Stabilized App.
Thread Starter
PPRuNe supporter
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,676
Likes: 0
From: Planet Earth
Stabilized App.
Background, failed a chap on a line check (I was being observed by FAA) due to landing unspooled. He had been high on the profile the entire approach and chose to correct his position close to the airport, flare and touchdown good. The aircraft is the A320, my question is whether in your opinion this was a valid reason to have him repeat the check considering everything else was fine and considering the way the Airbus is certified (all automatics in). Thoughts and ideas appreciated from the talented group here. 
D.L.
D.L.
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 2,132
Likes: 3
From: on the golf course (Covid permitting)
Surely it depends on your company SOP's here.
If the SOP's require a stabilised condition by a given height or that a go-around be flown, then a failure to do that is a failure to follow SOP's.
I would consider that to be a major failure to follow procedure (as opposed to the many trivial ones that occur every flight such as forgetting to call MSA in the climb) and as such a potential check failure.
Whether or not a post flight review of the decision making process to determine the crews understanding of requirements for a stable approach would suffice or whether or not to fail the crew, I guess is a judgement call (I am not a checker). You have to ask what benefit is achieved by a further check/sim refresher after a thorough debrief ... maybe the FAA on board was a factor.
Tough call. Is your failure of the crew defensible? absolutely, so don't worry, the crew should have known better.
All imho.
If the SOP's require a stabilised condition by a given height or that a go-around be flown, then a failure to do that is a failure to follow SOP's.
I would consider that to be a major failure to follow procedure (as opposed to the many trivial ones that occur every flight such as forgetting to call MSA in the climb) and as such a potential check failure.
Whether or not a post flight review of the decision making process to determine the crews understanding of requirements for a stable approach would suffice or whether or not to fail the crew, I guess is a judgement call (I am not a checker). You have to ask what benefit is achieved by a further check/sim refresher after a thorough debrief ... maybe the FAA on board was a factor.
Tough call. Is your failure of the crew defensible? absolutely, so don't worry, the crew should have known better.
All imho.
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 451
Likes: 2
From: USA
Double Screw-Up
Is my understanding correct? You were the PNF? You were giving someone a line check? You allowed a guy to perform an unspooled landing?
Is my understanding correct?
Not only should the student have been busted, but you should have been busted as well!
Whatever your SOPs dictate, you should have seen to it that they were enforced. For example, a simple callout, "We are unstabilized! Go around!" would have been the required action on your part. If the trainee failed to perform a go around at that point, you should have taken control (become the PF...and the trainee become the PNF) and performed the go around.
As an insturctor, you MUST drill into these guys' heads that, most of the time, a botched approach is not the fault of the flying pilot. And, as such, the appropriate action...the professional action...is to go around! To do so is the professional thing to do. To continue in attempts to salvage the approach is poor airmanship.
I'm surprised the FAA sat there an allowed you guys to perform an unspooled approach! I'm also surprised that your check airman certification has not been suspended.
Gentlemen: A go around is a "Get Out of Jail Free" card. Use it when you need it!!!!
PantLoad
Is my understanding correct?
Not only should the student have been busted, but you should have been busted as well!
Whatever your SOPs dictate, you should have seen to it that they were enforced. For example, a simple callout, "We are unstabilized! Go around!" would have been the required action on your part. If the trainee failed to perform a go around at that point, you should have taken control (become the PF...and the trainee become the PNF) and performed the go around.
As an insturctor, you MUST drill into these guys' heads that, most of the time, a botched approach is not the fault of the flying pilot. And, as such, the appropriate action...the professional action...is to go around! To do so is the professional thing to do. To continue in attempts to salvage the approach is poor airmanship.
I'm surprised the FAA sat there an allowed you guys to perform an unspooled approach! I'm also surprised that your check airman certification has not been suspended.
Gentlemen: A go around is a "Get Out of Jail Free" card. Use it when you need it!!!!
PantLoad
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,349
Likes: 845
From: Tring, UK
I have to agree with PantLoad here. I assume the use of the words "line check" denote an actual revenue flight on a real aeroplane, not a sim ride. In any case, I would expect an approach of this type to be discontinued in the sim when it became obvious that it was unstable.
The only time I would ever continue a glide approach to touchdown in an airliner would be if I had lost all my engines. And this is coming from a glider pilot...
The only time I would ever continue a glide approach to touchdown in an airliner would be if I had lost all my engines. And this is coming from a glider pilot...
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 942
Likes: 0
From: Thailand
There is also a thread about SOPs on Prune which is relevant here.
Airbus procedures state that the approach must be stabilised at 500' agl in VMC and 1000' IMC so if you were gliding onto the runway then you both deserve a kick in the relevant parts of your anatomy. If your airline operates Airbus aircraft and ignores the best advice they can give you then your company SOPs need to be reviewed.
Airbus procedures state that the approach must be stabilised at 500' agl in VMC and 1000' IMC so if you were gliding onto the runway then you both deserve a kick in the relevant parts of your anatomy. If your airline operates Airbus aircraft and ignores the best advice they can give you then your company SOPs need to be reviewed.
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 801
Likes: 1
From: Southeast USA
Dream Land:
Over the past I guess I’ve developed a reputation here for being a hard-nosed advocate of “doing the right thing;” which is, actually, not a bad reputation to have … except, perhaps, for the “hard-nosed” adjective. As a result, I’ve made an attempt to “soften” my criticisms to some extent. And, while my recent motivation to “soften” my approach might have me want to soften the comments made by Pantload, I’ll have to agree with his overall conclusions – perhaps not go all the way as to advocate having your check airman certification suspended – but a reminder of the responsibility of line check personnel wouldn’t be out of order at all. As for the rest of Pantload’s comments, particularly those about drilling into “these guys’ heads that, most of the time, a botched approach is not the fault of the flying pilot,” and that a “go around is a ‘get out of jail free’ card,” I couldn’t have said it more eloquently or more accurately; particularly noting that he went out of his way to acknowledge that all of us (himself – and me – included), make rather questionable calls (or fail to make them, as the case may be) at one time or another.
So … lick your wounds and get back in there. Those with the guts to ask the question in the first place really have the right attitude (at least that is my opinion) and the industry is way too short of properly motivated and competent instructors and check personnel.
Nice job Pantload!
Over the past I guess I’ve developed a reputation here for being a hard-nosed advocate of “doing the right thing;” which is, actually, not a bad reputation to have … except, perhaps, for the “hard-nosed” adjective. As a result, I’ve made an attempt to “soften” my criticisms to some extent. And, while my recent motivation to “soften” my approach might have me want to soften the comments made by Pantload, I’ll have to agree with his overall conclusions – perhaps not go all the way as to advocate having your check airman certification suspended – but a reminder of the responsibility of line check personnel wouldn’t be out of order at all. As for the rest of Pantload’s comments, particularly those about drilling into “these guys’ heads that, most of the time, a botched approach is not the fault of the flying pilot,” and that a “go around is a ‘get out of jail free’ card,” I couldn’t have said it more eloquently or more accurately; particularly noting that he went out of his way to acknowledge that all of us (himself – and me – included), make rather questionable calls (or fail to make them, as the case may be) at one time or another.
So … lick your wounds and get back in there. Those with the guts to ask the question in the first place really have the right attitude (at least that is my opinion) and the industry is way too short of properly motivated and competent instructors and check personnel.
Nice job Pantload!
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 3,204
Likes: 2
From: Seattle
Background, failed a chap on a line check (I was being observed by FAA) due to landing unspooled. He had been high on the profile the entire approach and chose to correct his position close to the airport, flare and touchdown good.
How high was he? What was his descent rate? At what altitude did he retard the throttles to idle? At what altitude does your SOP require the stabilized approach to be established? Was he outside the parameters at that altitude? Were you PNF or in the Observer seat? Did you (or the PNF) make the required advisory calls (descent rate, glideslope, go around, as appropriate)?
I can see a situation where he could have been just less than 1 dot high at 1,000' AGL, with the engines somewhere above idle, kept the descent rate at 1,000 FPM, and retarded the throttles to idle somewhat earlier than normal to make that "good" flare and touchdown. If that is the case, it may have been a "bad bust."
I can also see a situation where the airplane was NOT within the allowable parameters, and the PNF did NOT make the required advisory calls. In that case, both the PF AND the PNF should have been "busted"!
So, what was "the rest of the story"?
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
From: Wet Coast Canada
I always teach my guys that they should always expect a go-around - if they get to land they should be pleasantly surprised.
Most of the difficulty is in assessing the instability - most of us will say "I can get it back" (or some such thing) and in my opinion you have already blown it; you have eliminated all your buffers and you are definitely backed into a corner, step one of the accident progression.
Most of the difficulty is in assessing the instability - most of us will say "I can get it back" (or some such thing) and in my opinion you have already blown it; you have eliminated all your buffers and you are definitely backed into a corner, step one of the accident progression.
Thread Starter
PPRuNe supporter
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,676
Likes: 0
From: Planet Earth
Thank you all for the contributions, the airport was near the sea, mountains all around, an arc to intercept the radial for a non-precision approach landing toward the water. I had always thought I screwed up but received a different view from someone with high credentials, he mentioned that as long as A/THR is engaged, Airbus guarantees performance and so on and so forth, at the time I didn't want to make 179 travelers go through a missed approach after a bumpy descent and approach, I could see it coming a mile away (not my view now). Again, thanks for contributions.
D.L.
D.L.
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
From: U.K.
Background, failed a chap on a line check (I was being observed by FAA) due to landing unspooled. He had been high on the profile the entire approach and chose to correct his position close to the airport, flare and touchdown good. The aircraft is the A320, my question is whether in your opinion this was a valid reason to have him repeat the check considering everything else was fine and considering the way the Airbus is certified (all automatics in). Thoughts and ideas appreciated from the talented group here.
D.L.
D.L.
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 980
Likes: 11
From: On the dark side of the moon
Dreamland:
You've been given a chance to learn a valuable lesson while remaining relatively unscathed, and I'm sure you're already taking it to heart. It's important to remember that many tail strikes and runway overruns have included an unstabilized approach as a part of the equation.
When we're acting as a member of a crew, we have a responsibility to perform in accordance with the regs and SOPs at all times, whether we're on a routine line flight, a training flight or a check flight. At no time can we "let it go" all the way to a landing to see how the other pilot handles their predicament. I'm quite sure that if you had been flying with that same chap the next day on a routine revenue trip, you would have intervened much sooner to ensure that either the approach was stabilized or that a go-around was completed. The same must apply on a check flight, and in fact, had you called a go-around, it would have been a much better lesson for the guy than just getting "gassed" on his line check.
Jeff
P.S. Don't listen to brain fade (appears that the name says it all). Check pilots have a responsibility to ensure that SOPs are obeyed to the greatest and safest extent possible.
You've been given a chance to learn a valuable lesson while remaining relatively unscathed, and I'm sure you're already taking it to heart. It's important to remember that many tail strikes and runway overruns have included an unstabilized approach as a part of the equation.
When we're acting as a member of a crew, we have a responsibility to perform in accordance with the regs and SOPs at all times, whether we're on a routine line flight, a training flight or a check flight. At no time can we "let it go" all the way to a landing to see how the other pilot handles their predicament. I'm quite sure that if you had been flying with that same chap the next day on a routine revenue trip, you would have intervened much sooner to ensure that either the approach was stabilized or that a go-around was completed. The same must apply on a check flight, and in fact, had you called a go-around, it would have been a much better lesson for the guy than just getting "gassed" on his line check.
Jeff
P.S. Don't listen to brain fade (appears that the name says it all). Check pilots have a responsibility to ensure that SOPs are obeyed to the greatest and safest extent possible.
Last edited by J.O.; 7th January 2007 at 13:11.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
From: Ormond Beach
Background, failed a chap on a line check (I was being observed by FAA) due to landing unspooled. He had been high on the profile the entire approach and chose to correct his position close to the airport, flare and touchdown good. The aircraft is the A320, my question is whether in your opinion this was a valid reason to have him repeat the check considering everything else was fine and considering the way the Airbus is certified (all automatics in). Thoughts and ideas appreciated from the talented group here.
D.L.
D.L.
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 416
Likes: 0
From: No one's home...
Background, failed a chap on a line check (I was being observed by FAA) due to landing unspooled. He had been high on the profile the entire approach and chose to correct his position close to the airport, flare and touchdown good. The aircraft is the A320, my question is whether in your opinion this was a valid reason to have him repeat the check considering everything else was fine and considering the way the Airbus is certified (all automatics in). Thoughts and ideas appreciated from the talented group here.
D.L.
D.L.
Good thing.. no bent metal and no injured pax.
Bad thing.. often we take away the wrong lesson and that is 'Hey.. I can do this!"
Now that the event is over, it would probably be a good thing to go ahead and debrief the new pilot and ask what lessons he learned from the approach. If he learned nothing, you can still recommend that he have another line check with another instructor.
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
From: Florida
My company just changed to 1000' stabilized for all approaches - day or night, vmc or imc. The one improvement to the requirement for the A320 was that if the engines were still at idle at 1000', but the A/THR was on, then the engine parameter is considered acceptable.
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
From: Citizen of the World
There shouldn't be any need on this forum to explain why stabilised approaches are a good idea and are SOP in just about every airline I can think of. If a pilot on a check cannot perform to the company SOPs then I'm afraid he fails and that's that. A serious chat about the potential for disaster would be appropriate and it matters not a whit if the Feds are on board or not. In fact if a pilot operating with you does this on any flight just take over control and tell him that he'll be allowed fly the aircraft when he decides to do it properly. In the case quoted, a go-around should have been performed at whatever stabilised altitude
is quoted in your SOPs. Swallow your pride and go around and some day it may save your neck. Not easy to do I know, but still the sensible option.
Rubik - Airbus (and Boeing etc) SOPs are merely recommendations for operating the aircraft. Most carriers adapt these SOPs to suit their own operating environment.
is quoted in your SOPs. Swallow your pride and go around and some day it may save your neck. Not easy to do I know, but still the sensible option.
Rubik - Airbus (and Boeing etc) SOPs are merely recommendations for operating the aircraft. Most carriers adapt these SOPs to suit their own operating environment.