To hell with stabilized approach criteria…

[3WE]

https://www.facebook.com/reel/134044533057406?fs=e&s=TIeQ9V&mibextid=roAVj8

Turn off the autopilot and fly AROUND this…

And go around if Evan is watching.

(Note: I question the reality of this, and would ASS-UME there’s a slight-but-unwanted potential to gunk up engines and pump crap into the cabin).

[Evan]

Evan is hoping the autopilot works better than that link.

[3WE]

Sorry.

Folks are generally getting these Facebook Reel links to work.

A burning building is generating a “small” extremely dense, black plume of smoke on an otherwise clear day.

An airliner, apparently on short final, flies dead through it and is completely enveloped for a moment…

Repeating- I ass-ume it’s not the best practice, and would THINK it’s smart to navigate around (including a go around if they were too low)…And again, not_due to navigation, but nasty stuff entering the engines and cabin.

/ass-hat, outsider, parlour talk.

[Gabriel]

Link works ok for me.
For sure they lost visual reference with the runway below the stabilized approach threshold which, by the manual, means that you have to initiate a go-around.
Now... the loss of sight could not have lasted more than a couple of seconds. If the captain said he used his PIC prerogative to continue with the approach because he judged that safer than going around, I would not question that.
Or perhaps they were flying a 3-cats approach.

[Evan]

I get a thumb with a bandaid and a corporate apology.

But, as described, it seems that the crew could safely ASSUME that the loss of visibility would be momentary and the runway would reappear in the same general location, whereas a go-around would probably carry a higher risk.

But I concur with 3WE that dousing the cabin air would be unkind. But clearly safer than altering the trajectory.

This is based on me looking at a thumb with a bandaid.

[Evan]

On the other thumb, flying turbines through a dense cloud of ash on final is frowned upon.

[3WE]

On the other thumb, flying turbines through a dense cloud of ash on final is frowned upon.

Yes.

Conversely, I guess it’s mostly fluffy hydrocarbon stuff versus fine, abrasive minerals (shoulder shrug).

And, you and Gabriel also seem to feel that simply maneuvering away from the smoke in the severe VMC (even as a FDnH go around) as bad option.

[3WE]

Link works ok for me.
For sure they lost visual reference with the runway below the stabilized approach threshold which, by the manual, means that you have to initiate a go-around.
Now... the loss of sight could not have lasted more than a couple of seconds. If the captain said he used his PIC prerogative to continue with the approach because he judged that safer than going around, I would not question that.
Or perhaps they were flying a 3-cats approach.

Huh?

There’s some likelihood they are on a one cat approach and not_yet at the typical 200 ft / 0.5 mile minimums, where we might simply continue.

[Evan]

Yes.

Conversely, I guess it’s mostly fluffy hydrocarbon stuff versus fine, abrasive minerals (shoulder shrug).

And, you and Gabriel also seem to feel that simply maneuvering away from the smoke in the severe VMC (even as a FDnH go around) as bad option.

A less-good option. Based on the fact that more bad things happen during go-around or late maneuvering than on stable approach when pilots merely blink their eyes for 1.2548 seconds.

But weigh that against getting the logo all sooty.

[Gabriel]

Huh?

There’s some likelihood they are on a one cat approach and not_yet at the typical 200 ft / 0.5 mile minimums, where we might simply continue.

You are right. I stand corrected.

[Gabriel]

On the other thumb, flying turbines through a dense cloud of volcanic ash on final is frowned upon.

Fixed.
Volcanic ash is totally different than other ashes from organic materials like wood, coal, cigarettes, fabrics, paper, plastics, etc.

[Gabriel]

Gabriel also seem to feel that simply maneuvering away from the smoke in the severe VMC (even as a FDnH go around) as bad option.

I never said anything whatsoever against that option.
The thread you started, you titled it "To hell with stabilized approach criteria".
I was talking about that.

[3WE]

I never said anything whatsoever against that option.
The thread you started, you titled it "To hell with stabilized approach criteria".
I was talking about that.

DEPENDING on a few things, I would probably not_object to them maneuvering around the cloud AND LANDING…

BUT

Sometimes, the stable approach CRITERIA have no bearing on whether you are stabilized.