a +/- limit, for say speed or rate of descent.

If already correcting, then being at the limit but getting better is a better situation to be in than within the limit but getting worse.


Having said that, I go by the rule of if there's any doubt, then there's no doubt.
I would like to think that so does everyone else, but that would just be foolish. At least most do anyway.

[despegue]

Landing checklist can be completed at any time before minimums in my company.:ok:

you have to also use common sense, a thing that seems to be lost in Aviation nowadays.

Nothing to do with being stable.

[LlamaFarmer]

Landing checklist can be completed at any time before minimums in my company.:ok:

you have to also use common sense, a thing that seems to be lost in Aviation nowadays.

Nothing to do with being stable.

Hmmm, you can be stable without having done the landing checklist, but a big part of the cx is that the aircraft is in its landing config with everything set up for landing or go around.

If everything is done, then thats all good. But if it isn't, it doesn't leave you long to do it, and that means PM not monitoring whilst doing necessary actions.
Even just completing the checklist requires PM to not be concentrating solely on monitoring, and PF not 100% focused on flying.


Not saying that just because your company allows it people leave the checklist so late, I'm sure most if not all would get it complete much sooner, but I know certainly I wouldn't like to be focused on doing something else other than flying or monitoring between 500ft and minimums

[Chesty Morgan]

Borderline being on a +/- limit, for say speed or rate of descent.

If already correcting, then being at the limit but getting better is a better situation to be in than within the limit but getting worse.


Pragmatism is the key word.

[Centaurus]

While various operators may mandate a final approach call-out by a PM of 1000 feet or 500 feet agl, all that is needed is the standard acknowledgement call of "Check" by the PF. After all, both pilots should already be aware of the stabilisation criteria of their aircraft type. That being so, why state the obvious?

.

[BizJetJock]

After all, both pilots should already be aware of the stabilisation criteria of their aircraft type. That being so, why state the obvious?
The point is that it is often not obvious to the PF that he is not stable, despite the fact that he can probably recite the criteria verbatim in his sleep. Therefore the requirement is that the PM either confirms that the approach is stable, or instructs the PF to go around.
Before we get the cries of "but it's the Captain's decison, how can a F/O tell him to go around", there is no decision to be made. Unless the Captain has briefed that "due to XXX emergency situation we will be landing regardless", then it is no different from the F/O calling "Rotate" as an instruction.

[Chesty Morgan]

Rotate is not an instruction.

[+TSRA]

After all, both pilots should already be aware of the stabilisation criteria of their aircraft type. That being so, why state the obvious?

Calls like this seem to be the non-pilot, risk-adverse, safety guru from [insert capital city] not understanding what is going on in cockpits and taking one accident and assuming all pilots are "doing it wrong."

So, from one perspective this is just another call that will be forgotten by many a line crew, caught during a sim eval or line check similar to other IFR Standard calls and de-briefed as such.

Another perspective says that those crews who had an accident may very well have not had said accident were this call there.

Unfortunately, I think this is merely a by-product of the way our industry is going. Back in the 90's (here in Canada at least) you couldn't get into the right seat of a Dash-8 without 5,000 hours, never mind something with turbofans under the wings. Now, there are guys in the right seat with 250 hours and guys in the left seat with less than 5,000 hours on Dash-8's AND turbofan aircraft! Therefore, we have to "dumb-down" (pardon the term) the cockpit because the level of experience simply is no longer there.

Consider that...we used to have 5,000 hours just in the right seat, probably 15,000 hours total...now we might have 5,000 hours total on that same aircraft...another thread might ask whether we asked too much in the past or are we asking too little now?

[Piltdown Man]

rich_g85 - I'm about to be a bit of a heretic. The Church of Stabilised Appoaches has many followers and like some other religions, you are not allowed to say you are not a believer or people will start shouting at you. This religion also has a few bibles and you find quite a few variations on a theme. You will also find that this religion is practiced in many ways. I'm probably in +TSRA's sect.

The basic guts of the thing is that a good landing comes from a good approach; which in turn will have been derived from a good intercept. But I digress. So returning, the powers that be have determined that stabilised approaches result in fewer poor landings. So when passing X height, speed, power, configuration, track, thrust etc. should be within certain tolerances and the before landing checklists performed.

And here is where the differences in religion come to play. Some wide bodied (ie. heavy) aircraft won't change speed or direction quickly. Some companies are so scared of an (another) incident they will place draconian, black and white limits on their crews. They then back this up with disciplinary measures if they find afterwards (using Flight Data Monitoring) that you have strayed from the path of richeousness. So these pilots might even go-around because a checklist has not be done by point X. You might also find matey boy in the next next to you drops you in it if you don't. Then we need to put in the scared, anxious and under-confident pilots. I know (too) many. They are constantly looking for things that are wrong or about to go wrong. You often find they are totally inflexible. And they have their alter-egos, the Cowboys. Then we have the short haul, multi-sector, flying every day guys vs the one or twice a month, 'what does this button do again?' types.

My personal sect belives that we should be more less stabilised by 500' on nice days and 1,000' on horrible ones. And on some disgusting days, 1,500' or maybe even 2,000'.

Sorry to witter on, but stabilised to one might not be stabilised to another.

PM

[flapassym]

Rotate is not an instruction.

What he said....

[BizJetJock]

Rotate is not an instruction.
Isn't it? PM calls "Rotate", you say "actually today I'm not going to bother"?? Of course not!
Which is exactly the point; at the appropriate place, the PM calls either "stable" or "go around" and the PF flies the aircraft accordingly.
I'm with Piltdown Man, though, that many people making the rules in companies have no idea of the principles behind them, and try to apply the same criteria to small, manoeverable aircraft as widebody heavies. Often under pressure from Authority Inspectors who are equally clueless.
+TSRA, I'm afraid that the "when I were a lad everyone had to have two moon landings and a space shuttle rating" approach has been shown many times to be irrelevant. And speaking personally I know 10,000 hour captains that struggle through with the help of the SOPs as well as 500 hour guys who are absolutely brilliant. Hours are not a factor.
What is a factor is the sheer scale of aviation compared to 30 years ago; the accident rate then would be totally unacceptable now, so we have to close every little loophole even if it offends the higher skilled who have to conforn to the same requirements as the merely average. Of course one of the issues which is fundamental to this whole discussion is that everyone thinks they are higher skilled and therefore they would always be able to salvage the landing from a cr@p approach.

[Chesty Morgan]

Isn't it? PM calls "Rotate", you say "actually today I'm not going to bother"?? Of course not!

That does not make it an instruction. And you still have the option to not rotate when it is said.

[LlamaFarmer]

Isn't it? PM calls "Rotate", you say "actually today I'm not going to bother"?? Of course not!

Rotate is merely verbalising that Vr speed has been reached.

In the same way that V1 is not an instruction.

[+TSRA]

Hours are not a factor.

You are quite right BizJetJock, hours are not everything. I too have seen 10,000 hour pilots do a less than admirable job of things and I've seen 200 hour pilots who should be sitting to my left. But my experience says those are the outliers with the average pilot actually having a normal head on their body (as far as normal goes for pilots).

My point is that there is no textbook substitute for experience. The average 5,000 hour pilot will have a clearer head than the average 200 hour pilot.

I'm not saying that I don't find value in the theory of stabilized approach. I do. Reading Piltdown Man's post, I am firmly in his "sect." But its the march towards having a call for everything to cover the possibility of below average skill that I have an issue with.

I look at this like the requirement that everyone wears a safety vest and 21 cones are placed around an aircraft on the ground. Just the other day I was walking across the apron, wearing all the safety equipment the airport authority requires of me and yet I was almost run over by a tug coming from behind me.

My question, therefore, is what good are these safety requirements and extra standard calls if they seem to block good judgement and rationale thought?

[Denti]

But its the march towards having a call for everything to cover the possibility of below average skill that I have an issue with.

I am firmly in that kind of sect. Especially after the last 10 years or so of practicing a "silent cockpit" approach (both on boeing and airbus) and now being forced to use the OEM airbus procedures which are focused on continuous talking. So much so that most of us get tired of it and simply say "checked" every few minutes, it's gonna cover everything anyway...

Having extremely long checklists while taxiing is not safe, same for approach and landing. Before we had no checklist between after start and parking and we operated safely. And yes, the OEM procedures were introduced to save money, not because they are better.

Anyway, we do not have a stabilized call, only an incapacitation check at 1000ft AGL, which is kinda ironic as we have to talk all through the approach anyway and just read that darn landing checklist. The gate is still fixed at 1000ft, no matter how the weather is. And it is probably one of the most violated things on the line, since common sense often makes continuing the better option when it is clear that we will be within criteria at 800ft.

As for the vest and hearing protection on the apron, well, an old captain once told me when i started out flying jets: the vest is so that the tug drivers can better aim at you, and the hearing protection is there so you don't hear them coming. And i believe it is kinda true. Funny enough, not wearing the vest is usually the recipe to get noticed very fast by those ramp sheriffs, which begs the question, what is more visible nowadays, wearing or not wearing the vest?

[Piltdown Man]

HiViz vests work very well. Since I've been wearing one I've not been attacked by a crocodile, spontaneously combusted nor bitten by a snake. But I've lost count of the times I've nearly been run over. But I'll always wear my 'compo' protector; no jacket, no compo. Run me over and my filthy, rapacious, fee seeking compo hounds will be on your tail - just because I was wearing a stupid HiViz vest; allowing me to be totally stupid but legally correct. What a sh!tty world we live in!

PM