Safe Approaches in GA Aircraft

[glenb]

Recently one of our Aircraft was involved in an Accident, fortunately with only very minor injuries. I want to put down some thoughts along the lines of considerations for a stabilised approach and nominated touch down zone. I didn't successfully cut and paste my Word Document very well. Its not intended as a quick recall mnemonic, but rather the considerations for a Safe Approach resulting in a Safe Landing. Ive called it a SAFEAPPROACH Brief. Im keen on any other considerations, and would welcome Student Input. Cheers.

S Satisfied with Approach? Do you feel comfortable? Have you freed up sufficient mental capacity to effect a Safe landing.
A Aircraft correctly configured for Landing.
F Floating, Ballooning and bouncing. Not touched down by a third of the runway or 500 metres, whichever is the lesser? Encountering high and dangerous balloon or bounce during flare or touchdown.
E Excessive Bank Angle. More than 40° AoB on base or final.
A Approach Briefings and Checklists completed.
P Path. Am I on the correct Flight Path.? Do I need to do “S” turns to regain Centreline? Am I going to go outside the gable markers day or the RWY edge lights at night?
P Power Settings. Power setting is appropriate for the aircraft configuration and is not below the minimum power for the approach as defined by the operating manual
R Receive Instruction from the Tower or Instructor to Go Around.
O Occupied Runway. Not received a positive clearance to land or RWY is still occupied by 200FT AGL.
A Airspeed The airspeed is not more than VREF + 20kts indicated speed and not less than VREF. IAS stabilizes below threshold IAS on base or final.
C Changes in Airspeed and Pitch. Would I classify these changes in Airspeed and Pitch as normal, or are they unusually large inputs.
H Have lost Visual Contact after the landing sequence given and you can’t identify or maintain visual contact with the preceding aircraft.
E Established. Not lined up on final by 400FT AGL.
S Sink rate is no greater than 1000 feet/minute

[FO Cokebottle]

Glenn,

You are to be commended for giving this issue some thought and for putting together some considerations.

Just a couple of points to address so as not to create any misconceptions.

I am assuming your intention is for these considerations to be used by General Aviation aircraft and students and/or low time pilots. General Aviation aircraft that fall within this area are no more than 1000 to 1300kgs in MTOW.

Vref is a function of weight. In the aircraft assumed to be operated and these considerations used is nebulas as it does not change due to the relative small amounts in weight variation. Manufacturers generally quote an initial and final approach speed in the aircrafts POH. In the aircraft concerned, this would be anywhere from 55 to 70kts IAS.

Hence, to quote of Vref + 20 could give a false impression of being "stable". POH annotated final approach speed of 60kts with a 20kt additive is just "not quite right" for conforming to being stable.

Like wise with your quoted 1000'/min sink rate. Sink rate is a function of speed which is in turn, a function of weight. To illiterate this, a B777's stable approach has a sink rate of 800'/min with a Landing Weight of 200,000kgs has a Vref + 5 speed of approximately 135kts IAS. 3 degree glide path at 135kts gives 800'/min. 135kts is the average cruise speed of you GA retractable under carriage and Constant Speed Propller aircraft. Get my point?

May I suggest that emphasis be directed to a more disciplined approach to flying circuits and closer adhearence to those "cues" that were thought in basic flying training. For instance, maintaining the "aim point" using piloting skills and use of changes in power in conjunction with slight changes in pitch.

If, as you say, you head that operation, then some basic airmanship requirements need to be put into your Operations Manual. For example: minimum height AGL to be aligned with runway center line and minimum height AGL to be configured and on POH annotated final approach speed by day and by night listing minimum visibility for both.

Just my two cents......

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Looks to me to over complicate what with good training should become an intuitive process!

Dr

[drpixie]

Hi Glen,

By all means this sounds like a sensible list of things to discuss with students, but please don't let them think it's a check-list. Last thing you want is some early student/PPL (or CPL !) who's given themselves the arse-about idea that they should be checking 14 items at a busy time when they should have capacity for general SA and actually recognising the things you've mentioned.

Looks like there a fair bit of duplication on the list - Established is more or less covered by "Aircraft correctly configured, Excessive Bank Angle, Path, Power Settings, Airspeed, Changes in Airspeed and Pitch, Sink rate" ... but that's always a potential with this kind of briefing.

It doesn't hurt to identify hard limits for students (eg. 1000 fpm), after all, they will occasionally violate some of them! I'm more interested that general sense of command and situation is stressed, and they have good intuition of "safe enough" and of "I'm going around :eek:".

Couple of things you might reconsider: S-turns in the circuit; minimum power (why discourage idle ... you do glide approaches).

[Shagpile]

I'd like to mirror what's been said: this is a complex acronym. Not much wrong with Ye Olde AAA - Aimpoint, Aspect, Airspeed.

I can see S...A...F...E...A...oh crap we've landed.

Edit: And to add, I think it's a great idea thinking and discussing what constitutes a stable/safe approach and landing - I don't want to be a whiney pilot! But maybe a bit too long to be used as a tool to replace existing methods.

[Jenna Talia]

E Excessive Bank Angle. More than 40° AoB on base or final.
:eek:

I would change 40 deg AoB to 'a rate 1 turn'

The rest is good as discussion points :ok:

[FO Cokebottle]

Jenna T,

Some would call this Bank Angle Protection.....:ok:

Notwithstanding, as others have posted, "airmanship" and sound pilotage skills instilled from the beginning would alleviate most, if not all, of the issues requiring such an extensive list.

[andrewr]

Vref + 20 sounds scary fast if you are referring to final in a typical training aircraft.

Stable IAS of not more than Vref + 10 at 250 feet is probably better criteria. Adjusted for any fudge factor you already include e.g. if the book says 60-70 knots for final approach, and you use 70 as a target speed then you probably want stable IAS of no more than 75 at 250'. 10 knots faster than the top end of the book speeds is quite fast and adds to the challenge of the landing.

The rest seems overly complex. Maybe better to list the things that you need to see, rather than all the things that might go wrong.

(Just my opinion, I am not an instructor.)

[R755]

Hi glenb,

Bingles happen.

Why beat yourself up by trying to make something fit the mnemonic SAFEAPPROACHES ?

[A37575]

With all due respect, it might look impressive in an Ops manual but you are making the same mistake as many other flying schools and that is trying to ape what airline pilots do. You really don't need any of the stuff you wrote unless you are being forced into it by some eager beaver FOI. For example what is the minimum power on final for a lightie like a Warrior? There isn't one of course because its a prop type not a jet. :ok:

[Stationair8]

GlenB, are you teaching people fly the Concorde or a GA single?

I would be having a look at your instructors and their technique, perhaps they need a bit of guidance.

[glenb]

Cheers for the feedback. Just to clarify. Its not an airborne mnemonic. The contents are intended as a Ground Briefing specifically for Students to develop a discussion about stabilised approaches. It is also intended to provide junior instructors with some considerations as well. The SAFEAPPROACHES is really intended as a colloquial way to refer to and emphasise the contents of the discussion.

[Stationair8]

GlenB, there was a very good poster produced by DoT(forerunner to CAA/CASA)in about 1983 that was called the right approach. It was sent around to all the flying schools to promote the stabilised approach and correct touch down point. It was really well thought and had about three or four points to be considered by the low time pilot.

Our Ops a Manual has about twenty points to consider for the stabilised approach, but at the end of the day if it is on slope, speed is stable, gear down, flaps down, we are heading towards the runway then we should be okay!

[allthecoolnamesarego]

I don't think you can beat the work cycle 'Aimpoint, Aspect, Airspeed' on finals. Teach what each means during ground school and then run through each one on final (making corrections as required).
As for a checklist, 'Three greens (or fixed), Flaps full, runway clear, clearance'
Works on every aircraft I've flown :)

[FO Cokebottle]

It is also intended to provide junior instructors with some considerations as well..........:sad:

[De_flieger]

How about

D escending at an appropriate rate
O bserving relevant traffic
N ot too far down the runway
T rimmed appropriately
F laps set
# ndercarriage down and locked
C lear runway ahead
K nots, not too many and not too few
I n receipt of a landing clearance
T he overall picture is looking satisfactory and feeling good
U sing appropriate power settings
P itch set if needed.

I think that covers most of what you are looking for, and can probably be arranged into an appropriately memorable acronym should it be desired for discussion purposes.

[regionaldasher]

Back in my instructing days we had to adhere to a stabilised approach criteria at 300ft AGL which isn't too dissimilar to an airline one (VREF-0/+5, wings level, aligned with runway, acceptable ROD, on glide slope, aircraft configured, appropriate power setting).
The only real issues were during initial circuit training where there was some discretion shown - even then though if you're not hitting those gates it's far from ideal.

[Sunfish]

how about propeller, undercarriage, flaps as appropriate, speed as appropriate, then aim point, airspeed, aim point airspeed...?

[allthecoolnamesarego]

De flieger - Gold!

Sunny, don't leave out the 'aspect' on that worck cycle, as one could be holding a lovely aimpoint with a perfect airspeed, but be way off 'aspect' or slope. :)

[Old Akro]

Looks to me to over complicate what with good training should become an intuitive process!

Here here.

I would change 40 deg AoB to 'a rate 1 turn'


Why specify either??

You should do what you need to do to get the view in the window right on short final. These rules & acronyms are what has turned circuits into short cross-country flights.

[aussie027]

De flieger - Gold!:D:ok:

LOL, Almost spilt/snorted up the mouthful of coffee!!

A bit like Alan Sheppard's prayer.

Well done.:ok:

[Arm out the window]

I agree - the rude mnemonics are always the best...

[abgd]

If it's not a memory aid, then why formulate it as a checklist with a mnemonic? And I disagree with much of it anyhow.

E Established. Not lined up on final by 400FT AGL.
I would argue you have one too many zeros there.

S Sink rate is no greater than 1000 feet/minute
Descent rate can easily be more than 1000 ft/min if you are slipping in, and you can safely hold the slip until well under 400 feet.

I was taught:

c - carb heat
r - runway clear
a - airspeed/approach stable
p - permission to land

and would argue that 'r' and 'a' are probably unnecessary - you should be looking out of the window so should see anything on the runway, and being in control of the aircraft is so fundamental to flying that it should be like breathing - not worthy of mention. I suppose your list covers carb heat in 'configuration' but really it's worthy of a lot more attention in any aircraft with carb heat, and a lot less in any aircraft without it.

Neither list mentions what you should do if you can't fix the approach, which is obviously to go-around. At least as big a problem as not recognising that there's something wrong with an approach, is to recognise that things aren't right and continue anyway.

It's laudable to want to avoid further accidents, but the problem with thinking these things up as a response is that you inevitably end up with a list that gets longer and longer as the accidents continue. It's something that happens a lot in my field {medicine} - each time something bad happens, somebody devises a form to prevent it. The end result is that your attention and time are increasingly drawn away from the things that matter the most. The other day I overheard the nurses going over the admissions paperwork for a policeman who'd fallen off his motorbike and needed his arm fixed. Did he feel safe at home? Did he live in a house with stairs? All very relevant when it comes to caring for a lady with an abusive husband who has broken her ankle, but half an hour of irrelevant paperwork for a fit young man who just needed a painkiller and a 'nil by mouth' sign on his bed. One form the nurses have for patients who need to be referred to social services is over 50 pages long and takes over a day to fill out. Paperwork to 'ensure it never happens again' is a curse of our age.

My favourite aviation safety strategy is to read lots of accident reports and 'that worst day' articles. And to be ready to go around. To be aware that there's no shame in going around. And to practice a go-around once every flying day just to reinforce that.

[weloveseaplanes]

My favourite aviation safety strategy is to read lots of accident reports and 'that worst day' articles.

Here here.

[rattly_spats]

My favourite aviation safety strategy is to read lots of accident reports and 'that worst day' articles. And to be ready to go around. To be aware that there's no shame in going around. And to practice a go-around once every flying day just to reinforce that.

And sing that old song, once again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ccq30minme8