The importance of a stabilized approach
Discussion
I was wondering what the practicalities (and expense!) of reparing that Malibu and getting it out of Courchevel are. It's not like the altiport is going to have a Piper agency and ticketed engineer on-site, not to mention the parts that would need replacing at a minimum when a plane goes nose-first into a snow bank. Then, once they've flown in the people and the parts they've got to keep the plane at Courchevel and have somewhere to do the work and I can't imagine that inside space comes cheap or readily-available.
Basically, I suspect from the moment the spinner contacted the snow, it became the insurance company's aeroplane on a permanent basis.
Basically, I suspect from the moment the spinner contacted the snow, it became the insurance company's aeroplane on a permanent basis.
Better angle here...
https://youtu.be/wYXnSDakNRY
Nice to see the French take "rapid response" seriously
https://youtu.be/wYXnSDakNRY
Nice to see the French take "rapid response" seriously
Chuck328 said:
Yeah unfortunately there is no go-around option at CVFTestaburger said:
That’s not necessarily an unstable approach, more a botched-up landing due to misjudging the runway slope.
It was a long flare which would possibly indicate they were carrying too much energy - and that's a location where you just have to be right on the numbers (and the numbers numbers). Brother D said:
It was a long flare which would possibly indicate they were carrying too much energy - and that's a location where you just have to be right on the numbers (and the numbers numbers).
Second glance, it appears you’re quite right; apologies.I didn’t pay attention and thought the touchdown end of the runway was sloping down (it isn’t) which would have made it very easy for just a few extra knots to carry into a prolonged flare if it wasn’t acted upon.
This runway has approximately 125mm of 'flat' section where this aircraft was attempting to land.
It has over 300m of uphill runway - where aircraft are supposed to land which is to te left of the camera's view.
This incident has nothing to do with a stabilised approach, If the pilot had actually tried to land on the threshold - which is significantly lower and further from the camera this would not have occurred.
French altiports require a specific rating or authorisation for their use. It is difficult to believe this pilot had that - if he had, he would have been able to go around from the height/speed which he approached at - but then he would not have tried this obviously flawed attempt.
It has over 300m of uphill runway - where aircraft are supposed to land which is to te left of the camera's view.
This incident has nothing to do with a stabilised approach, If the pilot had actually tried to land on the threshold - which is significantly lower and further from the camera this would not have occurred.
French altiports require a specific rating or authorisation for their use. It is difficult to believe this pilot had that - if he had, he would have been able to go around from the height/speed which he approached at - but then he would not have tried this obviously flawed attempt.
Pete54 said:
This incident has nothing to do with a stabilised approach, If the pilot had actually tried to land on the threshold - which is significantly lower and further from the camera this would not have occurred.
Being on the correct vertical profile is part of a stabilised approach, along with speed and configuration. He didn’t just ‘magic’ himself to a touchdown point half way down the runway, so I’d say the approach was unstable due glidepath and unstable due speed.
Testaburger said:
Being on the correct vertical profile is part of a stabilised approach, along with speed and configuration.
He didn’t just ‘magic’ himself to a touchdown point half way down the runway, so I’d say the approach was unstable due glidepath and unstable due speed.
(Ignoring this airfield as Brother D points out - there is no G/A procedure )He didn’t just ‘magic’ himself to a touchdown point half way down the runway, so I’d say the approach was unstable due glidepath and unstable due speed.
Topic: At what point do you move from 'not stable - go around' to 'oh bugger TDZ missed baulked landing here we go'
My outfit says the gates are 1000' and 500' to be stable, which could in this case could have been very much achieved..
Then follows,,, big float, (possible late cut of power prolonging said float or too fast as you point out) leading too deep touchdown and ouch...
We would not call that unstable ( for GA purposes) but I see where you are coming from.
How late do/would you call 'unstable' ?
At the point of flare, stable/unstable does not factor for me. It's a simple call at that point if you make or miss is the TDZ.
Thoughts?
Pete54 said:
French altiports require a specific rating or authorisation for their use. It is difficult to believe this pilot had that - if he had, he would have been able to go around from the height/speed which he approached at - but then he would not have tried this obviously flawed attempt.
It's always been my understanding that below a certain height there is no go-around option at CVF, although that's only based on what I have read. Having seen it from all angles and having flown in/out in a helicopter, I can't quite see why, there appears to be a fair amount of clearance to the mountains ahead.It was always my ambition, if I gained my licence, to get a Courchevel ticket.
Chuck328 said:
(Ignoring this airfield as Brother D points out - there is no G/A procedure )
Topic: At what point do you move from 'not stable - go around' to 'oh bugger TDZ missed baulked landing here we go'
My outfit says the gates are 1000' and 500' to be stable, which could in this case could have been very much achieved..
Then follows,,, big float, (possible late cut of power prolonging said float or too fast as you point out) leading too deep touchdown and ouch...
We would not call that unstable ( for GA purposes) but I see where you are coming from.
How late do/would you call 'unstable' ?
At the point of flare, stable/unstable does not factor for me. It's a simple call at that point if you make or miss is the TDZ.
Thoughts?
We have similar gates to yours, some others go lower (300’ for a visual at Southwest, for example), but it isn’t binary. Obviously you can de-stabilise thereafter, prior to flare. Topic: At what point do you move from 'not stable - go around' to 'oh bugger TDZ missed baulked landing here we go'
My outfit says the gates are 1000' and 500' to be stable, which could in this case could have been very much achieved..
Then follows,,, big float, (possible late cut of power prolonging said float or too fast as you point out) leading too deep touchdown and ouch...
We would not call that unstable ( for GA purposes) but I see where you are coming from.
How late do/would you call 'unstable' ?
At the point of flare, stable/unstable does not factor for me. It's a simple call at that point if you make or miss is the TDZ.
Thoughts?
Looking at the touchdown point, this chap was clearly unstable (glide path) before crossing the threshold. Further hypothesising - he then wouldn’t be the first to inadvertently increase his energy by trying to dive back onto profile causing the mahoosive float.
At what point do you declare a baulked landing? Again, pretty difficult to be definitive in GA - conservative is key, as you know. For me at work, I’m having another crack at approach as soon as I’ve passed the touchdown zone. Much of my flying is in the tropics, with plenty of swirly destabilising/float-inducing (particularly with Airbus speed logic) conditions, so I’ve done plenty. No biggie. Granted, most of the runways I fly to are very long, but ‘guessing’ the remaining LDA in a MLW 350 during a float seems a bit foolhardy. A lightweight 330 into somewhere I’m very familiar with, perhaps there’s room for a little more discretion, but I’m not hanging my livelihood on it. Plus, G/As are fun, and on a more serious note, we don’t do enough of them.
As you alluded to, GA and stabilisation criteria have a bit of a disconnect, particularly light singles. Perhaps it’s time for that to be revisited - but obviously it has to be practical, or you’d never land.
As an instructor, beginner students obviously need to know the correlation between airspeed and death, but a few hours in, I always found at my gusty, short-field desert locale, students generally faired far better in achieving a stabilised approach in the right zone when implored to maintain the correct glidepath - the reactive corrections to the subsequent speed variations seemingly more natural to them.
Edited by Testaburger on Thursday 14th February 09:52
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff