Good advice all the way through. I fly glider these days and so out of necessity the primary need in the pattern is for a good stabilized approach. If anyone using power wants to practice hand flying like this, or doing patterns without an engine, take a few glider flights. They are also a lot of fun!
While I agree with most of the criteria and tips for stable approaches in this video, and applaud the FAA's continued focus on this topic, I believe they defaulted to a "stable by" altitude that is far from practical for the hundreds of thousands of small single-engine operators, and those of us who work with students in the training environment. Big jets may be stable by 1000' AGL, not needing to make any more configuration changes from this point down to touchdown, but this is just not the case for small aircraft, nor is it a reality when bridging the gap from visual to a precision instrument approach, where a decision often needs to be made at 200' AGL and flaps added at this exact moment, once the landing environment is sighted. How could any GA pilot be taught to be stable by 1000' AGL if flying a typical rectangular pattern, where at that altitude the plane may still be in a faster clean configuration, and after turning final it might be in a full flap configuration with 20 knots less airspeed. To get from one configuration to the other takes lots of planning, anticipation, and adjustments by the pilot (regardless of experience level), so while I teach that the descent in the pattern should be stabilized and follow a constant descent rate of about 500ft/min for most single-engine pistons, it is NOT practical that the pilot has to DECIDE if the approach is stable by 1000' AGL and DETERMINE whether or not to execute a go-around. While different flight departments establish a variety of "stable by" altitudes on approach, my training department teaches a stable call-out by 200' AGL or the go-around should be initiated.
2:44 Missed approach is a "point" MAP not a "fix" The missed approach point may be a fix on occasion, but FAA should not make this kind of public error. 3:54 VFR criteria is not accurate or reasonable for light GA (where all the accidents are) We dont know what "path" is, and full flaps will definitely not be added at 500 feet, therefore landing checklist cannot be complete. Ironically there is NO guidance in any PTS or ACS regarding what our stabilized approach goals are! Here they are: 1) On speed 2) on vertical path (Vasi, papi, GS, or visual) 3) touchdown on centerline. 4) touchdown in TDZ of first third. If ay "ANY" time one of these goals becomes not likely, "THEN" go-around. Go-Around is not decided at 500 as you indicated, ie "Since we were good at '500 we are good to continue..." '500 is a good first gate. The better gates occur much later, and if any one of those four become questionable, then Go-Around. This video is kind of un professional and mis leading to those that don't know any better.
Good advice all the way through. I fly glider these days and so out of necessity the primary need in the pattern is for a good stabilized approach. If anyone using power wants to practice hand flying like this, or doing patterns without an engine, take a few glider flights. They are also a lot of fun!
Always nice to see safety videos, and sharing the knowledge to make safer pilots. Good job! keep them coming.
As a result of these videos you supply, I thank you FAA.
Excellent presentation all the way around. Could spice it up with more pictures
While I agree with most of the criteria and tips for stable approaches in this video, and applaud the FAA's continued focus on this topic, I believe they defaulted to a "stable by" altitude that is far from practical for the hundreds of thousands of small single-engine operators, and those of us who work with students in the training environment. Big jets may be stable by 1000' AGL, not needing to make any more configuration changes from this point down to touchdown, but this is just not the case for small aircraft, nor is it a reality when bridging the gap from visual to a precision instrument approach, where a decision often needs to be made at 200' AGL and flaps added at this exact moment, once the landing environment is sighted. How could any GA pilot be taught to be stable by 1000' AGL if flying a typical rectangular pattern, where at that altitude the plane may still be in a faster clean configuration, and after turning final it might be in a full flap configuration with 20 knots less airspeed. To get from one configuration to the other takes lots of planning, anticipation, and adjustments by the pilot (regardless of experience level), so while I teach that the descent in the pattern should be stabilized and follow a constant descent rate of about 500ft/min for most single-engine pistons, it is NOT practical that the pilot has to DECIDE if the approach is stable by 1000' AGL and DETERMINE whether or not to execute a go-around. While different flight departments establish a variety of "stable by" altitudes on approach, my training department teaches a stable call-out by 200' AGL or the go-around should be initiated.
2:44 Missed approach is a "point" MAP not a "fix" The missed approach point may be a fix on occasion, but FAA should not make this kind of public error. 3:54 VFR criteria is not accurate or reasonable for light GA (where all the accidents are) We dont know what "path" is, and full flaps will definitely not be added at 500 feet, therefore landing checklist cannot be complete. Ironically there is NO guidance in any PTS or ACS regarding what our stabilized approach goals are! Here they are: 1) On speed 2) on vertical path (Vasi, papi, GS, or visual) 3) touchdown on centerline. 4) touchdown in TDZ of first third. If ay "ANY" time one of these goals becomes not likely, "THEN" go-around. Go-Around is not decided at 500 as you indicated, ie "Since we were good at '500 we are good to continue..." '500 is a good first gate. The better gates occur much later, and if any one of those four become questionable, then Go-Around. This video is kind of un professional and mis leading to those that don't know any better.