Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
jeffry747
Topic Author
Posts: 909
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 6:26 pm

Unstable Approach Question

Tue Jan 30, 2007 7:52 pm

As I was at work tonight waiting for a fellow UPS co-worker to get off work, I was reading the flight safety bulletin which is posted every week for all to see. According to the bulletin, an A300 was executing a nighttime approach into LAS. Tower cleared the flight to land on runway 25 left. As the plane lined up for finals, the crew noticed that the runway lights for 25L were either extremely dim or turned off completely. Crew then radioed the tower and asked them to turn up the lights, to which the tower responded "That won't work, that runway is closed." Apparently, at that moment, the tower recognized their mistake and cleared the A300 to land on 25R. At an altitude of 600 feet, well below the 1500ft stabilized approach requirement, the A300 shifted over to line up with 25R. The plane then landed uneventfully.

My question is this: Since they were below the 1500ft requirement for a stabilized approach, making that "lane change" would have destabilized the approach. Shouldn't that aircraft have done a go around to line up with 25R?
C'mon Big B, FLY!
 
PhilSquares
Posts: 3371
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 6:06 pm

RE: Unstable Approach Question

Tue Jan 30, 2007 7:59 pm

Quoting Jeffry747 (Thread starter):
My question is this: Since they were below the 1500ft requirement for a stabilized approach, making that "lane change" would have destabilized the approach. Shouldn't that aircraft have done a go around to line up with 25R?

There is no "1500ft" requirement. Every airline has their own SOP which the crews are supposed to adhere to.

For example, my airline uses 1000' on an instrument approach, 500' for a visual and 300' for a circling approach.

In your example, the crew was doing a visual approach and wasn't at 500' yet, so I don't see any problem. It would really depend on what UPS' SOPs were.
Fly fast, live slow
 
wing
Posts: 1366
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2000 9:10 pm

RE: Unstable Approach Question

Tue Jan 30, 2007 9:02 pm

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 1):
For example, my airline uses 1000' on an instrument approach, 500' for a visual and 300' for a circling approach.

Same in my airline too.Just to add an insight although 1000' is a mark to be stabilsed,PIC always has the flexibility to operate the airplane under safe manner.If I believe that the airplane will be stabilised very soon I don't execute a goaround just because we passed 998 feet.

On the other hand I never hesitate to discontinue if I believe it doesnt look right for whatever reason no matterwhat altitude.

What you described is called a side step maneuver and also commonly used by many Eurpoean airports.

Quoting Jeffry747 (Thread starter):
was reading the flight safety bulletin which is posted every week for all to see. According to the bulletin, an A300 was executing a nighttime approach into LAS. Tower cleared the flight to land on runway 25 left. As the plane lined up for finals

Was this maneuver stated as unsafe in the bulletin or something else related to this flight?
follow me on my facebook page" captain wing's journey log"
 
jeffry747
Topic Author
Posts: 909
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 6:26 pm

RE: Unstable Approach Question

Tue Jan 30, 2007 9:31 pm

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 1):
Every airline has their own SOP which the crews are supposed to adhere to.

SOP at UPS as far as I know requires the aircraft on finals to be stabilized by 1500'.

Quoting Wing (Reply 2):
Was this maneuver stated as unsafe in the bulletin or something else related to this flight?

The bulletin did not state this maneuver as being unsafe. The incident was regarded to be mainly an ATC miscommunication, as ATC had cleared them to land on a closed runway.
C'mon Big B, FLY!
 
IAHFLYR
Posts: 4163
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2005 12:56 am

RE: Unstable Approach Question

Tue Jan 30, 2007 9:48 pm

Quoting Jeffry747 (Thread starter):
My question is this: Since they were below the 1500ft requirement for a stabilized approach, making that "lane change" would have destabilized the approach. Shouldn't that aircraft have done a go around to line up with 25R?

1,500' AGL sure sounds extreme, I mean stablized on a 4.5 mile final, when traffic allows 3 mile finals are fairly routine!

If it is in UPS ops specs then yes, I think they should have gone around, whether I believe it is extreme or not........

"GO AROUND, climb and maintain 15,000' turn left heading 090 vectors to SDF"  Big grin
Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15112
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Unstable Approach Question

Tue Jan 30, 2007 10:21 pm

Quoting Jeffry747 (Thread starter):
I was reading the flight safety bulletin which is posted every week for all to see.

Everyone in the airline, not the sort of stuff that should be posted in public naming the organisation.

Quoting Jeffry747 (Thread starter):
Since they were below the 1500ft requirement for a stabilized approach, making that "lane change" would have destabilized the approach. Shouldn't that aircraft have done a go around to line up with 25R?

Depends on the company SOP.

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 1):
my airline uses 1000' on an instrument approach, 500' for a visual

Yes that is the standard ICAO.

Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 4):

1,500' AGL sure sounds extreme

We use the same, costs fuel but people say its worth it.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
PhilSquares
Posts: 3371
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 6:06 pm

RE: Unstable Approach Question

Tue Jan 30, 2007 11:14 pm

Quoting Jeffry747 (Reply 3):
SOP at UPS as far as I know requires the aircraft on finals to be stabilized by 1500'.



Quoting Zeke (Reply 5):
We use the same, costs fuel but people say its worth it.

So Zeke, what do you when your Vref is 130 and ATC tells you 160 till 4 mile final? You're not stabilised. I suppose you have to go-around?

There must be a lower criteria for a visual or circling approach? I have had ATC tell me 160 till 4 miles during a completely IFR approach. Certainly I'm not doing a missed approach then, would you?

Perhaps 1500' is just a little too conservative. But then again, I'm not in flight standards....
Fly fast, live slow
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15112
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Unstable Approach Question

Tue Jan 30, 2007 11:26 pm

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 6):

So Zeke, what do you when your Vref is 130 and ATC tells you 160 till 4 mile final? You're not stabilised. I suppose you have to go-around?

Just tell them unable 160, not my problem.

What was normal procedure at the old airport, is not allowed now.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
PhilSquares
Posts: 3371
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 6:06 pm

RE: Unstable Approach Question

Tue Jan 30, 2007 11:42 pm

Quoting Zeke (Reply 7):
Just tell them unable 160, not my problem.

What was normal procedure at the old airport, is not allowed now.

Good luck, because I've heard the transmission after that. Climb and maintain 4000, cleared direct XXX to hold. 1500' is just a little too much, is that true for all or just an instrument approach?

You must have big problems going into LAX, LHR, JFK...
Fly fast, live slow
 
CosmicCruiser
Posts: 2440
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2005 3:01 am

RE: Unstable Approach Question

Tue Jan 30, 2007 11:47 pm

Quoting Jeffry747 (Thread starter):
At an altitude of 600 feet, well below the 1500ft stabilized approach requirement, the A300 shifted over to line up with 25R. The plane then landed uneventfully.

For us it's a 1000' also but you really have to look at the particular criteria each co. has regarding the definition of "stable". Even here it's been relaxed or let's say adjusted over the past couple of years. For us a side-step requires either the "side-step mins or, if none, our circling mins apply. Sounds as if it really wasn't a big deal. I'm thinking the article was pointing out an interesting situation where the flight crew was vectored to and cleared to land on closed runway and how they handled it. How many guys would have perhaps continued until it WAS a go-around situation.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 7):
Just tell them unable 160, not my problem.

Come on Zeke, We get this on every arrival into STN, CDG & FRA. I can only imagine the vectors and sequencing you'd get not to mention reputation.
 
SlamClick
Posts: 9576
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2003 7:09 am

RE: Unstable Approach Question

Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:34 am

Except at ridiculously low altitudes I don't think side-stepping to the paralell runway is considered to compromise "stabilized"

I mean you are on-speed, in landing configuration, on a three degree glideslope for the left. The weather is severe clear, you have to swing right a thousand feet to the right runway centerline. At six hundred AFE you are twelve thousand horizontal feet, two nautical miles from touchdown on an eleven thousand foot runway.

I mean a touch more power because the new flight path is maybe 600 feet longer than the straight in, and swing over to be aligned within about one third of the remaining distance to touchdown. All pretty drama-free. The only thing in the whole story that concerns me is their being cleared for an approach to a closed runway, and again, normal vigilance all around and nothing done.

The last time I remember doing a night visual into Orlando (KMCO) 18L/R they had noise abatement procedures that required you to stay above a certain altitude until passing a certain point. This placed you full-scall high in the ILS if it was tuned. The FAA seems to think that is okay! I don't.

edit: I just attempted the lateral maneuvering geometry of this event on GoogleEarth. A little crude but here is my finding: At six hundred feet AGL the decision is made to land on the right runway. A turn to the right of about 20 degrees until intercepting the Right centerline will have you aligned with 25R at nine thousand feet from the aiming markers. That should be 450 feet AGL at a 3° glide path. The total increase in distance flown because of the maneuver is just about 200 extra feet, about one second. Now some time before that you will be within "one dot" on the localizer of the new runway and at all times you will be ON the approach path plane for BOTH runways because the touchdown points are aligned, and not offset.

This maneuver just sounds pretty uneventful to me, and, again, the only issue is the clearance for an approach to a closed runway.

[Edited 2007-01-30 19:02:02]

[Edited 2007-01-30 19:03:37]
Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
 
BrowntailWhale
Posts: 182
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2001 5:17 am

RE: Unstable Approach Question

Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:38 am

UPS SOP is to be stabilized by 1000ft AGL.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15112
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Unstable Approach Question

Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:41 pm

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 8):
1500' is just a little too much, is that true for all or just an instrument approach?

1500' in landing config stabilised on the glidepath.

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 8):
You must have big problems going into LAX, LHR, JFK...

Nope, and my other friends at SQ tell me they have a similar policy, to be stabilised when on the ILS. SQ do not allow speedbrake and flap either which is common at other airlines, people just adjust.

Quoting CosmicCruiser (Reply 9):
Come on Zeke, We get this on every arrival into STN, CDG & FRA. I can only imagine the vectors and sequencing you'd get not to mention reputation.

Nice for you, we have a reputation for being a safe airline, if ATC ask us into doing something which we think is unsafe we will tell them unable, or do the missed approach. The policy does cost money, but not accidents.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
Bellerophon
Posts: 531
Joined: Thu May 09, 2002 10:12 am

RE: Unstable Approach Question

Wed Jan 31, 2007 6:13 pm

Just as an aside, I have in times past, very occasionally, had to respond to ATC at LHR with "Unable 160 to 4".

Far toooo slow!  Wink

The reply was never to be asked to go-around, nor was our requested speed (190 kts to 2.5 miles) ever refused. They were always helpful.

What does annoy ATC at LHR, and many other busy airports, are those who accept the instruction and then ignore it, either deliberately or inadvertently, with the resultant reduction in the already tight separation in use on approach.

If you're not happy, then like Zeke says, tell ATC you can't accept it.

If you do accept it, then comply with it.

If you don't, then at LHR at least, you will be faced with being told to go-around, and an ATC report on your non-compliance with an ATC clearance filed.

On all fleets in my company, we always plan and monitor the approach so that we should be stable no later than 1,000 ft.

We must be stable by 500 ft or a go-around must be flown.

Regards

Bellerophon
 
CX Flyboy
Posts: 6146
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 1999 6:10 pm

RE: Unstable Approach Question

Wed Jan 31, 2007 6:32 pm

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 6):
So Zeke, what do you when your Vref is 130 and ATC tells you 160 till 4 mile final? You're not stabilised. I suppose you have to go-around?

We will be changing to 1500ft stabilised as an aim, and 1000ft is the mandatory go-around for an unstabilised approach, however as the change has not officially happened yet, we are technically supposed to go around at1500 unstabilised.
 
chrisMUC
Posts: 57
Joined: Sat Jul 22, 2006 7:47 pm

RE: Unstable Approach Question

Wed Jan 31, 2007 7:03 pm

Quoting Zeke (Reply 12):
if ATC ask us into doing something which we think is unsafe we will tell them unable, or do the missed approach. The policy does cost money, but not accidents.

exactly, it's the pilots who decide how the flight is conducted, not the controller.
My experience is, that the controllers know quite well our limitations and are very cooperative if we can't comply with a request.
BTW for what reason should a controller tell you to go-around if you have to reduce speed? It's less work for him (I guess) to tell the succeeding a/c also to reduce than to take you out of sequence, resulting in a too large gap, and lining you up for approach again.
 
PhilSquares
Posts: 3371
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 6:06 pm

RE: Unstable Approach Question

Wed Jan 31, 2007 7:56 pm

Quoting Zeke (Reply 12):
Nope, and my other friends at SQ tell me they have a similar policy, to be stabilised when on the ILS. SQ do not allow speedbrake and flap either which is common at other airlines, people just adjust.

I'd suggest your friends go back and re-read SOP and FCTM. It's 1000'AGL on an instrument approach, 500' AGL for a visual and 300' AGL for a circling approach. Anyone who tells you anything else is clueless! Ask them for the specific reference.

Stabilised is defined as langing gear down, landing flaps, speedbrake armed and the engines spooled up.

I'm not quite I understand your comments about speedbrake and flap?
Fly fast, live slow
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15112
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Unstable Approach Question

Wed Jan 31, 2007 8:16 pm

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 16):
I'd suggest your friends go back and re-read SOP and FCTM. It's 1000'AGL on an instrument approach, 500' AGL for a visual and 300' AGL for a circling approach. Anyone who tells you anything else is clueless! Ask them for the specific reference.

They are on the T7, not 74, dont know what manuals they have opened or have, just what they have told me when I asked them why SQ aircraft are so slow on approach at SIN.

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 16):
I'm not quite I understand your comments about speedbrake and flap?

The guys have operated Boeings at other airlines where the could use speedbrake and have flap deployed, which they tell me is not allowed on the T7 at SQ after an incident.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
CX Flyboy
Posts: 6146
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 1999 6:10 pm

RE: Unstable Approach Question

Wed Jan 31, 2007 9:36 pm

The 777 is hard to fly with no speedbrake...the darned thing is just so slippery! Sometimes on the ILS you need speedbrake to stop the aircraft from accelerating. Must be hard to fly at SQ if you cannot use flaps and speedbrake together.
 
IAHFLYR
Posts: 4163
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2005 12:56 am

RE: Unstable Approach Question

Wed Jan 31, 2007 9:58 pm

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 10):
The last time I remember doing a night visual into Orlando (KMCO) 18L/R they had noise abatement procedures that required you to stay above a certain altitude until passing a certain point. This placed you full-scall high in the ILS if it was tuned. The FAA seems to think that is okay! I don't.

For the MCO issue I actually think it is combination of noise as well as clearing the ORL traffic area. There is a work group that has been involved with the local ATC folks and some operators at MCO to fly RNAV transitions to the south runways at MCO, in LNAV/VNAV they work quite nicely from what I've seen in the sims and heard from crews that have been involved in some initial flight tests. Not sure if they will end up as specials or public transitions but if flown in LNAV/VNAV provides descent path with speeds to allow the crew to configure the airplane quite nicely, word it they are much more stabilized.

Also, an FAA NOTICE is in the works and may already be on the streets allowing for RNAV transitions to visuals which the MCO work follows.

Quoting ChrisMUC (Reply 15):
for what reason should a controller tell you to go-around if you have to reduce speed?

When you are the stone in the river which happens from time to time...all others are complying with speeds issued, you are the so called problem child, take them out and find spot they like better. Not to always punish the slower speed the same may hold true if you are one that has to fly at a much higher speed!
Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
 
CosmicCruiser
Posts: 2440
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2005 3:01 am

RE: Unstable Approach Question

Wed Jan 31, 2007 10:20 pm

Quoting Zeke (Reply 12):
Nice for you, we have a reputation for being a safe airline, if ATC ask us into doing something which we think is unsafe we will tell them unable, or do the missed approach. The policy does cost money, but not accidents.

No one is saying to compromise safety it's just that this request is fairly universal and disregarding some adverse condition it isn't unsafe, unless you think it is. Maybe I'm just used to the higher app speed of the MD-11 so it's not that much above Vapp.
 
jeffry747
Topic Author
Posts: 909
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 6:26 pm

RE: Unstable Approach Question

Wed Jan 31, 2007 10:50 pm

Quoting BrowntailWhale (Reply 11):
UPS SOP is to be stabilized by 1000ft AGL.

Did they change it? I could have sworn it was 1500'.
C'mon Big B, FLY!
 
User avatar
ThrottleHold
Posts: 565
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2006 11:00 pm

RE: Unstable Approach Question

Thu Feb 01, 2007 12:01 am

Quoting Bellerophon (Reply 13):
What does annoy ATC at LHR, and many other busy airports, are those who accept the instruction and then ignore it, either deliberately or inadvertently, with the resultant reduction in the already tight separation in use on approach.

No trying to fool them anymore either, with the wonders of Mode S showing your every move!

[Edited 2007-01-31 16:01:28]
 
PhilSquares
Posts: 3371
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 6:06 pm

RE: Unstable Approach Question

Thu Feb 01, 2007 12:48 am

Quoting Zeke (Reply 17):
They are on the T7, not 74, dont know what manuals they have opened or have, just what they have told me when I asked them why SQ aircraft are so slow on approach at SIN.

No, the stabilised approach criteria is common to All fleets. T

Quoting Zeke (Reply 17):
The guys have operated Boeings at other airlines where the could use speedbrake and have flap deployed, which they tell me is not allowed on the T7 at SQ after an incident.

Not true. There are flap limitations but a blanket statement like that is just wrong.
Fly fast, live slow

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: shamrocka330 and 16 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos