Originally published at: NBAA: Stabilized Approaches Remain Key Safety Focus In Q1 Review
NBAA’s latest safety review points to stabilized approaches as a continuing concern.
“strict adherence to stabilized approach criteria” goes both ways. How often does ATC dump an airplane inside of the approach gate because that’s the only way ATC can make the hourly arrival quota? Accident/incident investigations seem to have ceased criticizing ATC for imposing an unstabilized approach on pilots or otherwise compromising safety in order to meet capacity targets. In the 2009 Turkish Air accident at Amsterdam’s Schiphol airport, the investigation actually exonerated ATC for making pilots dive down to capture the glideslope from above, past the final approach fix, by saying that such had become routine at Schiphol and making no recommendation to fix it!
Lopsided investigations and analyses don’t make aviation safer and may actually initiate the de facto acceptance of bad practices or embed them deeper.
You would think stabilized approaches would be as much required in the corporate world as they are in the 121 world. I have only flown military, 135, and 121, no corporate jets.
I take some pride, or at least think it’s a useful skill to polish, coming into my 400’ long 13% grade strip different every time! Various heights, angles etc., and then I just deal with it, considering it keeps me sharper than landing the exact same way every time, more fun also. BUT, when at an airport I fly like any one else, I get the need for a stabilized approach, at least as for traffic avoidance reasons, no one likes wonky approaches while mixing with others.
This topic was automatically closed after 7 days. New replies are no longer allowed.