Atlas, (too) low drag, low power approach technique?

[bstolle]

https://youtu.be/Z-zJlNYWi2A?t=18

[BoeingBobby]

Not sure that I see ANYTHING wrong with that! Not buttered on but nothing wrong with that approach or configuration. Nothing wrong with gear down, flaps 30 and a before landing checklist on a half mile final! My usual in CAVU. Saves fuel!

[3WE]

Not sure that I see ANYTHING wrong with that! Not buttered on but nothing wrong with that approach or configuration. Nothing wrong with gear down, flaps 30 and a before landing checklist on a half mile final! My usual in CAVU. Saves fuel!

A LLLLOOOONNNNGGGG time ago us amateur aviation advisors got our panties in a wad when one of ITS’s colleagues did this:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GI6rLRldUOM

I guess there’s a rule of thumb to configure around the outer marker but not_a requirement.

Anyway, ITS’s FedEx buds win over Bobby’s Atlas buds and my panties are just fine

[Evan]

The problem as I see it is that, at this point, there is no longer any config warning on the EGPWS to ‘remind’ you if you space it out in that high workload moment. No redundancy for human error. Enough pilots do this on a regular basis and the sparks will fly.

[3WE]

The problem as I see it is that, at this point, [there are risks] if you space it out in that high workload moment. No redundancy for human error. Enough bicycle riders ride on a regular basis and elbow skin cells will did died.

Fixed.

[Evan]

[there are risks]

And here I thought aviation safety was about minimizing risks, not embracing them.

[Not_Karl]

And here I thought aviation safety was about minimizing risks, not embracing them.

When you're flying a Boeing you have no other choice.

[3WE]

there is no longer any config warning on the acronym

I have a hunch there’s additional acronyms.

[BoeingBobby]

A LLLLOOOONNNNGGGG time ago us amateur aviation advisors got our panties in a wad when one of ITS’s colleagues did this:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GI6rLRldUOM

I guess there’s a rule of thumb to configure around the outer marker but not_a requirement.

Anyway, ITS’s FedEx buds win over Bobby’s Atlas buds and my panties are just fine

That one looked fine to me as well!

[3WE]

That one looked fine to me as well!

Except that it gets us outsiders all riled up on aviation fora and some may even write letters to regulators. /blue font (except some probably do.).

[Gabriel]

Bobby, I don't see anything intrinsically wrong in either of these 2 videos here. In both of them the landing gear started to go down some 400 seconds before touchdown which means the planes were some 500 to 550 ft up and some 1.5 miles away of the touchdown point.

But from a purely formal / "legalistic" perspective, if you are supposed to be stabilized by 500ft and part of the stabilized approach criteria is landing cehcklist completed and part of the landing checklist is gar down and locked indication, wouldn't this be a violation?

And Evan, why do you say that at this point there is not warning? I would expect two warnings: The normal gear warning when flaps are extended past a certain point and the gear is still up and the GPWS warning "Too low - Gear!". As far as I understand, you would take these two alarms all the way to a scratching touchdown if the gear is up.

[bstolle]

But from a purely formal / "legalistic" perspective, if you are supposed to be stabilized by 500ft and part of the stabilized approach criteria is landing cehcklist completed and part of the landing checklist is gar down and locked indication, wouldn't this be a violation?

I'm 100% sure that Bobby wasn't serious in both cases. LOL

Concerning the warning you are of course correct.
(There's a reason why I stopped replying to Evans ... posts a long time ago.)

[Evan]

And Evan, why do you say that at this point there is not warning? I would expect two warnings: The normal gear warning when flaps are extended past a certain point and the gear is still up and the GPWS warning "Too low - Gear!". As far as I understand, you would take these two alarms all the way to a scratching touchdown if the gear is up.

I meant the warning has already happened and has been intentionally disregarded. And a repeat warning might then also be disregarded. I’m not very familiar with the 747-400 systems but in the -200 the gear horn could be silenced as well. But you also have to recognize that these things are always a combination of failures and layers of human error, and you are removing one important layer (as you said, violating the stable approach criteria is the main offense here).

The PIA crash reportedly had a single ECAM warning L/G GEAR NOT DOWN. But the master warning light was already on for other reasons and this warning was not acknowledged. The EGPWS did not call out TOO LOW GEAR before the impact most likely because the other active EGPWS warnings had priority (with an overconfident pilot ignoring all of them). Again, multiple factors that you must always consider.

I also question the wisdom of an intentional late configuration if the cockpit is being distracted by multiple gear warnings. I mean, how much fuel are you really saving here anyway. Why do this?

But again, most importantly, don’t violate the stable criteria. These are basic, simple rules to defend against myriad complex possible failure scenarios that a pilot might not forsee and consider. Just respect these rules and risk will be minimized.

[BoeingBobby]

Once again, I am soooo glad to be retired!

And here is another good reason.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C7pc6dYxgGU/?igsh=MTQyZnVhcjMxdWFhZw==

[3WE]

Except that it gets us outsiders all riled up on aviation fora and some may even write letters to regulators. /blue font (except some probably do.).

Amirite?