At what altitude is a stabilized approach required for ME operators?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: EQUATOR
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At what altitude is a stabilized approach required for ME operators?
A company in Middle East apply to their SOP that pilot have to be stabilized by 1000 ft AGL in VMC & IMC, reason is for the safety, while we all knew that the issue of stabilized approach by Flight Safety Foundation was 500 ft AGL in VMC and 1000 ft in IMC this was also use by Boeing & Airbus FCTM, I do believe that the Flight Safety Foundation made this issue with reason and with research ,maybe this is the optimum safety that they found after being study on this issue, or would otherwise airlines using standard stabilized approach at 500 ft AGL in VMC and 1000 ft AGL in IMC are less safe?? 
and are stabilized at 1000 ft AGL is more professional consider traffic/fuel/efficiency. etc during final approach in IMC/VMC? 
1000 ft AGL really safe than Flight Safety Foundation has made a wrong recommendation
and are stabilized at 1000 ft AGL is more professional consider traffic/fuel/efficiency. etc during final approach in IMC/VMC? 1000 ft AGL really safe than Flight Safety Foundation has made a wrong recommendation
Last edited by in FACT is; 24th Sep 2009 at 15:53.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: New York, USA
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flight Safety Foundation is just dandy for light aircraft, but air carriers (not all, BTW) have adopted 1,000' as the standard for VMC and IMC. Reference Southwest at Burbank, or again at MDW, for example. There are many others.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Dunesville
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EK's stabilization criteria are historic, or more to the point hysteric. After a number of unstable approaches a few years ago the desk pilots introduced a more restrictive limitation of 1,500 IMC and 1,000 AAL VMC.
So in the tradition of penalizing the many for the errors of the few we go-around because the landing check-list isn't complete @ 950' because we're afraid of the 'support' we'll get from the same desk pilots who'll want to discuss the subsequent GA.
The FOM used to be for the guidance of wise men and the adherence of fools. Here it's made by fools to be adhered to by otherwise wise men... or else.
So in the tradition of penalizing the many for the errors of the few we go-around because the landing check-list isn't complete @ 950' because we're afraid of the 'support' we'll get from the same desk pilots who'll want to discuss the subsequent GA.
The FOM used to be for the guidance of wise men and the adherence of fools. Here it's made by fools to be adhered to by otherwise wise men... or else.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Between Vedex and Murag!
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EK's automation policy is hysteric...and they'll regret it in few years..but the current accountable managers will be gone by then...
As for the subject, let's face the facts: a bunch of clowns/cowboys (whatever you like) left no choice to our senior management but implementing more conservative stabilization height in VMC, who will blame them?
If you aim for fuel savings/efficiency, how about telling our colleagues that levelling at 2/3000 feet for 10 miles or more does not look very efficient. Some of them should really consider V/S knob use.
But even in this company, if you read your part A thoroughly, you are able to fly visual circuit and thus forget about the stabilization criteria at 1000'
(but not at 500!)...
Fly safe, drag well
As for the subject, let's face the facts: a bunch of clowns/cowboys (whatever you like) left no choice to our senior management but implementing more conservative stabilization height in VMC, who will blame them?
If you aim for fuel savings/efficiency, how about telling our colleagues that levelling at 2/3000 feet for 10 miles or more does not look very efficient. Some of them should really consider V/S knob use.
But even in this company, if you read your part A thoroughly, you are able to fly visual circuit and thus forget about the stabilization criteria at 1000'
(but not at 500!)...Fly safe, drag well
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Earth
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually Marooned the EK stabilisation criteria is 1000' IMC & 500' VMC, with the 500' rule only being allowed if certain criteria are met by 1000'
The 1500' stipulation merely states that the gear has to be down and the landing flap selected.
I'm not sure I agree with their criteria being 'hysteric', maybe just a little overcautious
The 1500' stipulation merely states that the gear has to be down and the landing flap selected.
I'm not sure I agree with their criteria being 'hysteric', maybe just a little overcautious
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: ITCZ
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am all for a higher stabilized height.
A lot of pilots see the stabilized height as a target just the same as how we try to get the LOC and G/S right in the middle. But having said that, there are a lot of pilots who actually fly 1/2 dot low/high, 1/2 dot left/right. Not because of some desire to do so, but just that that is the best we can do based on capability, environmental conditions, fatigue...etc.
If you set the stabilized criteria at 1000' IMC/500' VMC, (values set as the bare minimum by the FSF) the top 25% of pilots will be able to make them 90% of the time, 50% of pilots will be able to make them 70% of the time, and the bottom 25% will struggle to make it 50% of the time.
So an organization who has doubts that their pilots can make it by 1000'/500' might want to increase the limits to 1500'/1000' or 1000' across the board to take into account the lower performing pilots. No doubt this will be a source of irritation for the aces, but use this opportunity to transfer your skill/knowledge to the rest so that all can benefit.
If the organization sees an improvement in the overall statistics, maybe the criteria will change.
A lot of pilots see the stabilized height as a target just the same as how we try to get the LOC and G/S right in the middle. But having said that, there are a lot of pilots who actually fly 1/2 dot low/high, 1/2 dot left/right. Not because of some desire to do so, but just that that is the best we can do based on capability, environmental conditions, fatigue...etc.
If you set the stabilized criteria at 1000' IMC/500' VMC, (values set as the bare minimum by the FSF) the top 25% of pilots will be able to make them 90% of the time, 50% of pilots will be able to make them 70% of the time, and the bottom 25% will struggle to make it 50% of the time.
So an organization who has doubts that their pilots can make it by 1000'/500' might want to increase the limits to 1500'/1000' or 1000' across the board to take into account the lower performing pilots. No doubt this will be a source of irritation for the aces, but use this opportunity to transfer your skill/knowledge to the rest so that all can benefit.
If the organization sees an improvement in the overall statistics, maybe the criteria will change.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: dubai
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have no gripe with the current EK mandated stabilization criteria. Apparently it works because the G/A's have dramatically declined over the past few years.
Keep in mind that EK flies big ass aircraft to some pretty dodgy airports with a wildly variable level of experience of pilots, so higher stabilization criteria are probably wise.
It is sometimes more challenging to fly stabilized into the larger airports due to speed constraints and traffic, but if they want a conservative approach to things, so be it.
Keep in mind that EK flies big ass aircraft to some pretty dodgy airports with a wildly variable level of experience of pilots, so higher stabilization criteria are probably wise.
It is sometimes more challenging to fly stabilized into the larger airports due to speed constraints and traffic, but if they want a conservative approach to things, so be it.
Makes for a much more relaxing job.
In the old days we had to be stable at minima, just about every approach was pushed to be stable as close to minima as possible..
Now it's a piece of piss , stable at 1000' ..no worries , my personal target is 1500' ...breeze, always leave myself some wiggle room
In the old days we had to be stable at minima, just about every approach was pushed to be stable as close to minima as possible
.. Now it's a piece of piss , stable at 1000' ..no worries , my personal target is 1500' ...breeze, always leave myself some wiggle room
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Dohacity
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In these airlines with 65+ nationalities manning the flight decks I believe it is absolutely mandatory to have an all round 1000ft AGL stabilisation criterium.
Too many different backgrounds, cultures and personalities to do it otherwise. Combine this with large aircraft, dodgy destinations and high levels of fatigue and becomes very easy to see why this rule has been designed.
We saw as well a huge drop in the number of GA's as soon as this rule was set and I have to agree that, in all honesty, it makes live easy.
1000ft gives you a bit more safety margin, a bit more time. And it makes a possible GA much less stressfull than when performing it below 500ft AGL.
And for those pilots who realy feel they have to prove something flying wise, trying to be stabilised as close as possible by 1000ft is a nice target as well.
Ok, it costs our industry some fuel but in this case there is no question about it that these kgs are well spend. The pilots dragging it in 30Nm out at 2000ft on the other hand are the ones that should feel very guilty about spilling/wasting fuel!
Too many different backgrounds, cultures and personalities to do it otherwise. Combine this with large aircraft, dodgy destinations and high levels of fatigue and becomes very easy to see why this rule has been designed.
We saw as well a huge drop in the number of GA's as soon as this rule was set and I have to agree that, in all honesty, it makes live easy.
1000ft gives you a bit more safety margin, a bit more time. And it makes a possible GA much less stressfull than when performing it below 500ft AGL.
And for those pilots who realy feel they have to prove something flying wise, trying to be stabilised as close as possible by 1000ft is a nice target as well.
Ok, it costs our industry some fuel but in this case there is no question about it that these kgs are well spend. The pilots dragging it in 30Nm out at 2000ft on the other hand are the ones that should feel very guilty about spilling/wasting fuel!
