Bridging the Gap: Stabilized Approaches

This is the third in a series of articles on incorporating airline best practices into ab-initio flight training, by Scott Peters.

When I became a more “seasoned” flight instructor, it would be a common occurrence to command a go-around, missed, or overshoot. This was often followed by a transfer of control with a subsequent inquiry. It usually went like this:

Instructor: “Why did I ask you to overshoot?”

Student: “I was (insert: too high, too low, too fast, too slow, not on the centreline, not compensating for the crosswind, late on flap deployment, etc.)."

My response was always the same. “If you can tell me why I asked you to overshoot, then why didn’t you elect to do so on your own?”

It was always an interesting conversation and the query was really designed to drive self-sufficiency. My debriefing point was always, “if you knew that the approach wasn’t going well, why wait for me to tell you to go-around?”

Could I have taken control and fixed the approach? Absolutely. Years of training taught me that I could salvage pretty much any approach and have it result in a safe landing. At some point in my career, I realized that taking control, fixing the approach and subsequently landing was wrong. In fact, I was promoting negative learning and sending the wrong message. The message I was sending was, “any landing can be salvaged”.

Many commercial operators are promoting the importance of stabilized approach criteria. Approach and Landing accidents account for 2/3 of all airplane accidents[1]. To address this, we specify targets that must be met. If we cannot meet those targets then our only alternative is to go-around. The Flight Safety Foundation estimates that go-arounds when unstable would reduce landing accidents by 50%[2].

There should be no penalty associated with the decision to go around. In fact, I approach this philosophy with a “two gold stars and a pat on the back” approach. We want our crews to commence a go-around if the aircraft is not stabilized. Simple as that.

Some of the criteria that fit into the airline “stabilized approach” philosophy include:

• Is it IMC or VMC? The normal doctrine is that the aircraft should be stabilized by 1,000’ AGL for IMC or 500’ for VMC. If at any point afterwards the aircraft becomes unstable then a go-around is required.

• Aircraft configuration. The aircraft should be completely configured (flaps and gear) by the altitudes mentioned above.

• Airspeed. The airspeed should be +5 or +10 knots depending on aircraft type and 0 knots below prescribed airspeed by POH, SOP or other recommended speed.

• Slope. The aircraft should be established on a 3 degree approach path.

Simply stated, we do not want any pilot to salvage a bad approach. As flight instructors, we need to get away from this mentality. If you feel compelled to take control to land the aircraft in order to maintain your schedule, be cautious about the message you are delivering. You are on a slippery slope and “do as I say, not as I do” should never be integrated into our vocabulary as instructors.

A training aircraft is not an airliner, and the criteria above are meant to be a starting point in determining what your school believes reasonable criteria; so that the final stages of every approach are stable. A main goal of the process is to build flight discipline; that means reasonable targets.

A go-around is a very powerful and effective training tool. Some great conversation about what went wrong and, more importantly, what can be done to prevent a repeat performance is an amazing opportunity that should not be wasted.

Safe flying,

Scott

Since this article was originally published, further statistics have been released and best practices discussed. Many air operators are now conducting risk assessments investigating at what altitude the risk of the go-around procedure equals the risk of landing unstabilized. A recent Boeing study has determined 300' AGL for their airliners. In the case of turboprops, some operators are now using 100' AGL since that type of aircraft easily transitions to a climb. - Ed.

Scott Peters is an ATP, Class 1 Flight Instructor, Pilot Examiner, and Flight Instructor Refresher Course Presenter. In his 25 years as an instructor, he has held numerous training positions including Chief Flight Instructor, and is presently the Manager of Pilot Training at a Canadian air carrier. Scott can be reached at scottpeters320@hotmail.com.

[1] TSB Statistics 2006-2015[2] Flight Safety Foundation 2011