Originally Posted by
av8rmike
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.
With our history? Really? So tell me, what was our history prior to the stabilized approach required criteria?
Seriously...I think you'd be hard pressed to find many line pilots that think all the money spent on Blue Threat training and all the fancy magazines, books, etc., is worth it. So far, the meaningful information could have been condensed into about 4hrs of GS.
I do play by the rules. And, my approaches meet the stabilized criteria. My point is that somebody(?) decided that 500ft was the minimum altitude to be stabilized for VMC conditions. It's an arbitrary number. Doesn't necessarily mean that less than that is unsafe. It just means that's our rule. What if the number they came up with for a stabilized altitude had been 700ft? Would not being stable at 600ft be unsafe?