Originally Posted by
Busboy
Yep, you're right. It is safer to be stabilized at 500ft. And, even more safe to be stabilized at 1000ft. Probably safer yet to be stabilized 30 miles out at 10,000ft.
It's also safer to drive your car at the speed limit, rather than 10 over.(Except on I-240, of course) But, most of us do it. And, we don't consider it unsafe.
Again, I'm not condoning the planning of this type of approach. I went through too many power off, over the fence at +30kts while extending flaps in the flare with the old timers here, to want to go back to that technique.
My question was do all of you really think THIS approach was actually unsafe or was it just not within the parameters of our stabilized approach requirement? Is it unsafe to be configured, on G/S and +15kts at 500ft? How about +12kts? Is it unsafe to say "Before landing checklist complete" at 450ft?
Hey! Maybe this clip was taken before we had the "stabilized approach" criteria.
Yes, it was "actually unsafe". If you don't get gear down and locked until about 200' on a normal approach, it's unsafe. Just because it doesn't end in a disaster doesn't make it safe. Apparently all the money the company spent on Threat & Error Management, Blue Threat during CQ and the spiffy posters about "Don't Hint, Don't Hope" was wasted on you since only the outcome seems to matter in your world... Not picking a fight, but I find it almost unbelievable that a professional aviator at our airline with our history would even ask that question.