Stabilized Approaches
 

I'd like to know what your company policy is with regards to flying a "stabilized approach". Please name your company if you're comfortable in doing so -- otherwise, just describe what is required.

I'm seeing most of our rookie Controllers issuing vectors inside the marker to all types of jets -- air carriers, regionals, and business jets. This is just something that I was never allowed to do in over 20 years of ATC with the FAA, unless of course, the pilot requested a "short approach". These vectors often mean that the crew is hauling ass, and expected to make 110 degree turn or more towards the airport without blowing through the final and impacting traffic on the straight-in approach to the parallel runway.

It seems to be a losing battle with these rookies. Trying to convince them to give you good vectors for a "stabilized approach" seems to be like ****ing in the wind, and they will slam you in front of straight-in traffic without batting an eye -- and then break-out the straight-in traffic because of a pending loss of separation.

So let's hear you thoughts on this matter... and specifically, what does your company require.

Thanks,

AUS_ATC

FedEx
Field VFR need to be stable at 500 ft AFL, IFR 1000 ft AFL
Aircraft in final landing configuration, airspeed within CFM limits and all briefings and checklist done. If on a instrument approach must be on the profile for the apch being flown. If on a visual in a position vertically and laterally so a normal descent and landing can be made.

Never let ATC fly your airplane or put you in a bad position. I had to have a talk to a supervisor in PIT because a controller got upset when we a A300 could not do 200kts to the marker. The controller actually was a smart a## on the radio mocking us. I simply said we have to be stable at 1000 AFL and give me your initials and a phone number.

I think what the Captain meant to say was Field VFR, stable at 500 ft AFL, Field IFR, stable at 1000 ft AFL :)

Stabile at 1000ft, configured for landing, at final approach speed, within Limits for the approach being flown, same for VFR. If we aren't a GA is the procedure.

Well I work for the hometown airline that is about a 2-3 hr. drive east of AUS. Basically, for a visual approach, we are told to take into consideration 3 approach energy management gates, the first being the FAF or no closer than 5 miles from the rwy threshold. Ideally at that point we should be 2000 to 1500 ft. above TDZE. with gear down, flaps 15, and max speed of 180 KIAS. The next gate is 1000ft above TDZE in final landing configuration and on some semblance of an acceptable glide path pointed at the touchdown zone. The final gate takes place at around 500' above TDZE and engines should be spooled (for 737 40% N1 is preferred), speed should be within the range for computed target on glide path with wings level and on course.

Thanks for asking I don’t pretend to speak for everyone but I find the slam dunks a little uncomfortable.

I just don't want anyone giving me a stressful time of it. If I'm not comfortable, I'm asking for vectors to take me further out. If I'm not stabilized, I'm going around. I'm not gonna fudge it because someone else is intimidating me.

I worked hard to get my license and I intend to keep it. Don't wanna fill out an ASAP and don't need the chief Pilot calling me. When I finish a trip I'm off the clock. I don't need to spend my days off second guessing my actions cos I let someone else set me up. I did push it one time to save fuel. Never again!

And yeah, I know what you're dealing with there. My sympathies!

Al

+1..............

Words to live by.

Like you, check the ego at the door.

Couldn't have said it better.:)

More PICs need to learn or exercise the word, "Unable" and possibly re-read what the responsibilities of the PIC are. Take one off the end and the controller is not going to be in front of the accident board.

At DFW a while back and 3 or 4 good indications of windshear (virga, big temp/dew point spread, dust devils) and ATC gave us 200 to the marker. "Unable." ATC says everyone else is doing it. "Unable." If you can't play with the big boys we can put you in holding. "Gimme vectors or the fix.. we got 2hrs of fuel.. initials and number please."

More to the story but the simple fact is we flew a stable app and didn't let the assumption of business as usual back us into a potential incident/accident.

We have a winner! What has created scenarios like being at 4,000 on down wind and being cleared for a "visual and make short approach" a la Chicago, or airplanes crossing the threshold while the other A/C is just rotating with the continuous encouraging words of ATC "continue approach" or take off clearance coming very slowly while the landing A/C is still with TR's deployed and the T/O A/C is already checking 80kts. by the time the words cleared for take off are actually uttered and the landing A/C bellow 300' on final a la Minneapolis. The pilots, that's who. We keep stretching the boundaries of the meaning of safe distance while padding each other on the back with phrases like "good job" before changing frequencies and the "good job" really means "boy that was close"

It is the gazelle that has given the cheetah its speed

What does having a stabilized approach have anything to do with controllers who aren't properly controlling traffic?

Why does it even matter to ATC what my company's requirements are? I always thought, and I could be very very wrong here, that ATC requirements were to vector you no shorter than 2 miles to the FAF.

So we all know what ATC is supposed to do
 

This is how it's supposed to be done (link). Bolds are my own. The "approach gate" is a radar fix a minimum of 1 NM outside the FAF.
Have you ever heard an airline pilot request vectors inside the gate (not the controller asking if you/they will accept it, but the pilot request it)? How many times have you intercepted inside the FAF - this should NEVER happen if a controller vectored you, even if you requested it.

The link provides much more detail. It is 10 years old though, so perhaps the regs have changed . . . I am not a controller.

Sniper:

I agree with you 100%. If a controller vectors you inside the FAF, several problems come up.

If conducting an ILS, you'll be above the glideslope before you capture the localizer, thus being high. If you choose to descend, then you aren't inside the obstacle protection zone.

Additionally, there is a reason why there is a glideslope intercept altitude published. This is so you can check to make sure that you are on the correct lobe of the ILS. If you intercept inside the glideslope interecept altitude or FAF, you could find yourself capturing the wrong lobe (high or low), both of which are bad.

I thought the OP was trying to educate himself as to our needs; why the rancor?

Anyway, for JetBlue we need to be configured with final flaps, on speed, engines spooled, and in a position to descend continuously to the TDZ not in excess of 1000 fpm. For both VMC and IMC we're required to be stabilized 1000' AFE. This is true for both the Bus and 190; note the 1000 foot requirement for visual approaches is more restrictive than many other carriers. That's why you're gonna hear me squirm or refuse when you ask for 180 knots to a 4-5 mile final. Hope this helps.

You're right except for the false G/S issue. The first false G/S is about 1,500 feet above the FAF on the ILS.

No rancor. There is a big difference between what our companies require us to fly and what is required by FAR for the controllers. If the controllers followed their rules, we would have no issue meeting ours.

Exactly!
 

I have to agree with this posting 100%!

I see this happend all the time in Atlanta. Terrible last vectors inside the marker almost paralleling or very late last vectors.

After being screwed by these "pros" a few times I started correcting the last vectors given myself to match was what was actually needed.

Do not trust the controller to know best, used your head and be proactive and always, ALWAYS question in your head what the controller is wanting you to do.

Atlanta is one of those places where an accident is just waiting to happend.

It is a training place for controllers and with the amount of flying in and out is just simple a bad match.

We need guys like they have in O' Hare in Atlanta.
It is a mess on the ground most of the time and dangerous in the air many times.

There is a lot of talk about the quality of the pilots but hey the controllers are in the game also and they need higher level than what they hold in some places.

It is way easy to become a controller in the States and the product shows it.

Looking back at a few accidents lately caused by controller attitude we might see that we do have a problem there.

Dont get me wrong, most do a good job like most pilots but there is a lot to be done in the controller field also. It is time for the FAA to take it seriously.

I wish we pilots could write them up the same way they can do with us. Maybe ask them for a phone number to call them when they screw you up really badly.:p

All facilities are "training" facilities now. The old days of working your way up to the bigger facilities have been changed by the same people you saw on ABC last week partying $5 million of your tax money in ATL.

Having said that, how would you suggest a controller gets O'Hare type experience. They all had to start somewhere, and even the O'Hare guys/gals had a first day there, too.

Also, I'm not sure I want all the non-standard phraseology and procedures that ORD controllers use as the norm. Yes, they get the job done, but g*d help the neophyte ORD pilot, or foreign (non-english speaking) pilot who is not familiar with ORD.

It's far from ideal.



That's true. Many, myself included, were hired with no experience whatsoever; some not even familiar with aircraft or airports. But, the same is true of pilots, even military.



I'm not aware of attitude causing an accident. Care to elaborate?



You can call and complain any time you want. Call during business hours and ask for the Quality Assurance office, Operations manager, or Air Traffic Manager. Write down the frequency and zulu date/time. You don't need any info from the controller, except perhaps the phone number (which you can get from other sources).

Thanks Tony for the answers and questions.

What I mean with attitude in some recent accident situations is for example what happend over the Hudson river when an helicopter and private piston engine collide in the air and what the supervisor and the controller on duty were doing at the time.

I also recall something about the lonely controller during the Comair accident not paying all the attention one would expect.

We also have the landing on the taxiway in Atlanta (not an accident but an ocurrance) were the controller gave the sidestep option late, very late in the approach.

I can agree that anybody can with some effort become a pilot as easy as a controller but you dont move into a 747 when you start working as a pilot like a fresh controller can start in ATL to be trained.

For the pilot it takes a lot of training and experience to get to the biggest you can get to (747, 777, etc) and ATL and ORD must be the biggest you can get to as a controller.

I am based in Atlanta since the start of 2008 and was ORD based before.

I am European and live in the US ( Becoming American soon) and had no problem adapting to ORD even with very few years in the states.

Yes they have a different way of working in ORD but the experience level is high. They know what they are doing all the time.

ATL on the other hand is a mess too many times to be acceptable. Bad separation, bad vectors, bad ground handling, bad ramp handling. Flows all the time and problems even on the best VFR day. Not all are bad. We have like in any other place some good contollers in ATL also. But it is a mess in general.

From my practical experience flying and being based in both places I have to say that I'll take the ORD guys anytime before the ATL ATC.

I believe the old system that you mention where the controllers would move to bigger places after a few years of experience must be the right way to go. (Do not understand why they changed it). There are thousends of small to medium size airports around the US were controllers can gain tons of experience before moving into and working in places like ATL.

ATL, ORD should be the top for any Controller and only the most experienced ones should work in those places. That is my opinion only and we are all entitled to have one.
By the way Tony, I always read your postings and answers with interest.

Hermann:)

I fly into Atlanta all the time. I think they do a pretty damn good job. I've never seen a loss of separation (caused by a controller). And the vectors you get are excellent. If it is going to be a short approach, they tell you, unlike other places which will leave you high and dry.

Well, I hope that at least while they are trying to gain experience, they are paid a pitiful wage, treated like absolute crap from management, and are generally looked down upon by everybody till they get the experience to hopefully one day become a "real" controller.

My company requires stabilized 500 AFE for vis and 1000 AFE for instrument.

I personally like DCA controllers most of the time....but with anywhere everyone has their moments.

I think the ATL controllers do a pretty damn good job. I flew the E170 in out out of there daily for almost a year.... and once you get use to what they expect its a pretty nice "dance".... no uncommon to be at 8000' on downwind.... and be ready to get slammed with short vectors if its VFR and they can fit you in.... Having flown all over the world I really have no beef with ATL controllers... easy to understand over all pretty calm... ORD controllers are very very good... the ground guys there get their panties in a wad way too much but thats just their way!!!!

oh.. as to the OP... stabilized by 1000' IFR...500' VFR... no more than 1000'fpm rate of decent... speed no more than +10 to ref.

we are supposed to be fully comfigured and within REF+10 crossing the marker. i got hosed in GSO,( my fault still, cause i am the pilot) resulting in an ASAP report. 7000FT and 220kts 4 mile final, didnt work so well, i knew it, but tried anyways and when we tried to tell tower we needed to come around again, he was busy chit chating about something over the radio about taxiway closures and BBQ, really?