One of the problems with the previous rationale of a stabilization height of either 1,000 . IMC or 500 . VMC, below which a go-around must be executed, is that many pilots do not believe an approach is “beyond saving” at that point. The “do or die” status of those heights became non-credible.
When I failed to go around because I was still in a bank rolling out on nal, I knew I would be completely stable at 400 ., 100 . below our companyʼs stabilized approach height criteria. Guilty? Yes. But something inside me justi ed my actions because that inner voice told me I could.
If the NTSB had examined the cockpit voice recorder (CVR), those would have been the only words exchanged between the pilot monitoring (PM) and the pilot ying (PF) between 500 . AGL and the PMʼs rst callout once they were on the runway.
This decision to continue an aircraft’s unstable approach—rather than performing a go-around—flies in the face of industry guidance. Aviation safety experts overwhelmingly suggest that a go-around is the most effective “reset opportunity” to stack the odds back in the favor of a pilot to safely land an aircraft. ...
Thought you’d appreciate my last monthly FDX feeder safety call Industry Topic one-pager. I’m here in MEM with FedEx conducting safety ops for our feeder (turboprop (C208, 408, and ATR 42/72) regional cargo) segment. ...
After having several flights to apply the STL cue card, I have found it very reassuring ...
The traditional approach framework where energy state and flight path goals are located at the same place as hard limits is flawed
Video will open in new window. Password is: CJP