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