Well, well... Watch these two pros!

[rxl]

Just come up with some different stories

Like the time I lost an engine in a DC3 and the weather went to zero zero in ice fog at my destination and my alternate and I managed to land it safely?

You kept your wits about you, kept flying the airplane and delt with a bad situation. Beyond that, what lessons should we all take from that particular incident?

[bob sacamano]

Plenty of time? Based on what?

Stabilization criteria is not based on time, but height. For us, by 1,500 fully configured. 1,000 fully stable. By 500, speed stable (if given a speed by ATC).

I don’t know how they operate, but I’ll check, as we have many pilots from their airline now working with us.

Plenty of time based on time. More than 1 minute till touchdown.

Stabilization criteria have assumptions baked into them, such as approach speed and glide slope angle, both of which will affect the time to touchdown.

Also, because you don’t meet your “stabilization” criteria doesn’t mean it is unsafe.

As you may have missed, The post above clearly said that Jack doesnt know how they operate, meaning what their SOPs call for.

never said that they are unsafe.

Unprofessional? Absolutely.

This is an airliner, with peoples lives in the back. We don’t need cowboys upfront, treating it like a joyride.

Stabilization criteria is based on height above Aerodrom, and not time. I’d love it if you can show me and airline that uses time in their SOP, to determine the stabilization criteria.

Really? Stabilization criteria have glide slope angle built into them? That’s a new one. So for every degree is a different time? Must be quite the matrix flight crews have to go through before each approach to determine their stable call, errr time. And what about non precision approaches? You know, approaches without a glide slope? Another matrix? And how bout visuals?

[bob sacamano]

Did it occur to you that they may be arriving over higher terrain and approaching downhill? So, a 1000 foot call by a RAD ALT might not be 1000 feet above the touch down zone elevation?

Your stabilized approach criteria are not the rest of the worlds stabilized approach criteria. I suggest you see your Aviation Medical Examiner and ask for a Pole-ectamy as soon as you can to have that pole removed from the nether lands of your body.

Nice one bud.

[BBQ Chips]

Certainly unprofessional for the FO to be filming. Also, maybe the other camera was a jumpseater? (I hope).
As for stable at 1500 feet? You will be on the shit list at many airlines around the world if you are dropping the gear before 1500 feet. Just because your airline says it’s too dangerous for you doesn’t mean it’s too dangerous for the rest of the world.

[AuxBatOn]

Plenty of time? Based on what?

Stabilization criteria is not based on time, but height. For us, by 1,500 fully configured. 1,000 fully stable. By 500, speed stable (if given a speed by ATC).

I don’t know how they operate, but I’ll check, as we have many pilots from their airline now working with us.

Plenty of time based on time. More than 1 minute till touchdown.

Stabilization criteria have assumptions baked into them, such as approach speed and glide slope angle, both of which will affect the time to touchdown.

Also, because you don’t meet your “stabilization” criteria doesn’t mean it is unsafe.

As you may have missed, The post above clearly said that Jack doesnt know how they operate, meaning what their SOPs call for.

never said that they are unsafe.

Unprofessional? Absolutely.

This is an airliner, with peoples lives in the back. We don’t need cowboys upfront, treating it like a joyride.

Stabilization criteria is based on height above Aerodrom, and not time. I’d love it if you can show me and airline that uses time in their SOP, to determine the stabilization criteria.

Really? Stabilization criteria have glide slope angle built into them? That’s a new one. So for every degree is a different time? Must be quite the matrix flight crews have to go through before each approach to determine their stable call, errr time. And what about non precision approaches? You know, approaches without a glide slope? Another matrix? And how bout visuals?

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.

[tbayav8er]

Yeahhh....I would say by that point the gear probably should have been down (unless they have different stabilization SOP's for approaches in VMC, which could very well be the case)....but I think that's the least of the concern I have with this video. Both pilots filming, and no one monitoring the approach is pretty bad. I think most airlines' SOP's basically prohibit taking pictures, talking about stuff other than the operation of the airplane etc. below 10 000'.

[J31]

Looks like the pilots are having to answer some questions.

From the story in the translated text below the video:


At 21.20 on Tuesday the Monumental stadium was a festival of lights, colors and songs. The players of River went out to the court to play the semifinal of the Copa Libertadores against Boca and the millionaire fans received them with all the heat of passion.

But above, from the sky, passed an Austral plane that came from Formosa and was preparing to land in Aeroparque. The pilot and co-pilot of the aircraft filmed the moment with his cell phone and the video went viral. The action put the protocol at risk for those critical moments of the flight and now the company called both to give explanations about what happened.

[7ECA]

I'm calling shenanigans on the guy who says his dog flew the sim.

It's like saying I have experience in a 152, so does my dog and nobody cares.

I think you've got it wrong Beef, it sounds like his dog flew the mighty 152. Different ball game altogether.

Besides, I can't say I've ever seen an FTU who bothers to load up a 152 in a sim, it's always a 172...

[Beefitarian]

Well, dog gone it.

[goingnowherefast]

Haha. Puts a whole new twist on "airman", its "air-mammal" now.

[bob sacamano]

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.

[bob sacamano]

Certainly unprofessional for the FO to be filming. Also, maybe the other camera was a jumpseater? (I hope).
As for stable at 1500 feet? You will be on the shit list at many airlines around the world if you are dropping the gear before 1500 feet. Just because your airline says it’s too dangerous for you doesn’t mean it’s too dangerous for the rest of the world.

whats this kid talking about.

I dont pull procedures and SOPs outta my ass. I’m flying the SOPs that my airline has in place. Why again would I be shitlisted?

We have to be fully configured by 1,500, which means the gear is being lowered by at least 1,800ft go play with that now.

Btw, who said they were dangerous? If you’re claiming it’s me, show me where I said this.

I’ve flown the single pilot IFR in the bush, I know what flying is. I also respect the different operations and operators. Different SOPs and how the company wants their operations run.

[BBQ Chips]

Wow! Single pilot IFR in the Bush! Incredible.
I remember doing that a decade ago too.
If you read my post again, I simply stated that as a pilot for many airlines around the world, if you are fully configured by 1500 feet, you are not following SOP’s. It is too early. I’m happy for you your company wants you stable by 1500 feet. Enjoy it.
Safe flying

[bob sacamano]

Wow! Single pilot IFR in the Bush! Incredible.
I remember doing that a decade ago too.
If you read my post again, I simply stated that as a pilot for many airlines around the world, if you are fully configured by 1500 feet, you are not following SOP’s. It is too early. I’m happy for you your company wants you stable by 1500 feet. Enjoy it.
Safe flying

Never said it was incredible flying SPIFR, but it sure is excellent experience. It’s helped build my overall experience. Believe me when I tell you it’s helped me flying the A350 with copilots with barely 1,500hrs.

Why do you say being fully configured by 1,500ft is not following SOPs? How do you know my SOPs? My company’s SOPs says that we must be fully configured by 1,500ft AAL. So that’s what we do. So I am following my company’s SOPs.

Do I enjoy it? Sure. It’s ny job and I make the best of it. At the end of the day, when I flew SPIFR in northern Manitoba and Ontario, I did my job and got in. Today, I do my job and I make sure I’m stable by 1,500ft.

Today, I was stable by 1,900ft. I get to enjoy another day, and another paycheck.

[goingnowherefast]

My company is stable by 500' in VMC. Usually dropping the gear around 1200-1800, a little earlier in IMC. My type probably goes half the speed of an A350, so the SOPs are reflective of the different aircraft operating requirements.

[C-GGGQ]

Stabilized 500' VMC
Imc it's flaps 15 glide slope alive. Gear 1 dot above. Chieftain. I'm way slower. So I have to agree the 500, 1000, 1500 ft height they give the pilots is based on how much time to touchdown for your specific approach speed

[rxl]

No matter what you fly, who you work for, or what your SOP stable approach criteria are, "stabilized" also includes PILOTS FOCUSED ON THE JOB to maintain that stability. A well flown "stable" approach is not possible with pilots gawking out the side windows at the pretty lights or playing with their f'in phones.
Things can unravel fast with no one watching the store.