I'm not a FDX guy, just a bystander, but if 1000 in IMC and 500 in VMC are both considered stabilized approaches, does the FDR know the weather? I fly an ancient airplane with an FDR, but ours doesn't know the weather...this is an honest question, not troll bait. Curious if or how the FDR knows the WX.

I totally agree with Rock's statement.

FOM 6.45 Stabilized Approach Criteria - last sentence - "A go-around shall be initiated."

and in Rock's scenario (go around followed by safe/"stabilized" approach & landing) - your ASAP report would be accepted

my only reason for commenting on this thread in the first place was to attempt to clarify what the ASAP program "is for" and "is not for"

Our pilots are able to "project themselves ahead" and actually visualize the weather at the destination. At least some of them....

(inside joke...lowslow...not mocking you)

Best thing said yet !

;)

Just curious...and, I'm certainly not condoning that type of approach...But, do you guys really think that approach and landing were unsafe?

For the most part all I've heard on here are references to FOQA and ASAPs. Which leads me to the conclusion you're not really worried about the safety aspect of it...but, more the legality of it.

The ACARS data comes from the approach you land out of, the FOQA gets 'em all.

Yes. Is there ANY doubt they rushed or gaffed off the Before Landing Checklist? Is rushing or gaffing off a checklist a threat to safe operation? Minus extenuating circumstances that pose a more immediate threat (fire), is there any reason to press a bad approach? I'm sure there are thousands and thousands of people driving just below the DUI limit every day, but they get home safely nonetheless. Does that one time they make it home safely now define a new norm? "Well, nothing bad happened that time, so I'm sure I'll be fine to do it again..." I can think of at least two accidents here at FedEx caused by rushed approaches/gaffed off checklists. That should be enough data points for professional aviators.

Yes there is doubt they were rushed or gaffed off a checklist. I see an aircraft flown on glidepath on speed. The gear likely came down late rushed/gaffed or more likely distracted. They likely pushed the 500' target and if that is the case they probably should have gone around. In the cockpit they made the decision that the approach was safe and what do you know, they were right.

The rest is between them and the company. None of my business.

I guess you could program it to flag any approach not stable below 1000' and 500' and listen to the voice recorder to determine if the intent was to be stable by 1000 or 500.

According to the FOQA folks there's currently no way to tell if the approach was flown in IMC or VMC, but they will have the ability to tell sometime soon (it may already be in place.) They said the FOQA program will look at old weather reports and compare them with the time stamps they get from the FDR data. It may be more sophisticated than that but this was the dumbed down pilot explanation given to us.