In the STL Working Group we learned that many flights in our population end with a visual approach, that pilots are often unaware of how unstable an approach is, that unstable approaches are less likely to result in a go-around, and the factors that increase landing distance are not well perceived. This was an eye-opener for me. We agreed that safe landings depend on stable approaches, and stable approaches depend on good management of energy state (altitude, airspeed and configuration) and flight path (lateral, vertical and touchdown point).
The traditional approach framework where energy state and flight path goals are located at the same place as hard limits is flawed, since we all know we can get things under control in the last 1000’. If we have a set of rules that no one follows, that do not align with how we really fly, they are worse than none at all. As a result, many (myself very much included) have trouble making the decision to go-around if needed, and are unprepared to execute the maneuver. I am not talking about IMC minimum situations which we are all well trained to do, but real-world cases where the runway is not cleared, we are too high or too fast, have traffic conflicts, etc. The new STL framework separates goals and limits, which allows us time to bring these parameters under control (how we really fly), and provides hard limits that remove indecision. The result is captured in the STL Cue Card.
The traditional approach framework where energy state and flight path goals are located at the same place as hard limits is flawed
Jonathan
How has this learning changed how I fly? In general, I try to do a better job of reducing workload by moving tasks upstream, defining a touchdown point limit, and figuring out what to do if I cannot land. I have changed one specific thing about my flying with great results – I simply fly a constant Vref from 1000’ agl, fully configured. I had gotten into the bad habit of flying approaches too fast and configuring late. I actually took pride in my ability to decelerate on final and always hit Vref at the numbers. I now realize that flying the last 1000’ in a constant energy state frees up a lot of my attention, which I can now use to look for traffic, check the runway and decide how to break-off if needed. I also seem to land on target more often and use less runway. I have been resistant to going-around because I had no fixed decision point, no flight path plan in a VFR environment, and was too busy managing a changing energy state. I hope this new practice leaves me better prepared to do the right thing when the unexpected happens.