Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Tech Log
Reload this Page >

Stabilized approach criteria

Tech Log The very best in practical technical discussion on the web

Stabilized approach criteria

Old 18th Nov 2019, 18:29
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Netherlands
Age: 28
Posts: 2
Stabilized approach criteria

Hi all,

The past years there have been a lot of studies on non compliance with stabilized approach criteria, one of the most known ones is probably the 2017 'Go-Around Execution and Decision-Making Project Final Report' by the Flight Safety Foundation.
Now I wonder if there are any airlines that have actually adopted a new view to stabilized approach criteria in the past years? Not necessarily the ones propagated by the FSF but any new style, other then the current industry standard of 1000' IMC and 500' VMC.

Secondly, I remember reading an article about a US or Canadian carrier who adapted new SAC which are at least very similar to the ones of the FSF but I believe the article read that a go-around wasn't even mandatory until 100' (instead of 300' as by the FSF). Since having adopted those SAC that airline apparently had close to a 100% go-around rate out of unstable approaches. Of course, I've searched my ass off but have been unable to find the mentioned article. Anyone else who read it or actually knows the airline in question?

WakuWaku is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2019, 21:51
  #2 (permalink)  
Join Date: May 2005
Location: France / UK
Age: 64
Posts: 928
Large UK airline specifies 1000ft IMC or VMC, amongst other criteria which are probably industry standard.
eckhard is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2019, 22:56
  #3 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Isla Grande
Posts: 835
Originally Posted by eckhard View Post
Large UK airline specifies 1000ft IMC or VMC, amongst other criteria which are probably industry standard.
Large German airline as well.
gearlever is offline  
Old 19th Nov 2019, 00:46
  #4 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 189
Waku Waku

I just read the FSF article you mentioned. It was an interesting read. It looks like a very sound set of recommendations that would improve what we are all doing! Unfortunately we work in an industry where change comes very slowly.
RUMBEAR is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2019, 11:53
  #5 (permalink)  
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 1,892
The FSF report is based on the premise that non-compliance is ‘the’ problem; and by implication that crew behavior is the cause. Their psychological study is weak and provides few substantial answers.

There is little consideration of alternative contributing factors - a systems viewpoint opposed to ‘blame’ the human. (See subsequent EASA? Conference).

The originating criteria for a stabilised approach evolved within the ALAR programme. The details as might be expected were a compromise of safety, human factors, etc, and also had to balance conflicting viewpoints in industry - regulators and manufacturers.
The objective was to get every operator to implement a procedure, and in the absence of alternatives to provide baseline parameters. There was no intent to mandate this, and the major manufacturers did retain their customised recommendations - some differing from the FSF.

Change is slow, but slower still without the ‘how to’ information. Many safety studies excel at identifying what is incorrect (a range of opinions reasoning why … etc), but few provide a mechanism or means to implement change.
Even reliance on regulation is slow and often this suggests that operators to ‘do their own thing’, again without offering advice of how to or alternatives.
Such an approach is better served by stating the overall safety objective; reduction in non-compliance is not very helpful without considering ‘how’.
safetypee is offline  
Old 25th Nov 2019, 18:05
  #6 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: Cardiff
Posts: 11
Change can be quick but we don't want it reactive, best keeping stablished approach safe and within standard limits, thought certainly have continued a few approaches a bit longer than I should a few times.....
Gonewiththewallet is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.