AuxBatOn wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2019 2:58 pm
I haven’t said that stabilized criteria are depicted in time but they sure are based on time. If it were only based on altitude, without regards for airspeed, density altitude and glide slope, it would be meaningless. Perhaps yours is 1,000 ft AGL but I can guarantee you that someone, somewhere decided that being stabilized at 1,000 ft AGL afforded you enough time to conduct a safe approach at most airport on the types you fly. Or perhaps your company was just sheeping along and copied the world without thinking why 1,000 ft AGL works or does not work for your operations.
Bottom line: faster true airspeed and steeper glideslope equal faster rate of descent meaning less time to descend through a given altitude band.
Stop backtracking and stop putting words in my mouth. What part of my post don’t you understand? I never said they were unsafe. I never said my company’s SOPs should be followed by everyone.
You claimed that it’s based on time. We’re not talking about how they come up with the 1,000ft, we’re talking about once in the flight deck, when should you be stable by. You said time, I said height. And it’s height above Aerodrome elevation, not above AGL.
It does not matter what the glide slope or path angle is, pilots that have a stabilization criteria must be stable and configured by the exact same gate, 1,000 (at my airline). Don’t bring physics into this to try and twist the topic. We’re talking about stabilization criteria, and not how long it takes to descend on different angle. It’s my job as a captain to ensure my aircraft meets the stabilization criteria of my airline, on every approach. Steep, shallow, RNP-AR, visual, ILS.