Stabilised approach criteria
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Europe
Posts: 288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stabilised approach criteria
Can somebody tell what are the stabilised approach tolerances, regarding speed, attitude, flight path, check lists completed etc, and when are you required to be stabilised on approach ( eg O.M. ),
What kind of weather requires that, that kind of approach should be executed?
Answers highly appreciated?
THNKS!!!
What kind of weather requires that, that kind of approach should be executed?
Answers highly appreciated?
THNKS!!!
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Alba sor
Posts: 575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stabilised Approach
Here are the accepted atandard elements of a Stabilised Approach:
(In IMC, be stabilised by 1000' above touchdown and VMC 500' above touchdown.)
Correct flight path
Speed, Vref +20kts max, Vref min
Aircraft fully configured for landing
No greater than 1000' ft/min descent rate
All briefings & checklists completed
Power, not below as defined by AOM
The above applies to most types of approach, minor adjustment maybe needed for circling etc.
I find the above works rather well and is particularly good for low houred/inexperienced pilots to practise... and they usually get rather a good landing!
(In IMC, be stabilised by 1000' above touchdown and VMC 500' above touchdown.)
Correct flight path
Speed, Vref +20kts max, Vref min
Aircraft fully configured for landing
No greater than 1000' ft/min descent rate
All briefings & checklists completed
Power, not below as defined by AOM
The above applies to most types of approach, minor adjustment maybe needed for circling etc.
I find the above works rather well and is particularly good for low houred/inexperienced pilots to practise... and they usually get rather a good landing!
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Alba sor
Posts: 575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you Glueball, that is pretty standard & I should have included it in the above list.
Also, only minor corrections should be needed to maintain the flight path whilst stabilised.
Also, only minor corrections should be needed to maintain the flight path whilst stabilised.
If any factor or combination, such as sudden rainshowers, gusty crosswinds (tower wind reports can state the opposite wind direction) and/or shrt runways can cause experienced pilots to be uncomfortable-we can just say "let's make a go-around....". If we are simply "mission-oriented" in terms of being totally committed to completing each takeoff and approach (whether for schedule reliability or to avoid the appearance of being a wimp etc), we might destroy our own careers.
One of our FOs knows a pilot whose fleets vary from B-727s through heavy widebody aircraft, hauling anything from Chinese Panda "bears" to express cargo.
Even though they had some unfortunate incidents involving widebody jets which ran off runways in the Pacific Rim, along with a very large plane which bounced and crashed upside down at EWR (everybody made it out ok), the company supposedly had no clear criteria for a stable approach. The comments about having no stable approach requirements were quite a surprise to me and seem hard to believe.
Was it true?
One of our FOs knows a pilot whose fleets vary from B-727s through heavy widebody aircraft, hauling anything from Chinese Panda "bears" to express cargo.
Even though they had some unfortunate incidents involving widebody jets which ran off runways in the Pacific Rim, along with a very large plane which bounced and crashed upside down at EWR (everybody made it out ok), the company supposedly had no clear criteria for a stable approach. The comments about having no stable approach requirements were quite a surprise to me and seem hard to believe.
Was it true?
Last edited by Ignition Override; 30th Jun 2003 at 12:11.
