Pilots and unstabilized approaches: how many of you have done it?

Question

As above.

Answer 1

yes we all make mistakes

Answer 2

You'd have a much shorter list if you'd have asked: "Who hasn't been there?"

Answer 3

I flew for 30+ years and never heard of a "unstabilized approach", did I miss something in airplane school?

Answer 4

The .pdf file gives somebody's idealized concept, and reads as though it was prepared to fulfill a writing assignment.

The normal situation is what that paper describes as a "stabilized" approach.  Piloting skill is a matter of handling the unexpected and correcting for variations from the typical that occur as part of almost every flight.

There is really no point in asking us if we've "DONE IT!!??!!"  We've all done something less than perfect, and we all do the best we can most of the time.

Answer 5

I guess I am going to answer your question in a round about manner.

First of all, Stabilized approaches are the procedural techniques utilized in teaching new and/or prospective pilots on how to fly a safe and controlled decent to a runway. For example during training one is taught to utilize the approach flaps prior to the Outer Marker and lower the gear at the Outer Marker while maintaining a stabilized rate of decent etc.  In reality, based on traffic and/or weather, one has to utilize ones' judgment to see which procedure will best suit the existing flight environment.  I can assure you there have been a number of occasions when I was caught in moderate to severe icing conditions and I did not lower my gear till I was committed to land.  Such an approach would not be a textbook approach but a stabilized approach to a safe landing.  On the other hand all new pilots spend plenty of time conducting what one could consider erratic approaches while they chase the needles during an ILS or find they have miscalculated x-wind or headwind speed and they have to end up adding or reducing power or forward/side slipping to loose altitude etc.  Yes, I have done my share of erratic approaches.

Answer 6

Every one at some stage in their career has done an 'unstabilized' approach. As skill gets better then  these become less and less frequent. The key is to aim for perfection every time, and better yourself as there will always be something you can do better. (this goes for all phases of flight). Very seldom does one get a so called 'prestine flight' where everything goes well without a hitch

Answer 7

Some companies stipulate stability for only the last few hundred feet of the descent to landing.

Answer 8

I have.  I'll admit it here.  I'm not a crappy pilot (i don't think), but I have found myself in an unstabilized approach more than once.  Whether it be a last minute wind change that creates an approach change and leaves you scrambling to set different frequencies and courses and rebrief a missed approach, etc...  There are many reasons that lead to an unstabilized approach and any pilot who says every approach he (or she) as ever shot has been perfect is lying like a rug.

Answer 9

As the poster above me states your cut and pasted definition is just some random definition of a stabilized approach.  My company also has a definition of a stabilized approach.  Which one do you think matters to me?  In terms of stabilized approaches there are many factors that can contribute to an approach being classified as unstabilized.  Some of those factors are weather, ATC rediculous requests, pilots behind the airplane, the list continues forever.  Finally, if anyone ever tells you they have never flown an unstabilized approach they are completely full of sh*t.  Everyone screws up, everyone is human.

Edit:  Calnickel please explain how exactly you cannot fly that approach stabilized.  If you fly that approach by the dive and drive method, you will still be stabilized for the circle to land.  

To answer to poster more specifically, my company has a policy as to what constitutes a stabilized approach in different conditions and altitudes.  For example, we must be fully configured at ref + factor prior to 1000 ft agl in IMC, if possible (atc allows) we are to be fully configured and slowing to ref + factor passing the FAF.  The 1000 ft agl is a hard rule and we must go around if we are not stabilized or become unstabilized after that point.  There are also airspeed limitations such as -0 to +10 from our target speed.  Many times atc will specify 180 to the marker, or even 180 or higher to the marker, in those cases it is beyond the limitations of the airplane to be fully configured prior to the FAF and we will finsh configuring immediately after the FAF once all our limitations are met.

Finally, when flying in the 121 world, I can think of very few instances where your approach should not be stabilized and that would only be in emergency situations.  The faa dictates that the approach will be stabilized, otherwise it is illegal to continue.  Does that mean that every unstabilized approach ends with a go around, nope, but it should.  If the weather is so bad that you have to be unstable going through the layer, you are making a big mistake, why don't you just wait till later or divert.

Answer 10

I don't understand your question , what is your meaning of an unstabilized approach , a crosswind? , a approach where you are off course?

Answer 11

Sometimes a non-stabilized approach is necessary.  What if you are going through a cloud layer and encounter severe icing?  Best to expedite through the layer to reduce exposure if you are in a slow piston pounder.  Jets are generally fast enough for this not to matter and tend to require a stabilized approach for safety purposes.

A guy I knew believed in stabilized approaches to the point of obsession, until he went through an icing layer that almost overwhelmed his aircraft.  He couldn't have made a missed approach if he wanted to.  He was committed to landing at an airport that was below minimums.  Good thing it was in Illinois and not Colorado and he was familiar with the area.

I do believe a stabilized approach makes things a lot easier and safer, but there are exceptions.

As for me I've done them under the hood on nice days for practice (like see how fast you can get to the next step-down with the aircraft under control and not blowing an altitude).  I think everyone should practice it.  I've also had some morons in Center vector me and then say go ahead and do the approach when I am still quite high.

Also, where I fly with so many mountains, it is IMPOSSIBLE to do some of these approaches in a stabilized fashion.

Like this one:

http://www.tsb.gc.ca/en/reports/air/2000...