What logic is there? I dont know when they put down the gear do you? What was their speed? The company has the tapes if they are worried about it I am sure the crew will find out. Not any of my business but I guess it is yours.

pssst want to see some I phone video of a guy not wearing his mask when the captain left the cockpit?

I could care less about punitive action to the crew. One positive thing about this forum is education. It has already stared a great debate over stabilized approaches and ADM.

I don't think this video will hold up in an official investigation, but do you honestly think the gear was down by 500 ft? I know it sucks to be put under the microscope and have our actions over analyzed by people who weren't in the seat, but that is the only way we can discuss safety. Let us say that instead of posting a video, someone just asked your opinion on getting the gear down seconds before you crossed the threshold. That is how I view this thread. You are taking this way too personally.

Wow I am not taking it personally at all. I dont have all the facts, so I dont feel qualified to comment. You obviously do. I have already said if they pushed the 500' stable target they should have gone around after that what more needs to be said? We certainly dont need to go as far as some here have when they figured out from 30 seconds of video outside the cockpit the crews intentions.

This story is shrouded in the mists of time, but when they first implemented the 1000' stable rule, a captain I flew with told me he knew the management guys that made the decision.

He said they picked 1000' because of situations like this. Pilots could make a quick recovery and still be stable by 7-800 feet or so.

Actually, I have not commented on the video at all. I commented on the statement people made claiming if you land the plane without breaking it, you did nothing wrong.

You mean a 1000 feet wasnt intented as a brick wall. They still allowed piloting back then.

And I have only commented on people watching 30 seconds of video outside the cockpit and then pronouncing the crews state of mind and intention. As far as I know the gear was down at 500' and the aircraft was on glidepath and on speed. If not they pay people to determine the facts and I dont want that job.

As anyone who has flown the 757 at FedEx will attest, when we first got the airplane, we were trying to figure out how to slow it down on approach. Plus, we are all nice guys, so we try to do what approach wants. Got asked to do 170 to the marker one night to accomodate an MD following us. Of course we will. No problem. Didn't really pick up on the 15 knot tailwind until about 1500 feet. Gear, boards, flaps 30, open the window and stick my arm out; anything to get stable at 500 feet. Boards stowed, gear down, flaps 30, checklist complete and still slowing to approach speed at 500 feet; Captain says "unstable, airspeed, continue." Everything was in place by 350 feet, normal landing and roll out. Yes, we can still use some judgement (at least we could then).

Just curious...Who said that?:confused:

Here you go...

The decision to continue a safe approach is not the same as saying they did nothing wrong. I dont know if they did anything wrong I dont have the evidence. But as a hypothetical, being unstable at 500 feet but working towards stable by 400 feet can be wrong and safe at the same time. Just as holding your mask on your lap at 260 is (I dont condone that practice either).

I agree with this. There are fudge factors for a reason. Like you said, we do not know what their intensions were or their exact altitude (But to me it looks lower than 400).

If you are honestly trying to make your approach stable and at 1,000/500 feet but the flaps are still in motion, the gear is in transit, or your speed is still slowing to approach speed, you have to ask yourself if you have this thing under control and how much longer will it take to be stabilized. My rule is all configuration changes definitely need to be initiated before 1,000 feet and speed must be set by 500 feet.

Good plan never let ATC fly your aircraft for you simply say unable or we require runway 36 for operational reasons etc.

Paula Jones 1997

Is RS back flying the line? At least she kept it on the runway on that landing ;)

Edit: Paula Cole 1997, definitely not Jones.

Looks like the video has caught up with the crew!

Yup. Both NOQ in Dec. :(
Judging from BM's "Tales from the dark side" today, they probably didn't submit an ASAP.

The peanut gallery has been heard.......hooray?

I've submitted two ASAP's already. One for a bird strike, one for a missed turn while taxiing.

It's a simple system and you get some good feedback. I like it.

Looks like the OP might have caused some to become unemployed. Just sayin, food for thought.

While I certainly don't think anyone should lose their jobs over this, I don't think the ASAP program would have helped these guys.

When they decided to continue an unstabilized approach, they intentionally disregarded SOP, which will exclude them from the ASAP program.

If they would have gotten the warning, went around, and filed an ASAP, then they would have been covered.

Hindsight is always 20/20, I hope these guys get back in the air.

NOQ does not equal unemployed. Go re-read all four issues of FOQA Facts and tell me that there aren't people out there who either think rules don't apply to them, or who completely lost all SA during an approach. If it's the former, I'm all for them getting a pp spanking. If the latter, maybe a couple of sim rides might actually help them. Either way, I'm all for FOQA and love the ASAP program (2 so far).

Not so sure about that. If the Captain used his authority and decided it was safer to land than go around in the congested airspace in Chicago, I think it would have been accepted. It all depends on how he wrote the report. Of course, if you don't write one then you have zero chance of it being accepted.

I agree an ASAP should have been filed. But you are lumping the CA and FO together with equal responsibility. If the CA is flying the FO is a monitor. It's still the CA's show. If the FO made unstable callouts but did not see a danger to landing the FO did not do anything wrong.

Lots of ifs....

..deleted..

Don't worry everthing will be better next year when we completely revamp the way we fly Cat 2/3 approaches. :cool:

:confused: So, if the FO says the right thing, he bears no responsibility for the improper operation of the aircraft? I don't think so. If the FO has an approved procedure or course of action available to him to deal with whatever the situation is and chooses not to exercise that option, then he's just as responsible. It's the Captain's show, but he's not going to get me killed, fired or violated.

After the "unstable" callout, there is supposed to be a go-around. The FOM gives no wiggle room. If the CA doesn't initiate a go-around, the next call-out is "Go around" by the FO. You can't "unsay" that and it must be complied with.

.....and just to clarify, before I get a barrage of shots over the bow. I'm not referring to the crew in the video. I obviously have no idea what was going on in their cockpit.
I'm only discussing the attitude that an FO can sit on his side of the aircraft, fill a square with a call-out and be absolved of all responsibility.

Since you're addressing my comments you ARE talking about the video.

You're trying to put words in my mouth that weren't spoken or implied. We all know about the Go-around call out. That might have been warranted here but falls into a grey area. Did you feel you were in danger? Only the crew can answer that.

So you think the FO should have taken the airplane if the CA was flying, or vice versa since we don't know who was PF.

If you think there was a risk metal would be bent without intervening it's appropriate. For a violation you see about to happen I'm not sure the FAA would approve of the FO taking the airplane (which addresses your what if about a violation). Anyway, I don't think it was warranted in this case. Most will never be in a position that absolutely requires that option.

Maybe you're addressing some other FO's attitude if you aren't addressing this crew/thread. Just don't point that at me.

Gunter,
I'm not putting words in your mouth. You posted this:
How else am I supposed to interpret that comment. If you want to clarify what you meant, then please do.

Now, you're putting words in my mouth because I never discussed an FO taking the aircraft. As you said, it's very unlikely any of us would ever encounter a situation where that is appropriate.
What I did say was an FO that identifies an approach as unstable and calls it out still has another mandatory duty (per the FOM) if the CA chooses to continue an unstable approach and that is to direct a go-around.

And I am talking in generalities related to our FOM guidance and our entire crew force, not the crew in the video. Just because your comments referred to them doesn't mean my response to your opinion is.

OK, It's probably a matter of semantics here, but where does it say the PM has to call for a go around. I know it says a go around shall be initiated if stabilized criteria is not met and the PM has a responsibility to call Unstable and the condition, but I don't see where it directs the PM to call for a go around if one is not initiated.

FOM: (immediately after the list of stable approach parameters)
If at any time any of these parameters are exceeded and timely corrections are not made, the PM or S/O shall state that the aircraft is not stable and identify the condition. A go-around shall be initiated.

If something shall be done, it isn't optional. So, therefore, if a go-around is supposed to be happening and it isn't, then the next step is to direct it.

And in my quote I posted that the FOM stated a go around shall be initiated. It doesn't state that it is a responsibility of the PM to call for a go around which you indicated in previous posts. If the PM happens to be the FO and he calls unstable and the Captain makes the decision to continue, I think the FO is pretty much in the clear unless he sees an obvious dangerous situation developing. Not arguing that a go around should be initiated.

Only reason I even talk about this is because I had a similar situation about 18 months ago during a line check. The Captain got slam dunked on a visual and ended up just outside the airspeed parameters at 500'. I called unstable airspeed and the Captain didn't initiate the go around. I said we should go around and the Captain said he was continuing. He managed to land safely in the TD zone. I was expecting the Check Airman to slam the Captain, but he said it was OK. He said the Captain could make that decision if he felt it was safer and he never saw an unsafe situation develop. It sorta shocked me but that's what happened.

It sounds like we may be getting into the practical/realistic application of FOM guidance vs. the intent of the author.

Based just what I see in the excerpt I posted, the required response to an unstable call (which would occur when "timely corrections" are not made) is a go-around. There doesn't appear to be room for interpretation. If there is, then I think that needs to be spelled out. I remember in S/O new hire training when they told me a possible response to my "unstable" call might be "continue" from the Captain. Maybe that option has been removed over the various FOM revisions.


The airspeed situation you encountered might fall under the "timely correction" caveat, at least in the eyes of the LCA you dealt with. I don't think any Captain has the option to call for the gear and respond "continue" to an "unstable, gear" call at 500' considering there's no way the 21 second gear extension time on the MD-11 can be considered a timely correction.

Whats the big deal ?? I do this in my Microsoft Flight Sim game all the time. :)

FOM page 2-16. Crew Duties - Pilot Monitoring. See particularly the note at the bottom of the right hand column.

Where Did You Get that Idea From ?
 

Every company SOP may be slightly different but I think it's common to be fully configured by 1,000' AGL in IMC conditions and 500' in VMC. Before you "lock and load", every carrier may be slightly different.

In my freight dogs days in the three-holer, we used to have contests going into the hub whenever it was VMC. The rules were that once you pulled the thrust levers to idle on approach above 5,000', you could not move them again until the completion of the landing roll. The A/C had to be fully configured by 500' AGL as per company SOP. Talk about a great exercise to learn how the aircraft performs during the configuration process.

The good old days.

G'Luck Mates:)

IF anyone becomes unemployed over this, said unemployement WILL NOT be "caused by" someone posting a link to a video on this message board.

It will be because someone operated an aircraft in a manner deemed unsafe and/or not in accordance with FedEx's/FAA's standards - PERIOD.

Please place blame/responsibility where it belongs.

Because I never drove 56 MPH.