EZY Captain gets the boot
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Thailand
Posts: 942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
albertofdz, you have said, amongst other things;
As long as the airplane crosses the threshold at the CORRECT speed and path and with an APPROPRIATE power setting, then we can all affirm that the flight has been conducted in a safe manner. More so, plenty of fuel can be saved in these ever so difficult times.
Also,
SOPS should be known by heart and followed NEARLY at all times, this includes bad weather, whenever we feel tired etc etc; But lets not obsese, visual approaches are healthy, fuel efficient, they teach you how to fly the airplane in nearly any scenario and excuse me, but they are also extremely fun and fulfilling
These are my conclusions: Bad weather, tired, heavy traffic = SOPS
Good weather, relaxed, traffic permitting = extend flaps and gear later than normal, fly a visual approach when possible, enjoy your job because you have a damn good one!
albertofdz, your views, and a few other misguided posters on here, on SOPs are about twenty-five years out of date. You seem to have a pick and mix attitude which many learned people have been trying to prevent for many years now. SOPs have been developed and tuned after many millions of flights to be where they are now.
As a flight safety tool they are probably one of the most significant additions the industry has evolved, along with such things as ILS/Autoland, EGPWS and TCAS, amongst others.
Crossing the threshold with the aircraft fully configured with the power at an appropriate setting at the correct height and speed is what we all aim to achieve. You seem to be of the misguided impression that selecting gear down at 3 miles, landing flap at 2 miles and power on at 1 mile, achieving your criteria, is so very slick but it is a recipe for disaster. If you don't believe me then simply go back over all the data from the last 25 years that led companies to implement their current SOPs.
There are many thousands of good reasons why SOPs insist, INSIST, that you must be fully configured and stable at 1000' in IMC and at 500' in VMC. They are the bodies of the unfortunate victims of all the accidents that have occurred because aircraft were not in the correct configuration and stable at these heights on many hundreds of previous approaches. There must never be any leeway in the interpretation of these SOPs, never, for the simple reason that no one of us is more informed or better able to fly than any of the people who wrote these procedures on the back of all these deaths.
Fly the SOPs or buy your own aircraft, simple, no deviations, not NEARLY all the time, always. Every approach, every time. Stable at 1000' IMC, 500' VMC or you MUST Go around.
End of story.
Anything else is dangerous.
Dangerous.
As long as the airplane crosses the threshold at the CORRECT speed and path and with an APPROPRIATE power setting, then we can all affirm that the flight has been conducted in a safe manner. More so, plenty of fuel can be saved in these ever so difficult times.
Also,
SOPS should be known by heart and followed NEARLY at all times, this includes bad weather, whenever we feel tired etc etc; But lets not obsese, visual approaches are healthy, fuel efficient, they teach you how to fly the airplane in nearly any scenario and excuse me, but they are also extremely fun and fulfilling
These are my conclusions: Bad weather, tired, heavy traffic = SOPS
Good weather, relaxed, traffic permitting = extend flaps and gear later than normal, fly a visual approach when possible, enjoy your job because you have a damn good one!
albertofdz, your views, and a few other misguided posters on here, on SOPs are about twenty-five years out of date. You seem to have a pick and mix attitude which many learned people have been trying to prevent for many years now. SOPs have been developed and tuned after many millions of flights to be where they are now.
As a flight safety tool they are probably one of the most significant additions the industry has evolved, along with such things as ILS/Autoland, EGPWS and TCAS, amongst others.
Crossing the threshold with the aircraft fully configured with the power at an appropriate setting at the correct height and speed is what we all aim to achieve. You seem to be of the misguided impression that selecting gear down at 3 miles, landing flap at 2 miles and power on at 1 mile, achieving your criteria, is so very slick but it is a recipe for disaster. If you don't believe me then simply go back over all the data from the last 25 years that led companies to implement their current SOPs.
There are many thousands of good reasons why SOPs insist, INSIST, that you must be fully configured and stable at 1000' in IMC and at 500' in VMC. They are the bodies of the unfortunate victims of all the accidents that have occurred because aircraft were not in the correct configuration and stable at these heights on many hundreds of previous approaches. There must never be any leeway in the interpretation of these SOPs, never, for the simple reason that no one of us is more informed or better able to fly than any of the people who wrote these procedures on the back of all these deaths.
Fly the SOPs or buy your own aircraft, simple, no deviations, not NEARLY all the time, always. Every approach, every time. Stable at 1000' IMC, 500' VMC or you MUST Go around.
End of story.
Anything else is dangerous.
Dangerous.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As long as the airplane crosses the threshold at the CORRECT speed and path and with an APPROPRIATE power setting, then we can all affirm that the flight has been conducted in a safe manner.
The heart of the stable approach is the concept that repeatedly performing the same task makes the pilot ever safer in performing the stable approach, eliminating the risk - however good one is - that a gross error results.
Heightening stability of the approach, resulting in ever more precise landings would probably save more fuel across the fleet as a whole, than permitting deviations from those procedures that with the slightly less capable pilot will occasionally result in a go-around. Furthermore, you eliminate the chance of the one-off gross error by a huge factor.
As ruibk very correctly points out, we live in a safer era than ever before - even still, the vast majority of disasters are human-error induced. It amazes me that some people think they are better than the collective body of knowledge accumulated over 100 years of experience.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Waterworld
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Albert,
This is not meant to be a dig just an observation.
I'll wager you are not very experienced and by that I mean 1000 to 3000 hrs. Probably an ex cadet, probably about to get command or just got one.This margin of hrs is proven to be one of the danger zones for ego exceeding ability. I hope you are because if not you express some bizzare interpretations of your mandate for an experienced pilot.
Older wiser owls than you have been thru all this before and someday when you will start to realise that the hundreds of people in the back have a right to expect you to perform to the safest standards as determined by your qualifications and company proceedures not your version of events. They dont get on an aircraft for you to ad lib or decide when it is time for a bit of ego salving by rewriting policy. If you want to change proceedure send an email to your fleet manager and include your wisdom and back it up with some data and facts that will outweigh the collective knowledge of the rest of your management team.
You want creative flying go to the bush, you'll love it, all the room in the world to express yourself.
This is not meant to be a dig just an observation.
I'll wager you are not very experienced and by that I mean 1000 to 3000 hrs. Probably an ex cadet, probably about to get command or just got one.This margin of hrs is proven to be one of the danger zones for ego exceeding ability. I hope you are because if not you express some bizzare interpretations of your mandate for an experienced pilot.
Older wiser owls than you have been thru all this before and someday when you will start to realise that the hundreds of people in the back have a right to expect you to perform to the safest standards as determined by your qualifications and company proceedures not your version of events. They dont get on an aircraft for you to ad lib or decide when it is time for a bit of ego salving by rewriting policy. If you want to change proceedure send an email to your fleet manager and include your wisdom and back it up with some data and facts that will outweigh the collective knowledge of the rest of your management team.
You want creative flying go to the bush, you'll love it, all the room in the world to express yourself.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Thailand
Posts: 942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
737 Jock, you seem not so humble, in my opinion. I see you joined not long ago and yet you are quite happy to nay say the posts written by members of much longer standing and presumably, experience.
You write;
IMHO the 1000' landing config rule is utter tosh. It is absolutely no problem (on the boeing) to select the last stage of flaps at or even slightly below 1000' and be fully stable at 500RA.
This is the reason why ezy cannot do 160 until 4dme, unless you want to stress the flaps.
In my view doing a go-around at 1000' because the flaps are still moving is total fuel wastage!
But hey that's what the company wants plus I don't want to embarace my captain, so this is what I do
When you go for an interview with a proper airline, and here you would be wise to include easyJet, BA, Virgin and even Ryanair, and they ask you your opinion on stabilised approaches, I trust you will give the answer as written by the people you choose to ignore.
Your opinion, that it is utter tosh, will get you out of the door before you end the sentence.
It is the only, I repeat, the ONLY proven and well established way to prevent unprofessional and slip shod behaviour leading not only new and inexperienced pilots, but also those who have flown for many years, into unsafe and unstable approaches. Get used to the idea that in the real world of aviation, all safety conscious airlines use these criteria to prevent pilots with your attitude from endangering the lives of those on board the aircraft.
They don't do it to take the fun out of flying as you seem to think. They do it because it saves lives. Nothing about your views and attitude to SOPs leads me to think that you will ever pass a command course with any airline, never mind the ones I mentioned above.
You write;
IMHO the 1000' landing config rule is utter tosh. It is absolutely no problem (on the boeing) to select the last stage of flaps at or even slightly below 1000' and be fully stable at 500RA.
This is the reason why ezy cannot do 160 until 4dme, unless you want to stress the flaps.
In my view doing a go-around at 1000' because the flaps are still moving is total fuel wastage!
But hey that's what the company wants plus I don't want to embarace my captain, so this is what I do
When you go for an interview with a proper airline, and here you would be wise to include easyJet, BA, Virgin and even Ryanair, and they ask you your opinion on stabilised approaches, I trust you will give the answer as written by the people you choose to ignore.
Your opinion, that it is utter tosh, will get you out of the door before you end the sentence.
It is the only, I repeat, the ONLY proven and well established way to prevent unprofessional and slip shod behaviour leading not only new and inexperienced pilots, but also those who have flown for many years, into unsafe and unstable approaches. Get used to the idea that in the real world of aviation, all safety conscious airlines use these criteria to prevent pilots with your attitude from endangering the lives of those on board the aircraft.
They don't do it to take the fun out of flying as you seem to think. They do it because it saves lives. Nothing about your views and attitude to SOPs leads me to think that you will ever pass a command course with any airline, never mind the ones I mentioned above.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Over the Moon
Posts: 780
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Albertofdz
I would suggest that a chap who is configuring 15 miles out at 2000' is not doing it because he is worried about being stable at 500'.
He will be doing it at ATC request or because he simply lacks the experience, ability or SA to do otherwise. Some F/Os get amazingly touchy when you intervene to prevent such madness which then mitigates against Captains intervening.
I would suggest that a chap who is configuring 15 miles out at 2000' is not doing it because he is worried about being stable at 500'.
He will be doing it at ATC request or because he simply lacks the experience, ability or SA to do otherwise. Some F/Os get amazingly touchy when you intervene to prevent such madness which then mitigates against Captains intervening.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rubik
Why are you giving the guy such a hard time with the above quote when the company SOP's that you follow agree with him? (In VMC at least)
To doubt his ability to pass a command course on the basis of his posts is ridiculous!
And being so pedantic about every last foot is fine but how on earth does the Radalt make any sense for the 500' cutoff? (I believe someone mentioned this a lot earlier)
Easy used to require 170knots for LOC intercept so I suppose some individuals interpret that to be a requirement at any distance. I wouldn't but then again I'm a bit of a rebel - does that make me gash?
Why are you giving the guy such a hard time with the above quote when the company SOP's that you follow agree with him? (In VMC at least)
To doubt his ability to pass a command course on the basis of his posts is ridiculous!
And being so pedantic about every last foot is fine but how on earth does the Radalt make any sense for the 500' cutoff? (I believe someone mentioned this a lot earlier)
Easy used to require 170knots for LOC intercept so I suppose some individuals interpret that to be a requirement at any distance. I wouldn't but then again I'm a bit of a rebel - does that make me gash?
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Spain
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I understand all of the more experienced and sensible views and I appreciate the opinions of the wiser!
Though I still defend that in certain occasions landing flap extension can be selected later on, but still with a safety margin, this is all i'm saying! No camikazee approach, just a smooth, stable and perfectly safe one were landing config is reached later than normal, where i'm pretty sure we can all agree on the fact that this does not supose a threat towards the passenger or air frame.
Obviously I don´t aim to rewrite proceedures nor do I intend to cultivate a proceedure evading religion, really, even though i'm less experienced than many on this forum!
I hope my views are seen in a positive way, and not mistaken for someone who thinks better than the aircraft manufacturer and company policy designers, this is by no meens my intention.
Though I still defend that in certain occasions landing flap extension can be selected later on, but still with a safety margin, this is all i'm saying! No camikazee approach, just a smooth, stable and perfectly safe one were landing config is reached later than normal, where i'm pretty sure we can all agree on the fact that this does not supose a threat towards the passenger or air frame.
Obviously I don´t aim to rewrite proceedures nor do I intend to cultivate a proceedure evading religion, really, even though i'm less experienced than many on this forum!
I hope my views are seen in a positive way, and not mistaken for someone who thinks better than the aircraft manufacturer and company policy designers, this is by no meens my intention.
Mach 3
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Stratosphere
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No one answered my previous question (although I suppose it was rhetorical) so I'll try another couple:
If you're stable at 501RA, was your approach "safe/not dangerous"?
If you're stable at 499RA, is your approach "unsafe/dangerous"?
Some contributors appear to have a notion that risk is digital.
These might be the same kind of people, who, when queried about whether their feet were on the rudder pedals for the duration of a particular flight, might argue that because there is nothing in the flight manual advising such action, they ought not to be chastised for not doing so... After all, an engine failure is only an issue at V1 surely? (if you have a rudder channel, lucky you.)
They'd also find the Oscar Wilde quote:
abhorrent!
Unfortunately, you do have to have a gate, I agree, but one ought to look at excursions with a degree of common-sense.
You mean you haven't seen whether you can stay in ground effect (4' RA) for longer than XX seconds onto 18R at AMS?
Or was that memo apocryphal?
If you're stable at 501RA, was your approach "safe/not dangerous"?
If you're stable at 499RA, is your approach "unsafe/dangerous"?
Some contributors appear to have a notion that risk is digital.
These might be the same kind of people, who, when queried about whether their feet were on the rudder pedals for the duration of a particular flight, might argue that because there is nothing in the flight manual advising such action, they ought not to be chastised for not doing so... After all, an engine failure is only an issue at V1 surely? (if you have a rudder channel, lucky you.)
They'd also find the Oscar Wilde quote:
Consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative.
Unfortunately, you do have to have a gate, I agree, but one ought to look at excursions with a degree of common-sense.
You mean you haven't seen whether you can stay in ground effect (4' RA) for longer than XX seconds onto 18R at AMS?
Or was that memo apocryphal?
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 516
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IMHO the 1000' landing config rule is utter tosh. It is absolutely no problem (on the boeing) to select the last stage of flaps at or even slightly below 1000' and be fully stable at 500RA.
This is the reason why ezy cannot do 160 until 4dme, unless you want to stress the flaps.
In my view doing a go-around at 1000' because the flaps are still moving is total fuel wastage!
This is the reason why ezy cannot do 160 until 4dme, unless you want to stress the flaps.
In my view doing a go-around at 1000' because the flaps are still moving is total fuel wastage!
We are not challenged to squeeze performance from the aircraft. We are challenged to achieve precision in flying the aircraft as closely to the OM as conditions allow. The OM is crafted to balance both economy and risk management. Perhaps its a slow creep of procedural ‘disregard’ born of years of successful flying. We are so good at flying the aircraft that we are slipping on the standard of precision required. Pilots who have become so confident in their ability to fly the line that they feel empowered to interpret the OM based on their experience level instead of the word and intention of the SOP. It is both possible and desirable to fly "by the book" every day.
Gender Faculty Specialist
If you're stable at 501RA, was your approach "safe/not dangerous"?
If you're stable at 499RA, is your approach "unsafe/dangerous"?
If you're stable at 499RA, is your approach "unsafe/dangerous"?
- Possibly, possibly not.
- Possibly not, but then again...possibly.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Over the Moon
Posts: 780
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
500' aal would make a great deal more sense but I suspect that FLIDRAS cannot really measure that and so the insurance companies look for 500' RAD ALT. Get enough approach's stable and your premium goes down.
Clearly the line has to be drawn somewhere. You could call it 100' and the same argument would apply ie is an approach that gains stability at 99' any more unsafe than one that gains stability at 101'.
I rather suspect that common sense is applied and the whole approach is looked at and environmental factors are taken into account as per SOP.
Clearly the line has to be drawn somewhere. You could call it 100' and the same argument would apply ie is an approach that gains stability at 99' any more unsafe than one that gains stability at 101'.
I rather suspect that common sense is applied and the whole approach is looked at and environmental factors are taken into account as per SOP.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: My views - Not my employer!
Posts: 1,031
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you're stable at 501RA, was your approach "safe/not dangerous"?
If you're stable at 499RA, is your approach "unsafe/dangerous"?
If you're stable at 499RA, is your approach "unsafe/dangerous"?
Join Date: May 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'll wager you are not very experienced and by that I mean 1000 to 3000 hrs. Probably an ex cadet, probably about to get command or just got one.This margin of hrs is proven to be one of the danger zones for ego exceeding ability.
But I've flown with a few who display complete arrogance, total disdain for the F/O (I'm there to get him sacked), and a deluded and completely misguided belief that they are beyond making a mistake. They have way too much experience to do something like that. You know the type, they went solo as a foetus and had their first jet command at the age of 7. And not one of them was anywhere near as good as he thought he was.
I could easily try and pigeonhole these characters by saying they probably have 10,000-15,000 hours, their second wife has long since taken the house and the SLK etc but all I could conclude is there doesn't seem to be any "zone" with guys who act like this. The only consistency amongst them is that they are all t*ats. So I would make a humble suggestion that it isn't really about hours' brackets. If you're an arse at 1500hrs then you're going to be an arse at 10,000hrs.
I should warn you I am an ex-cadet (
) and I'm just coming up on 3000hrs (
) so I am probably writing cheques my A319 can't cash.But I always aim to be stable by 1000ft.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 516
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let me repeat what I thought I said on many previous posts. First, the stabilised approach is the nexus of any discussion of procedure and process at the airline. The people of our airline have spent more time cussing and discussing the stabilised approach than any other facet of our flight operation. They are more committed to the collective vision of what we all know characterises a stabilised approach. Face it, we are not trying to describe a sunset to a blind man. We all should know when an approach is stabilised and when it is not.
Second, we will probably never get the language quite ‘right.’ It is a compromise of perspectives – and like all compromises, it is viewed as equally imperfect and objectionable in opposite directions by both viewpoints.
Thirdly, Whatever your reason, I ask you, in the future, lets limit our sarcasm and attacks to our haircuts and not distort the facts of this very important subject.
Fuel - Do you feel/think/know we are burning more fuel with the procedures?
- It is operationally irrelevant whether each of us ‘think’ we are burning more or not. The question is answered by empirical fact and determined by our actual fuel burn, not by what each of us think. I cannot spend money that I ‘think’ is in my wallet. I can only spend what I actually have. Let the bean counters answer this question.
lastly, Our boss, has set the standard at 1000 feet, i.e. "Should". If you can convince him to change the language and remove the MUST to SHOULD by 500 feet, be my guest. Until then, 1000 feet is it, not 950 or lower. If you don’t like 1000 feet, the problem is not with the OM.
If you disagree with their solution, then sadly you disagree. I am afraid that's life! In the end, you STILL have to manage your aircraft to arrive stabilised at 1000 feet.
Let’s “get real” here. Is there anything in the OM that prevents you from flying a stabilised approach by 1000? Is there anything that keeps you from meeting that standard? I’m sorry that this continues to be the nut that you break your teeth on.
Lets not beat each other up on this - in the words of Jerry Springer "Take care of yourselves and each other"!
Second, we will probably never get the language quite ‘right.’ It is a compromise of perspectives – and like all compromises, it is viewed as equally imperfect and objectionable in opposite directions by both viewpoints.
Thirdly, Whatever your reason, I ask you, in the future, lets limit our sarcasm and attacks to our haircuts and not distort the facts of this very important subject.
Fuel - Do you feel/think/know we are burning more fuel with the procedures?
- It is operationally irrelevant whether each of us ‘think’ we are burning more or not. The question is answered by empirical fact and determined by our actual fuel burn, not by what each of us think. I cannot spend money that I ‘think’ is in my wallet. I can only spend what I actually have. Let the bean counters answer this question.
lastly, Our boss, has set the standard at 1000 feet, i.e. "Should". If you can convince him to change the language and remove the MUST to SHOULD by 500 feet, be my guest. Until then, 1000 feet is it, not 950 or lower. If you don’t like 1000 feet, the problem is not with the OM.
If you disagree with their solution, then sadly you disagree. I am afraid that's life! In the end, you STILL have to manage your aircraft to arrive stabilised at 1000 feet.
Let’s “get real” here. Is there anything in the OM that prevents you from flying a stabilised approach by 1000? Is there anything that keeps you from meeting that standard? I’m sorry that this continues to be the nut that you break your teeth on.
Lets not beat each other up on this - in the words of Jerry Springer "Take care of yourselves and each other"!
Last edited by LYKA; 23rd Jul 2008 at 15:13.
Mach 3
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Stratosphere
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ashling,
Lest we forget the whole point of the thread, the argument is about whether or not the powers that be used some of that common sense judgement you suggest they should in the particular case of the Captain concerned...
What we know from the thread suggests they didn't and they made a crass judgement based on some flight data, an arbitrarily chosen "gate" and a hidden agenda...
Even if they didn't its a good topic for debate.
I suggest, with one eye on the New View of Human Error, that engendering a feeling amongst flightdeck crew that there is a possibility of flight data being used against you in an unreasonable fashion is creating systemic organizational dissonance...
I just hope that those who defend the SOP in this particular case with such unrestrained vigour never rail at the institutional stupidity that clobbers them with a fixed penalty for doing 61 in a 60...
I rather suspect that common sense is applied and the whole approach is looked at and environmental factors are taken into account as per SOP.
What we know from the thread suggests they didn't and they made a crass judgement based on some flight data, an arbitrarily chosen "gate" and a hidden agenda...
Even if they didn't its a good topic for debate.
I suggest, with one eye on the New View of Human Error, that engendering a feeling amongst flightdeck crew that there is a possibility of flight data being used against you in an unreasonable fashion is creating systemic organizational dissonance...
I just hope that those who defend the SOP in this particular case with such unrestrained vigour never rail at the institutional stupidity that clobbers them with a fixed penalty for doing 61 in a 60...
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Waterworld
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bitmore rightrudder.
The data speaks for itself as does similar data about pilots in higher time brackets as you mentioned but for different reasons.One arrogance bought about by over exuberance and ego and othe other arrogance brought about by complacency and ego.
The trick is to find the middle ground. Using artistic licence SOP during normal ops under either criterea is not the way to find the middle ground.
Its a cylclic thing.
Thanks for warning me about your cadetship. I must warn you I have 15000 hrs.(the first 9000 or so were spent in pretty much unregulated flying and I know alot of dead pilots)
That would make both of us emerging safely from data defined amber zones and therefore more mature and professional pilots.I have passed thru more cycles than I care to remember and despite many a close call ( usually of my egos making) it has been without so much as broken wiper blade . I wish you the same unblemished career.Happy flying and dont take the hump so easily.
The data speaks for itself as does similar data about pilots in higher time brackets as you mentioned but for different reasons.One arrogance bought about by over exuberance and ego and othe other arrogance brought about by complacency and ego.
The trick is to find the middle ground. Using artistic licence SOP during normal ops under either criterea is not the way to find the middle ground.
Its a cylclic thing.
Thanks for warning me about your cadetship. I must warn you I have 15000 hrs.(the first 9000 or so were spent in pretty much unregulated flying and I know alot of dead pilots)
That would make both of us emerging safely from data defined amber zones and therefore more mature and professional pilots.I have passed thru more cycles than I care to remember and despite many a close call ( usually of my egos making) it has been without so much as broken wiper blade . I wish you the same unblemished career.Happy flying and dont take the hump so easily.
I'd hate to see what happen if someone afraid of being sacked--becomes really destabilized in speed due to attempting to have untenable 'criteria' , requires a go around---- but is afraid to execute it and crashes
Your aim with a large aircraft is to ALWAYS be trimmed and stabilized---during all phases of flight--furthermore---the most important aspecdts of being 'stable' seems lost in certain SOPS
you should be able to:
Arrive over the threshold at Vref [in most case] at the correct height---in such a manner as to assure a touchdown in the TDZ---
and maintain a thrust setting that allows full thrust to be available before contacting the ground--- i.e a missed approach or landing climb---i.e spooled up in time to avoid a crash!!!
---AND---
if it is gusty or you're on a NPA then you can't always ride on rails to the TDZ
----------------AND IF-------------
following SOPS and arriving consistently too fast or too high to maintain some artificial concept of 'stable' as that's NOT stable--then the SOPS are wrong and the problem needs addressing and if just addressing it puts your job in jeopardy then find a new company---
CP: Why did you choose to continue so high and fast while the RWY was contaminated?
You: because we were stable according to the SOPS you wrote mister CP sir---I swear
YOU: Sacked!!!
I'm a crazy maverick though
Your aim with a large aircraft is to ALWAYS be trimmed and stabilized---during all phases of flight--furthermore---the most important aspecdts of being 'stable' seems lost in certain SOPS
you should be able to:
Arrive over the threshold at Vref [in most case] at the correct height---in such a manner as to assure a touchdown in the TDZ---
and maintain a thrust setting that allows full thrust to be available before contacting the ground--- i.e a missed approach or landing climb---i.e spooled up in time to avoid a crash!!!
---AND---
if it is gusty or you're on a NPA then you can't always ride on rails to the TDZ
----------------AND IF-------------
following SOPS and arriving consistently too fast or too high to maintain some artificial concept of 'stable' as that's NOT stable--then the SOPS are wrong and the problem needs addressing and if just addressing it puts your job in jeopardy then find a new company---
CP: Why did you choose to continue so high and fast while the RWY was contaminated?
You: because we were stable according to the SOPS you wrote mister CP sir---I swear
YOU: Sacked!!!
I'm a crazy maverick though
