Dan wrote:
It might be more difficult to implement on a tight visual circuit, though respecting a “on speed” check on finals can only be beneficial.
I do think it’s possible. If I was doing such an SOP, I might make the decision point at 200ft. In a visual circuit, you ususally turn final around 500ft at which point your final flap setting may be added. Normally you’d only need minor changes from here to keep the path correct.
But the nauture of GA aircraft mean that a badly setup approach can be corrected and rescued.
But if at 200ft you’re still trying to rescue the approach, by adding flaps, leaving it to the last minute to put the gear down, trying to get the speed under control or anything else, then perhaps it a more risky approach than normal, and should be thrown away.
Hence if I was to implement a formal SOP around a stabilised approach it would probably be something along the lines of:
At 200ft,
– aircraft must be fully configured for landing,
– speed must be no more than -5kts / +8 kts
– aircraft must be on correct path
– aircraft must be latterally within middle 50% of runway.
That wouldn’t be very restrictive, and it’s certainly possible to save a landing that breaches ones of those at the 200ftAGL point, but it’s also more risky, so why take the risk? A go-around is easy and quick at 200ft and you’re likely to make a better approach next time.
Once you are PIC you can choose your own limits.
The stable approach at 500ft or 1000ft in IMC is just advice that is part of today’s training environment, which will, out of necessity, always air on the conservative side. Also in the training environment ATO’s and DTO’s tend to choose a common standard. I don’t recall a regulation saying it must be done in a particular fashion. At 200 ft the minima on an ILS you look outside, can you see the runway? Are you were you thought you were? Land or go missed? If you had to add to that, stabilising the approach you might be in for a bit of an adrenalin rush.
I am not sure I buy the “personal limits” thing on decision heights.
There is a lot of wx which I won’t fly in, so that’s a sort of “personal limit”
But an IAP will always be flown to minima, no question. That’s what it is for 
It’s a personal limit, not a regulation. You may choose not to descend to minima 200’ and 550m on an ILS. There’s nothing stopping you looking out at 500’ and if you see the runway and are happy to continue, do so, if not go missed at this point.
gallois wrote:
There’s nothing stopping you looking out at 500’ and if you see the runway and are happy to continue, do so, if not go missed at this point.
I don’t like the idea of going missed before MAP because it will deviate from described procedure. Maybe I’m wrong, maybe it’s quite ok to do that, but I somehow feel it’s not correct way of executing approach.
Well if you go-around at 700ft agl instead of 200ft agl you can climb but you will have to flying it “laterally” until MAPt, you like it or not once there you are supposed to press SUSP on LPV, forget about ILS and track runway heading or some NDB or turn
I was taught to fly higher personal minima on IMCR, being a wise pilot I used 800ft agl turns out it’s easy to fly down to 200ft agl than going around or hand fly the missed from 2nm away, about 90seconds of climbing into headwinds
I keep “personal minima” for planning, once in the air it’s either system minima or 1/2 scale deflection (may happen higher than DH in gusty days), why on earth one should go around at 800ft agl with everything in good shape? (other than say a spurious 50ft agl terrain warning in SkyDemon, an early sight of the ground and tress with no runway or loss of signal flags)
Peter wrote:
I am not sure I buy the “personal limits” thing on decision heights.
Personal limits on DH are useful for planning purposes. If you aren’t very current you may not feel confident to make e.g. an ILS to 200 ft DH and so you shouldn’t begin a flight if the forecast suggests you may have to.
But once you’re making the approach there’s no reason to increase the DH. Either your approach is stable and then there is no reason to abandon it above the regular DH, or it is unstable and then it should be abandoned no matter the DH. That’s where EASA got it wrong with the BIR, in my opinion.
kwlf wrote:
Out of curiosity, on an A32x or 737, what is the altitude on a stable approach at which you would have to initiate a go-around in order to avoid touching wheels to the runway or getting uncomfortably slow?
On a 737, during a CATIII approach down to 50’ rad alt, you can sometimes get the wheels touch if you initiate the go around at minimums.
Thanks, that’s interesting. Sorry if I took things off topic. That’s a much lower altitude than I was anticipating, but still considerably higher than at least some SEPs.
You can also “climb” more than 50ft on rotation without wheels leaving ground or change in altimeter or vertical speed on takeoff, which is highly unlikely in SEP (20ft max on rotation for vertical takeoff )
When someone says “Vr rotate, positive rate of climb, gear up” in some Arrow/Mooney, I…..
