CALLBACK CALLBACK
From NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System
Number 284
May 2003
The Case of the Unstable Approach
FAA Order 8400.10
defines a stabilized
approach as
“maintaining a stable
speed, descent rate,
vertical flight path, and
configuration during the
final stages of an
approach.” Significant
speed and configuration
changes during an
approach can
complicate tasks
associated with aircraft
control and increase the
difficulty of evaluating an approach as it
progresses. The evidence presented in these recent
ASRS reports demonstrates that instability is no
defense when an approach goes bad.
The Chase
Although this Captain did manage to catch up to the aircraft and land without incident, a clean getaway and fresh start might have been a wiser course of action. ■ [We] left the holding pattern with vectors for the ILS to Runway 9L. The assigned speed was 210 knots. After a change of controllers, the runway was changed to 9R, and then changed back again to 9L with a speed of 180 knots assigned to the marker. All the Air Traffic Control (ATC) changes with multiple radio transmissions led to a rushed environment. I got behind the airplane and situational awareness was compromised. We were fast at the marker and the autoflight system missed the glideslope capture. I attempted to hand fly the ILS with the flight director input, but the information presented was incorrect and I had to “look through” the flight director information and fly a raw data approach…. I caught up to the aircraft at approximately 500 feet with the runway in sight and the landing was made in the touchdown zone. The standard operating procedure for the stabilized approach concept was violated…. The consensus of the debrief was that we should have gone around, but no one called for it. Instead, there was a focus on, “We can make this approach work.” Additionally, there was a desire to accommodate the Controllers who were very busy….
The Hold Up
Air Traffic Controllers play an important role in the stabilized approach concept. Appropriate vectors and traffic sequencing help ensure that approach parameters can be met. But, as this B757 crew pointed out, Controllers also need to be aware of the unique flight characteristics of some aircraft. ■ Approach assigned us Runway 32L for landing and then held us up high and fast (210 kts/6000 feet). Finally, we received approach clearance for a visual with a turn inside the marker. We told Approach that we were unable to accept because we could not make it down and meet company requirements for a stabilized approach. We asked for an extended downwind but then were told (after a handoff) that we were now cleared for a visual to Runway 32R…. We were high and fast all the way and landed long on Runway 32R (but on speed)…. It was uncomfortable being in a situation that didn’t meet our company standards for a stabilized approach below 1,000 feet AGL…. Lessons learned: 1) We should have gone around and not accepted the set-up. 2) Approach facilities need to be educated about the capabilities of [various aircraft]. Some can’t get down and slow up as quickly as others…. You have to plan ahead. 3) Recognize the importance of a stabilized approach. [Final approach] is not the time to be changing runways, working the FMC, configuring the aircraft, etc. [We] called Approach Control after landing, voiced [our] concerns about how we were handled…and re-emphasized the importance of a stabilized approach.
The Capture
Without anticipating adjustments required for adverse conditions, a flight crew has little chance of establishing a stabilized approach. This CL-65 crew wisely departed the scene when the alarm went off and managed a more successful glideslope capture the second time around. ■ ATC gave us the clearance, “Fly heading 120 degrees; maintain 2500 feet until established; 170 knots until 4 DME; cleared for the ILS 10 approach.” At 2500 feet, winds were SSE at 60 knots. Due to the shallow vector intercept and the winds aloft at the time, we did not capture the localizer (LOC) course until inside INTXN. The glideslope was 1/2 scale below (we were still at 2500 feet). 1500 feet was selected on the altitude select, and a descent of 1000 fpm down was selected…. Within a few seconds, the autopilot pitched the aircraft down (over 12 degrees) to capture the glideslope. We received a “sink rate” Ground Proximity Warning System (GPWS) message. I disconnected the autopilot to arrest the descent rate. At this point, we were off glideslope and straying off the LOC. I executed a missed approach at 800 feet…. We were vectored back around for another approach. Contributing factors: 1) poor awareness of winds aloft by us and the controller giving the vectors, 2) reluctance on our part to perform a missed approach immediately and not try to salvage the botched approach….
ASRS Recently Issued Alerts On…
ERJ135 weight and balance incident Unlit taxiway at a major Western airport B737-800 loss of F/O flight instruments MD88 abnormal elevator control reponse Questionable baggage weight computation
A Monthly Safety Bulletin from
The Office of the NASA
Aviation Safety Reporting
System,
P.O. Box 189,
Moffett Field, CA
94035-0189
http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/
March 2003 Report Intake
Air Carrier / Air Taxi Pilots General Aviation Pilots Controllers Cabin/Mechanics/Military/Other TOTAL 1945 765 51 128 2889
飞行翻译公司 www.aviation.cn 本文链接地址：美国ASRS安全公告CALLBACK cb_284.pdf
From NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System
Number 284
May 2003
The Case of the Unstable Approach
FAA Order 8400.10
defines a stabilized
approach as
“maintaining a stable
speed, descent rate,
vertical flight path, and
configuration during the
final stages of an
approach.” Significant
speed and configuration
changes during an
approach can
complicate tasks
associated with aircraft
control and increase the
difficulty of evaluating an approach as it
progresses. The evidence presented in these recent
ASRS reports demonstrates that instability is no
defense when an approach goes bad.
The Chase
Although this Captain did manage to catch up to the aircraft and land without incident, a clean getaway and fresh start might have been a wiser course of action. ■ [We] left the holding pattern with vectors for the ILS to Runway 9L. The assigned speed was 210 knots. After a change of controllers, the runway was changed to 9R, and then changed back again to 9L with a speed of 180 knots assigned to the marker. All the Air Traffic Control (ATC) changes with multiple radio transmissions led to a rushed environment. I got behind the airplane and situational awareness was compromised. We were fast at the marker and the autoflight system missed the glideslope capture. I attempted to hand fly the ILS with the flight director input, but the information presented was incorrect and I had to “look through” the flight director information and fly a raw data approach…. I caught up to the aircraft at approximately 500 feet with the runway in sight and the landing was made in the touchdown zone. The standard operating procedure for the stabilized approach concept was violated…. The consensus of the debrief was that we should have gone around, but no one called for it. Instead, there was a focus on, “We can make this approach work.” Additionally, there was a desire to accommodate the Controllers who were very busy….
The Hold Up
Air Traffic Controllers play an important role in the stabilized approach concept. Appropriate vectors and traffic sequencing help ensure that approach parameters can be met. But, as this B757 crew pointed out, Controllers also need to be aware of the unique flight characteristics of some aircraft. ■ Approach assigned us Runway 32L for landing and then held us up high and fast (210 kts/6000 feet). Finally, we received approach clearance for a visual with a turn inside the marker. We told Approach that we were unable to accept because we could not make it down and meet company requirements for a stabilized approach. We asked for an extended downwind but then were told (after a handoff) that we were now cleared for a visual to Runway 32R…. We were high and fast all the way and landed long on Runway 32R (but on speed)…. It was uncomfortable being in a situation that didn’t meet our company standards for a stabilized approach below 1,000 feet AGL…. Lessons learned: 1) We should have gone around and not accepted the set-up. 2) Approach facilities need to be educated about the capabilities of [various aircraft]. Some can’t get down and slow up as quickly as others…. You have to plan ahead. 3) Recognize the importance of a stabilized approach. [Final approach] is not the time to be changing runways, working the FMC, configuring the aircraft, etc. [We] called Approach Control after landing, voiced [our] concerns about how we were handled…and re-emphasized the importance of a stabilized approach.
The Capture
Without anticipating adjustments required for adverse conditions, a flight crew has little chance of establishing a stabilized approach. This CL-65 crew wisely departed the scene when the alarm went off and managed a more successful glideslope capture the second time around. ■ ATC gave us the clearance, “Fly heading 120 degrees; maintain 2500 feet until established; 170 knots until 4 DME; cleared for the ILS 10 approach.” At 2500 feet, winds were SSE at 60 knots. Due to the shallow vector intercept and the winds aloft at the time, we did not capture the localizer (LOC) course until inside INTXN. The glideslope was 1/2 scale below (we were still at 2500 feet). 1500 feet was selected on the altitude select, and a descent of 1000 fpm down was selected…. Within a few seconds, the autopilot pitched the aircraft down (over 12 degrees) to capture the glideslope. We received a “sink rate” Ground Proximity Warning System (GPWS) message. I disconnected the autopilot to arrest the descent rate. At this point, we were off glideslope and straying off the LOC. I executed a missed approach at 800 feet…. We were vectored back around for another approach. Contributing factors: 1) poor awareness of winds aloft by us and the controller giving the vectors, 2) reluctance on our part to perform a missed approach immediately and not try to salvage the botched approach….
ASRS Recently Issued Alerts On…
ERJ135 weight and balance incident Unlit taxiway at a major Western airport B737-800 loss of F/O flight instruments MD88 abnormal elevator control reponse Questionable baggage weight computation
A Monthly Safety Bulletin from
The Office of the NASA
Aviation Safety Reporting
System,
P.O. Box 189,
Moffett Field, CA
94035-0189
http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/
March 2003 Report Intake
Air Carrier / Air Taxi Pilots General Aviation Pilots Controllers Cabin/Mechanics/Military/Other TOTAL 1945 765 51 128 2889
飞行翻译公司 www.aviation.cn 本文链接地址：美国ASRS安全公告CALLBACK cb_284.pdf
自定义标签： 
