🇺🇸Medical Freedom org cofounder, No! = FREEDOM, #pureblood, Airline Pilot, 🇺🇸Adores REPUBLIC, 🇺🇸 Neither a theist nor an atheist, just CURIOUS, ₿🍊-pilled
USA
- Tweets 38,877
- Following 2,163
- Followers 6,023
- Likes 100,207
This is the latest version of the Boeing 777 stopping after reaching the maximum speed on takeoff. It’s called a “rejected takeoff”. It’s part of testing a new design.
Look at the wheel brakes at the end of this video. They are on fire.
That’s why even if the reject wasn’t for an actual emergency, the hot brakes can make it an emergency. If the reject was for an emergency, the hot brakes add to the complexity of the that emergency. Hot brakes and brake fires are NORMAL for this situation.
Sometimes pilots clear the runway after a rejected takeoff. This is a mistake. They should stay in the runway because the runway is much wider than the taxiways. This is better for the fire fighters.
This is an extremely rare event for the pilots and the passengers. If you’re ever on a flight and the captain rejects the takeoff, just stay seated. The captain will make a PA to stay seated. No need to panic. Fire trucks will roll within seconds to inspect the jet. Brakes fires are not an imminent danger to anyone.
If the captain does command an evacuation, follow the instructions of the flight attendants AND DON’T take your carryons with you! They are fine on the jet. Just head to the nearest exit, leave the jet, and walk away from it. Taking your carryons can get you or other injured or killed.
Aviation
1
2
145
🫡🇺🇸
Breaking News: Congressman Thomas Massie is reading Articles of Impeachment against @SecWar Pete Hegseth on the House floor now.
Watch here: piped.video/live/gT02qtGm5Qk…
110
The truth has been obvious since 9/11, but the trauma of that day and the desperation to feel safe, made multitudes trust the govt story.
9/11 planed staged Controlled demolition vs. an everyday Controlled demolition
#Staged #ControlledDemolition #explosives
1
2
151
What are those synchronized flashes in the windows? And why did this building fall at near freefall speed into its own footprint?
165
CLARIFICATION about the Prime Air crash in Miami:
What is a STABILIZED APPROACH in simple terms?
The approach is NOT stable until all of these criteria are met:
- Flaps are set for landing
- Landing gear is down
- Speed is what was calculated for the flap setting and weight of the plane
- Proper glideslope is flown, typically 3°
- Plane is aligned with the centerline of the runway
- Engines are at the power setting needed to maintain the speed, i.e., the plane is not accelerating or decelerating.
With all of this done, then the pilot flying makes simple corrections, guiding the plane to the runway for landing.
We DON’T have stabilized LANDING criteria, but APPROACH criteria. Safe landings are the result of stabilized approaches.
Stable = BORING. That means the pilot can zoom out and look for threats, rather than be frantically trying to land the plane.
This crew only met TWO of the criteria above: They lowered the gear and they were aligned with the runway.
And the standard practice is to have the approach “stable” by 1000’ above the ground, but on a clear day like this, the engines don’t have to be stable until 500’ above the ground. When conditions are challenging, we will be stable at a much higher altitude, meaning further from the runway.
They both knew the approach was unstable all the way to the runway. This was NOT an ACCIDENT, but a TRAGEDY that shouldn’t have happened.
In foreign countries, these pilots would be arrested and jailed. In the USA, it will definitely be a loss of license, fines, loss of employment and civil lawsuits by the families.
A simple go around at 1000’ or 500’ would’ve done three things: the dead would be alive, the injured would not be injured, and the pilots would still have their careers. They will take this gross negligence to their graves, knowing that all they had to do was fly safe. Instead, they were “mission hackers”, determined to NOT go around for reasons beyond my comprehension.
I’ve been an airline pilot for 36 years. Prior to the airlines, I was in a situation of a captain determined to land, and it literally took me screaming at him to go around for him to snap out of his tunnel vision and climb. Short story, we would’ve run off the end of the runway, but instead the go around was done while still on approach.
5
2
5
3,294
Incredible memorial! 🫡
Several years ago, the Crescent Springs Fire Dept. acquired a piece of steel beam from the World Trade Center following the attacks of September 11, 2001. This beam forms the centerpiece of the 9/11 memorial, constructed of granite and in the shape of the Pentagon. #NeverForget
245
I’ve been an airline pilot for 36 years and was based in Miami for 26 years. Here’s the breakdown of what happened:
The pilots should’ve aborted this unstable approach (fast and high) by 500’ above the ground, climbed back up and made the approach again.
They didn’t.
Next is that they should’ve aborted the landing when it was clear they wouldn’t land in the first third of the runway.
They didn’t.
Likely, they had a tailwind that exceeded the legal limit and should’ve aborted the landing for that.
They didn’t.
The flying pilot flared the plane too high above the runway, but with the extra speed they had, it cost them a lot of runway. When they finally do touch down, the plane is flat and the main landing gear doesn’t have enough weight on it to trigger sensors that confirm a landing. This prevents the spoilers from extending automatically to force more weight onto the landing gear so that the brakes can work harder. See the picture in the next post. The 767 has an unusually main gear.
On the ground, halfway down the runway, with no speedbrakes and reversers deployed, and clearly unable to stop on the runway, the pilots should’ve added power and taken off.
They didn’t.
The end result is the overrun and loss of life.
At my airline, we train for all of these errors annually. Either pilot can command a “go around” and the pilot flying must comply unless the captain thinks continuing the landing is safer.
There was no EMAS at the end of the runway because it wasn’t needed. Grok what EMAS is for.
This video and the aftermath are terribly painful for me to watch for many reasons. I know that airport, I know that runway, I know those roads, I know that weather and I know Boeings. Likely these pilots just ended their careers.
10
15
149
16,777
Here’s what a “stable approach” means in simple terms:
CLARIFICATION about the Prime Air crash in Miami:
What is a STABILIZED APPROACH in simple terms?
The approach is NOT stable until all of these criteria are met:
- Flaps are set for landing
- Landing gear is down
- Speed is what was calculated for the flap setting and weight of the plane
- Proper glideslope is flown, typically 3°
- Plane is aligned with the centerline of the runway
- Engines are at the power setting needed to maintain the speed, i.e., the plane is not accelerating or decelerating.
With all of this done, then the pilot flying makes simple corrections, guiding the plane to the runway for landing.
We DON’T have stabilized LANDING criteria, but APPROACH criteria. Safe landings are the result of stabilized approaches.
Stable = BORING. That means the pilot can zoom out and look for threats, rather than be frantically trying to land the plane.
This crew only met TWO of the criteria above: They lowered the gear and they were aligned with the runway.
And the standard practice is to have the approach “stable” by 1000’ above the ground, but on a clear day like this, the engines don’t have to be stable until 500’ above the ground. When conditions are challenging, we will be stable at a much higher altitude, meaning further from the runway.
They both knew the approach was unstable all the way to the runway. This was NOT an ACCIDENT, but a TRAGEDY that shouldn’t have happened.
In foreign countries, these pilots would be arrested and jailed. In the USA, it will definitely be a loss of license, fines, loss of employment and civil lawsuits by the families.
A simple go around at 1000’ or 500’ would’ve done three things: the dead would be alive, the injured would not be injured, and the pilots would still have their careers. They will take this gross negligence to their graves, knowing that all they had to do was fly safe. Instead, they were “mission hackers”, determined to NOT go around for reasons beyond my comprehension.
I’ve been an airline pilot for 36 years. Prior to the airlines, I was in a situation of a captain determined to land, and it literally took me screaming at him to go around for him to snap out of his tunnel vision and climb. Short story, we would’ve run off the end of the runway, but instead the go around was done while still on approach.
260
LOOK AT what happened at 15 seconds…FINALLY the correct action, then changed his mind….the final nail in the coffin of this unstable approach.
NTSB INVESTIGATOR-IN-CHARGE CHIHOON SHIN RELEASES PRELIMINARY FDR DATA FOR FINAL 30 SEC. OF AMAZON 767 LANDING OVERRUN AT MIAMI.
All timings are before the end of the recording:
🕒 30 Secs.
The nose and right main landing gear touch down. Ground speed 158 knots.
🕒23 Secs.
Wheel brakes applied. Ground speed 146 knots
🕒19 Secs.
Left main landing gear touched down.
Ground speed 134 knots.
🕒15 Secs.
The brakes were released at 120 knots while throttles were advanced to TOGA power.
🕒11 Secs.
Throttles were reduced to idle and the brakes were reapplied at 117 knots. Brakes remained applied and the throttles remained at idle through the end of the recording.
🕒7 Secs.
Recorded lateral, longitudinal and vertical acceleration values changed as ground speed fell to 96 knots.
🕒End of recording.
Final recorded ground speed 65 knots.
⚠️"No indication in the recorded data that speed brakes or thrust reversers were deployed", NTSB Investigator-in-charge Chihoon Shin said.
6
2
2
10,192
Here’s what a “stable approach” means in simple terms:
CLARIFICATION about the Prime Air crash in Miami:
What is a STABILIZED APPROACH in simple terms?
The approach is NOT stable until all of these criteria are met:
- Flaps are set for landing
- Landing gear is down
- Speed is what was calculated for the flap setting and weight of the plane
- Proper glideslope is flown, typically 3°
- Plane is aligned with the centerline of the runway
- Engines are at the power setting needed to maintain the speed, i.e., the plane is not accelerating or decelerating.
With all of this done, then the pilot flying makes simple corrections, guiding the plane to the runway for landing.
We DON’T have stabilized LANDING criteria, but APPROACH criteria. Safe landings are the result of stabilized approaches.
Stable = BORING. That means the pilot can zoom out and look for threats, rather than be frantically trying to land the plane.
This crew only met TWO of the criteria above: They lowered the gear and they were aligned with the runway.
And the standard practice is to have the approach “stable” by 1000’ above the ground, but on a clear day like this, the engines don’t have to be stable until 500’ above the ground. When conditions are challenging, we will be stable at a much higher altitude, meaning further from the runway.
They both knew the approach was unstable all the way to the runway. This was NOT an ACCIDENT, but a TRAGEDY that shouldn’t have happened.
In foreign countries, these pilots would be arrested and jailed. In the USA, it will definitely be a loss of license, fines, loss of employment and civil lawsuits by the families.
A simple go around at 1000’ or 500’ would’ve done three things: the dead would be alive, the injured would not be injured, and the pilots would still have their careers. They will take this gross negligence to their graves, knowing that all they had to do was fly safe. Instead, they were “mission hackers”, determined to NOT go around for reasons beyond my comprehension.
I’ve been an airline pilot for 36 years. Prior to the airlines, I was in a situation of a captain determined to land, and it literally took me screaming at him to go around for him to snap out of his tunnel vision and climb. Short story, we would’ve run off the end of the runway, but instead the go around was done while still on approach.
13
Prime Air Miami crash update:
New info shows the captain initiated at go around late in the landing roll, which was the right thing to do.
But then he changed his mind and tried again to stop, sealing their fate. That was the wrong thing to do.
The jet easily could’ve taken off at their current speed of 120kts with their landing flap setting. The engines spool up quickly enough and they didn’t need full power to pull this off.
Even if they struggled initially to leave “ground effect”, the increasing power of the engines going to max power would pull them up away from the ground.
These pilots forever will replay this in their heads. The Cockpit Voice Recorder will add depth and nuance to the Flight Data Recorder data.
I’m not sure how they will mentally recover from this due to the loss of life that happened.
The good news:
Aviation is immediately safer because of this crash!
Why?
Because pilots worldwide have had their eyes opened to a scenario that any of us can find ourselves in, regardless of the size or type of aircraft involved.
Airline training departments will be adding elements of this scenario to training events and memos.
My airline already trains us for everything in this scenario, but the fix is a STABLE approach, EVERY APPROACH. The criteria for a stable approach is specific and easy to comply with. But that stable approach begins with situational awareness PRIOR to starting the approach.
But in training, we practice bounced landings where we add full power and climb away. We practice taking off again after pretending to land too far down the runway.
Nothing in this crash is new. It’s an OLD mistake that the FAA has been working on since the late 1980s when the concept of a stabilized approach became the ethos of aviating safely.
50
23
208
492,235
Here’s what a “stable approach” is. Compare that to what led to the Prime Air Miami crash:
CLARIFICATION about the Prime Air crash in Miami:
What is a STABILIZED APPROACH in simple terms?
The approach is NOT stable until all of these criteria are met:
- Flaps are set for landing
- Landing gear is down
- Speed is what was calculated for the flap setting and weight of the plane
- Proper glideslope is flown, typically 3°
- Plane is aligned with the centerline of the runway
- Engines are at the power setting needed to maintain the speed, i.e., the plane is not accelerating or decelerating.
With all of this done, then the pilot flying makes simple corrections, guiding the plane to the runway for landing.
We DON’T have stabilized LANDING criteria, but APPROACH criteria. Safe landings are the result of stabilized approaches.
Stable = BORING. That means the pilot can zoom out and look for threats, rather than be frantically trying to land the plane.
This crew only met TWO of the criteria above: They lowered the gear and they were aligned with the runway.
And the standard practice is to have the approach “stable” by 1000’ above the ground, but on a clear day like this, the engines don’t have to be stable until 500’ above the ground. When conditions are challenging, we will be stable at a much higher altitude, meaning further from the runway.
They both knew the approach was unstable all the way to the runway. This was NOT an ACCIDENT, but a TRAGEDY that shouldn’t have happened.
In foreign countries, these pilots would be arrested and jailed. In the USA, it will definitely be a loss of license, fines, loss of employment and civil lawsuits by the families.
A simple go around at 1000’ or 500’ would’ve done three things: the dead would be alive, the injured would not be injured, and the pilots would still have their careers. They will take this gross negligence to their graves, knowing that all they had to do was fly safe. Instead, they were “mission hackers”, determined to NOT go around for reasons beyond my comprehension.
I’ve been an airline pilot for 36 years. Prior to the airlines, I was in a situation of a captain determined to land, and it literally took me screaming at him to go around for him to snap out of his tunnel vision and climb. Short story, we would’ve run off the end of the runway, but instead the go around was done while still on approach.
86
Prime Air accident Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) transcript. Even the aircraft was “yelling” at them to stop their unstable, reckless approach.
Look for my notes in this transcript! 🫡
🚨 BREAKING: A summary of select events captured on the CVR during the final few minutes of the recording is provided below. All times are referenced relative to the end of the CVR recording. The times and descriptions are preliminary and subject to change.
06:02
A pilot called for flaps to be set to 1 degree.
04:18
The flight crew checked in with Miami tower and were cleared to
land on runway 30.
02:53
A pilot called for flaps to be set to 5 degrees.
02:37
The flight crew lowered the landing gear.
02:14
A pilot called for flaps to be set to 15 degrees.
01:42
A pilot called for flaps to be set to 20 degrees, and the other pilot cautioned they were too fast. The other pilot made additional comments regarding the aircraft’s excessive speed throughout the remainder of the recording. There was not a consistent verbal response to the comments about speed. (Me: first clue that this approach was going to be unstable. I’m guessing the captain was flying.)
01:23
Sounds consistent with autopilot disconnect.
01:12
Electronic “one thousand” callout.
01:04
Electronic “sink rate sink rate” callout. (Me: 1000’/max descent rate allowed, this plane was double that. A go around is mandatory.)
00:58
Electronic “five hundred” callout.
00:57
Electronic “sink rate sink rate” callout.
00:54
Electronic “one hundred” callout.
00:50
Electronic “minimums” callout.
00:48
Electronic “too low terrain” callout. Annunciated four times.
00:41
A pilot called for flaps to be set to 30 degrees. (Me: The flaps are supposed to be set by 1000’ above the ground! They are now about to land and adding flaps!)
00:40
Electronic “forty” callout.
00:39
Electronic “too low terrain” callout.
00:36
Electronic “ten” callout.
00:31
Sounds similar to the aircraft touching down.
00:15
A pilot called for a go-around. (Me: This call should’ve happened no later than 1000’ above the ground due to the flaps not being fully deployed and the excess speed.)
00:10
Sounds similar to the aircraft departing the paved surface.
00:00
The CVR recording ended.
A summary of select events captured on the FDR during the final few minutes of the FDR recording is provided below. All times are referenced relative to the end of the FDR recording. Note that the CVR and FDR times have not been precisely synchronized. The times and descriptions are preliminary and subject to change.
00:30
The nose and right main gear touched down at a groundspeed of 158 knots.
00:23
The brakes were applied at a groundspeed of 146 knots. (Me: the brakes had minimal effect because the weight of the jet was not fully on the wheels, but still being carried by the wing. Speedbrakes are used to force the weight to the wheels but they didn’t deploy automatically and weren’t manually deployed.)
00:19
The left main gear touched down at a groundspeed of 134 knots. (Me: more than halfway down the runway, not the first third by regulation.)
00:15
Brakes were released at a groundspeed of 120 knots and throttles were increased to a value consistent with go-around thrust. (Me: Finally, these guys do the right thing to end this landing and climb out!)
00:11
The throttles were reduced to idle power and the brakes were re-applied. The groundspeed was 117 knots. The throttles remained at idle, and brakes remained applied until the end of the recording. (Me: This was the mistake that sealed their fate and the fate of those on the ground. These pilots will carry this to their graves.)
00:07
Recorded lateral, longitudinal, and vertical acceleration values
changed markedly; the FDR data indicated a groundspeed of 96 knots.
00:00
The FDR recording ended. The final recorded groundspeed was 65kts.
What are your thoughts?😳
4
3
5
1,864
Excellent breakdown about the parameters that define a stable approach:
Stabilized Approaches: A Review.
Never received so much flak for a Tweet before.
Took me back to memories of my ex-wife.
But you know what they say, any engagement is good engagement.
I was merely trying to say that we fly pre-determined approach speeds. If you aren’t able to maintain this speed, for e.g. if you exceed Vapp + 10, you’re unstabilized.
You discontinue the approach.
There needs to be a yardstick or else you're just sticking your neck out.
And I wasn’t defending the Pilots. They were unstable from the word go and the key word(s) should have be “Go Around”.
While we don’t know what IAS they were maintaining as we only have granular GS data from ADS-B, what we do know is that the ROD was 1200 fpm at 1000’. Mandatory Go Around criteria.
They also touched down well beyond the TDZ, this was another Mandatory Go Around criteria.
From 1000’ to touchdown and everywhere in between, they were unstabilized.
Every approach NEEDS to be STABILIZED.
What does this mean?
Let us see what Boeing has to say about it in their FCTM.
Maintaining a stable speed, descent rate, and vertical/lateral flight path in landing configuration is commonly referred to as the stabilized approach concept.
Any significant deviation from planned flight path, airspeed, or descent rate should be announced. The decision to execute a go-around is not an indication of poor performance.
Note: Do not attempt to land from an unstable approach.
All approaches should be stabilized by 1,000 feet AFE in instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) and by 500 feet AFE in visual meteorological conditions (VMC). An approach is considered stabilized when all of the following criteria are met:
• The airplane is on the correct flight path.
• Only small changes in heading and pitch are required to maintain the correct flight path.
• The airplane should be at approach speed. Deviations of +10 knots to –5 knots are acceptable if the airspeed is trending toward approach speed.
• The airplane is in the correct landing configuration.
• Sink rate is no greater than 1,000 fpm; if an approach requires a sink rate greater than 1,000 fpm, a special briefing should be conducted.
• Thrust setting is appropriate for the airplane configuration.
• All briefings and checklists have been conducted.
As the airplane crosses the runway threshold it should be:
• Stabilized on approach airspeed to within + 10 knots until arresting descent rate at flare.
• On a stabilized flight path using normal maneuvering.
• Positioned to make a normal landing in the touchdown zone (the first 3,000 feet or first third of the runway, whichever is less).
Initiate a go-around if the above criteria cannot be maintained.
When in doubt, go around.
You can always go around as long as the reverse thrust has not been deployed.
2
1
248
Here’s another way to describe a “stable approach”:
CLARIFICATION about the Prime Air crash in Miami:
What is a STABILIZED APPROACH in simple terms?
The approach is NOT stable until all of these criteria are met:
- Flaps are set for landing
- Landing gear is down
- Speed is what was calculated for the flap setting and weight of the plane
- Proper glideslope is flown, typically 3°
- Plane is aligned with the centerline of the runway
- Engines are at the power setting needed to maintain the speed, i.e., the plane is not accelerating or decelerating.
With all of this done, then the pilot flying makes simple corrections, guiding the plane to the runway for landing.
We DON’T have stabilized LANDING criteria, but APPROACH criteria. Safe landings are the result of stabilized approaches.
Stable = BORING. That means the pilot can zoom out and look for threats, rather than be frantically trying to land the plane.
This crew only met TWO of the criteria above: They lowered the gear and they were aligned with the runway.
And the standard practice is to have the approach “stable” by 1000’ above the ground, but on a clear day like this, the engines don’t have to be stable until 500’ above the ground. When conditions are challenging, we will be stable at a much higher altitude, meaning further from the runway.
They both knew the approach was unstable all the way to the runway. This was NOT an ACCIDENT, but a TRAGEDY that shouldn’t have happened.
In foreign countries, these pilots would be arrested and jailed. In the USA, it will definitely be a loss of license, fines, loss of employment and civil lawsuits by the families.
A simple go around at 1000’ or 500’ would’ve done three things: the dead would be alive, the injured would not be injured, and the pilots would still have their careers. They will take this gross negligence to their graves, knowing that all they had to do was fly safe. Instead, they were “mission hackers”, determined to NOT go around for reasons beyond my comprehension.
I’ve been an airline pilot for 36 years. Prior to the airlines, I was in a situation of a captain determined to land, and it literally took me screaming at him to go around for him to snap out of his tunnel vision and climb. Short story, we would’ve run off the end of the runway, but instead the go around was done while still on approach.
30
Here’s was a “stable approach” means:
CLARIFICATION about the Prime Air crash in Miami:
What is a STABILIZED APPROACH in simple terms?
The approach is NOT stable until all of these criteria are met:
- Flaps are set for landing
- Landing gear is down
- Speed is what was calculated for the flap setting and weight of the plane
- Proper glideslope is flown, typically 3°
- Plane is aligned with the centerline of the runway
- Engines are at the power setting needed to maintain the speed, i.e., the plane is not accelerating or decelerating.
With all of this done, then the pilot flying makes simple corrections, guiding the plane to the runway for landing.
We DON’T have stabilized LANDING criteria, but APPROACH criteria. Safe landings are the result of stabilized approaches.
Stable = BORING. That means the pilot can zoom out and look for threats, rather than be frantically trying to land the plane.
This crew only met TWO of the criteria above: They lowered the gear and they were aligned with the runway.
And the standard practice is to have the approach “stable” by 1000’ above the ground, but on a clear day like this, the engines don’t have to be stable until 500’ above the ground. When conditions are challenging, we will be stable at a much higher altitude, meaning further from the runway.
They both knew the approach was unstable all the way to the runway. This was NOT an ACCIDENT, but a TRAGEDY that shouldn’t have happened.
In foreign countries, these pilots would be arrested and jailed. In the USA, it will definitely be a loss of license, fines, loss of employment and civil lawsuits by the families.
A simple go around at 1000’ or 500’ would’ve done three things: the dead would be alive, the injured would not be injured, and the pilots would still have their careers. They will take this gross negligence to their graves, knowing that all they had to do was fly safe. Instead, they were “mission hackers”, determined to NOT go around for reasons beyond my comprehension.
I’ve been an airline pilot for 36 years. Prior to the airlines, I was in a situation of a captain determined to land, and it literally took me screaming at him to go around for him to snap out of his tunnel vision and climb. Short story, we would’ve run off the end of the runway, but instead the go around was done while still on approach.
9
Look how flat the plane is but there’s not any real weight on the main gear. That means they were going way too fast.
1
3
905
These parameters define a stable approach:
Stabilized Approaches: A Review.
Never received so much flak for a Tweet before.
Took me back to memories of my ex-wife.
But you know what they say, any engagement is good engagement.
I was merely trying to say that we fly pre-determined approach speeds. If you aren’t able to maintain this speed, for e.g. if you exceed Vapp + 10, you’re unstabilized.
You discontinue the approach.
There needs to be a yardstick or else you're just sticking your neck out.
And I wasn’t defending the Pilots. They were unstable from the word go and the key word(s) should have be “Go Around”.
While we don’t know what IAS they were maintaining as we only have granular GS data from ADS-B, what we do know is that the ROD was 1200 fpm at 1000’. Mandatory Go Around criteria.
They also touched down well beyond the TDZ, this was another Mandatory Go Around criteria.
From 1000’ to touchdown and everywhere in between, they were unstabilized.
Every approach NEEDS to be STABILIZED.
What does this mean?
Let us see what Boeing has to say about it in their FCTM.
Maintaining a stable speed, descent rate, and vertical/lateral flight path in landing configuration is commonly referred to as the stabilized approach concept.
Any significant deviation from planned flight path, airspeed, or descent rate should be announced. The decision to execute a go-around is not an indication of poor performance.
Note: Do not attempt to land from an unstable approach.
All approaches should be stabilized by 1,000 feet AFE in instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) and by 500 feet AFE in visual meteorological conditions (VMC). An approach is considered stabilized when all of the following criteria are met:
• The airplane is on the correct flight path.
• Only small changes in heading and pitch are required to maintain the correct flight path.
• The airplane should be at approach speed. Deviations of +10 knots to –5 knots are acceptable if the airspeed is trending toward approach speed.
• The airplane is in the correct landing configuration.
• Sink rate is no greater than 1,000 fpm; if an approach requires a sink rate greater than 1,000 fpm, a special briefing should be conducted.
• Thrust setting is appropriate for the airplane configuration.
• All briefings and checklists have been conducted.
As the airplane crosses the runway threshold it should be:
• Stabilized on approach airspeed to within + 10 knots until arresting descent rate at flare.
• On a stabilized flight path using normal maneuvering.
• Positioned to make a normal landing in the touchdown zone (the first 3,000 feet or first third of the runway, whichever is less).
Initiate a go-around if the above criteria cannot be maintained.
When in doubt, go around.
You can always go around as long as the reverse thrust has not been deployed.
2
798