A late-ish stabilisation
 

I witnessed a Spanish registered 737 conduct a visual approach to RW 10 in ALC yesterday, and by my TCAS he became stable, (by our company definition) at somewhere between 100 and 200 ft, but closer to 100ft.

Just wondered if anyone else saw it; or what was the latest you had seen anyone stabilise.

Hope the pax enjoyed the aeros.

MoT

Jut curious to what your TCAS and company consider to be stabilized?

Please post date, flight number, adress and bank account of the crew now...:}

miles offtarget ( Mmm......:suspect: )

You can judge another Aircrafts parameters by using the TCAS?

Jeeze man, you're wasted as a Pilot. You should apply to NASA. Numpty!

Harry

Was this the same Spanish 737 operator that had an episode at BFS last year? I think a bit of aeros went on there too (after they attempted to land at the wrong airfield!)

Oh dear Harry, I assume that your post is supposed to be funny (?)

I judged the stabilisation of the approach by the fact that the 737 had obviously crossed the airfield perimeter, I was stationary at the holding point perhaps 200 meters away, my TCAS was in TA/RA and showed it as a yellow circle with +100ft appended and his wings were far from level.

Did I need to go through all of this ? Anyway, sufficient subjective evidence I feel.

My employer, NASA or otherwise is irrelevant.

Love to you all,

MoT

The devil's in the details. I think they all assumed you were talking about stabilised in terms of thrust, airspeed and configuration, as opposed to bank angle. Rolling out on final at 100 to 200 ft is pretty low, I'd agree.

Miles.....

I didn't see the approach you're referring to but I have seen very similar at ALC, IBZ and AGP (all Spanish carriers- no I'm not xenophobic..... just stating a fact). I don't see what the "Cod" is getting worked up about - the events I witnessed it was blindingly obvious that the aircraft was WAY above profile just by looking at it - TCAS backed up / confirmed this. The AGP approach I saw had +15 with a range of about 3D - and it looked like it as well :ugh: If the thrust came above idle, I'll eat my hat, so he/she never did stabilise......... The IBZ A320 touched down about half way down the runway..... Seen some "interesting" visual approaches at LEMH/MHN(?) by DC-9/MD83 too.

All aircraft and operators are required to carry and operate a FDM (Flight Data Monitoring) Program so I'm amazed that crew still think it's ok to fly such an approach - unless of course they know that they won't be questioned about it, so just do it regardless :ugh:

One day we'll read about one where it didn't work.

A4

I know you won't believe me, but my company didn't have any accidents for 25 years. Then we instituted stable approach criteria, and had 7 major landing accidents in the next 10 years.....

Maybe they should tighten up the stable approach criterea a bit.............:E

"I know you won't believe me, but my company didn't have any accidents for 25 years. Then we instituted stable approach criteria, and had 7 major landing accidents in the next 10 years....."

There's a very important point in that statement. I know it's there but I just don't have the experience yet to put it into the right words. I think he's hit the nail on the head.

hey huck, did you fly for the same place I flew? was one of those crashes known as the alliquipa flippa?

as far as rolling wings level at low altitude try KDCA landing south.

I'm going to say some things. They're going to be heretical. (Forgive me Jesus, and be with the pygmies in New Guinea....)

When I was a young pup I flew for a regional carrier. Most of our approaches were visual, and maybe 30% of those were at night.

When I was cleared for a visual approach, I reached down and closed my Jepp book. Or I pulled up the ground chart - but only if I'd never been there before.

Then I flew my aircraft based on my view of the runway. I turned final somewhere around 400', somewhere near my target speed, and maybe at full flaps, maybe not. My only requirement: a smooth touchdown in the touchdown zone. Everything else was up to me.

What aircraft? Everything up to and including the BAe-146.

Flash forward: now - at 1000 feet - I have to be on speed, on glidepath, fully configured, engines stable at approach setting, checklists completed, sterile cockpit, and if there is an IFR approach available (and there always is, and it's always an ILS) I have to brief it and fly it. Autopilot use is encouraged, autothrottle use is damn near mandatory.

Sounds conservative, right? Safer? The proper way to ensure zero accidents?

Here's my little secret: I was ten times the pilot back in the old days. I could make my aircraft walk and talk. I knew the difference in power settings on final between a heavy landing and just a middling one. I could take my crab out at 10 feet in the flare and kiss the ground with the upwind wheel. I FLEW MY AIRCRAFT - I didn't just watch it fly.

Not the most politically correct view of stabilized approaches, I know, but I'm a bad bad boy.

So... did the guy make a smooth landing? Was he in the touchdown zone? Maybe he's a little bit of a rebel too.....

Thanks Huck

I think that's what I was wanting to put into words.

Have to agree with Harry, here.
'Numpty' about sums it up.

As for NASA...naw, they wouldn't have him.:rolleyes:

Huck

Great Post. You're forgiven.

.4

Thats fine, you can do that in aircraft up to BAe146. Unfortunately you can't do that sort of flying into busy controlled airports in a big jet. There's too much traffic and the aircraft isn't manouvreable enough. Try turning final at 400 ft in a 747 and you'd better have it right first time because there's no time to correct if you haven't. So what can we do to enhance safety when that sort of flying isn't available? Stabilised approaches are a proven way to reduce accident rates. If you get it right you should never get below 500 feet without being in the slot, and you should certainly have your approach (and hence workload) under control before you go below 1000 feet. If the introduction of stabilised approaches caused an increase in landing accidents I'd be more inclined to look at the training standards and the level of consistency in the flying. Maybe some previous dubious approaches had been masked by some extreme hand flying, undesirably high/low rates of descent or excessive manouvering on final? If applying more conservative approach criteria leads to an increase in accidents you've got to wonder what was being masked when people had carte blanche to do what they liked.

Yep, and with southerly 20-25 kts rain and low ceilings is where it gets interesting...:ugh:

Done lots of those, which is why I am most defintely not an advocate of rolling wings level at 200 feet! If you are rolling wings level at 200 feet on the Canarsie you've cut the corner.:ok:

yeah...you should try rwy05 at FNC sometime for good fun, specially when it's gusting. :eek: