Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Introduction
Rushed and unstabilized approaches are the largest contributory factor in CFIT and other approach-and-landing accidents. Rushed approaches result in insufficient time for the flight crew to correctly: Plan; Prepare; and, Execute a safe approach.
This Flight Operations Briefing Note provides an overview and discussion of: Criteria defining a stabilized approach; and, Factors involved in rushed and unstabilized approaches.
Note: Flying stabilized approaches complying with the stabilization criteria and approach gates defined hereafter, does not preclude flying a Delayed Flaps Approach (also called a Decelerated Approach) as dictated by ATC requirements.
II
Statistical Data
(Source: Flight Safety Foundation Flight Safety Digest Volume 17 & 18 November 1998 / February 1999).
Page 1 of 13
In 75% of the off-runway touchdown, tail strike or runway excursion/overrun accidents, the major cause was an unstable approach. Table 1 shows the factors involved in rushed and unstabilized approaches.
Factor
High and/or fast approach or Low and/or slow approach Flight-handling difficulties : - Demanding ATC clearances - Adverse wind conditions
% of Events
66 %
45 %
III
Stabilization Heights
The following minimum stabilization heights are recommended to achieve timely stabilized approaches: Meteorological Conditions
IMC VMC
Table 2 Minimum Stabilization Heights Note: A lower minimum stabilization height may be allowed for circling approaches (e.g. 400 ft).
Page 2 of 13
IV
Only small changes in heading and pitch are required to maintain this flight path
The thrust is stabilized, usually above idle, to maintain the target approach speed along the desired final approach path
The landing checklist has been accomplished as well as any required specific briefing
Table 3 The Elements of a Stabilized Approach All Approaches Note 1: For Non-Precision Approaches, some of these elements (desired landing configuration and VAPP) should be achieved when the aircraft reaches the FAF (Airbus recommended technique). Note 2: Non-normal conditions requiring deviation from the above elements of a stabilized approach should be briefed formally.
Page 3 of 13
Parameter
Airspeed Lower than V
APP
Callout Criteria
5 kt or Greater than V
APP
+ 10 kt (*)
Vertical Speed
Pitch Attitude
Bank Angle
LOC deviation
Table 4 Excessive Flight-Parameter-Deviation Callouts (*) The final approach speed V as applicable).
APP
is considered to be equal to V
REF
+ 5 kt (or V
LS
+ 5 kt,
V REF is the reference target threshold speed in the full flaps landing configuration (i.e., in the absence of airspeed corrections because of wind, windshear or non-normal configuration). (**) Refer to the applicable SOPs for applicable pitch attitude limits.
Page 4 of 13
VI
Vertical situational awareness : By monitoring the vertical flight path and the rate of descent;
Energy awareness : By maintaining the engines thrust to the level required to fly a 3-degree approach path at the final approach speed (or at the minimum ground speed, as applicable).
This also enhances the readiness for go-around. In addition, a stabilized approach provides the following benefits: More time and attention are available for the monitoring of ATC communications, weather conditions, systems operation; More time is available for effective monitoring and back-up by the PNF; Defined flight-parameter-deviation criteria and minimum stabilization height support the decision to land or go-around; Landing performance is consistent with published performance; and, Situational awareness is increased.
VII
Best Practices
Throughout the entire flight a next target should be defined to stay ahead of the aircraft at all times. The defined next target should be any required combination of: A position; An altitude; A configuration; A speed; A vertical profile (vertical speed or flight path angle); and,
Page 5 of 13
A power setting (e.g. thrust is stabilized, usually above idle, to maintain the target approach speed along the desired final approach path).
If it is anticipated that one or more element(s) of the next target will not be met, the required corrective action(s) should be taken without delay. During the approach and landing, the successive next targets should constitute gates that should be met for the approach to be continued (Figure 1).
FAF
1000 FT
500 FT
Figure 1 Typical Gates during Final Approach The Final Approach Fix (FAF), the Outer Marker (OM) or an equivalent fix (as applicable) constitute an assessment gate to confirm the readiness to proceed further; this assessment should include the following: Visibility or RVR (and ceiling, as appropriate): Better than or equal to applicable minimums;
Page 6 of 13
The minimum stabilization height constitutes a particular gate along the final approach (e.g. for an ILS approach, the objective is to be stabilized on the final descent path at VAPP in the landing configuration, at 1000 feet above airfield elevation in IMC, or at 500 feet above airfield elevation in VMC, after continuous deceleration on the glide slope). If the aircraft is not stabilized on the approach path in landing configuration, at the minimum stabilization height, a go-around must be initiated unless the crew estimates that only small corrections are necessary to rectify minor deviations from stabilized conditions due, amongst others, to external perturbations. Following a PNF flight parameter exceedance callout, the suitable PF response will be: Acknowledge the PNF callout, for proper crew coordination purposes Take immediate corrective action to control the exceeded parameter back into the defined stabilized conditions Assess whether stabilized conditions will be recovered early enough prior to landing, otherwise initiate a go-around.
VIII
Late runway change (i.e., lack of ATC awareness of the time required to reconfigure the aircraft systems for a new approach); Non-standard task-sharing resulting in excessive head-down work (e.g., FMS reprogramming); Short outbound leg or short down-wind leg (e.g., in case of unidentified traffic in the area); Inadequate use of automation: Late takeover from automation (e.g., in case of AP failing to capture the GS, usually due to crew failure to arm the approach mode);
Page 7 of 13
Premature or late descent due to absence of positive FAF identification; Insufficient awareness of wind conditions: Tailwind component; Low altitude wind shear; Local wind gradient and turbulence (e.g., caused by terrain, forest or buildings); or, Recent weather along the final approach path (e.g., downdraft caused by a descending cold air mass following a rain shower);
Incorrect anticipation of aircraft deceleration characteristics in level flight or on a 3-degree glideslope; Failure to recognize deviations or to remember the excessive-parameter-deviation criteria; Belief that the aircraft will be stabilized at the stabilization height or shortly thereafter; Excessive confidence by the PNF that the PF will achieve a timely stabilization; PF/PNF over reliance on each other to call excessive deviations or to call for a go-around; Visual illusions during the visual segment; Continued approach without acquisition of adequate visual references or after loss of visual references; Failure to accurately follow the PAPI / VASI; and / or, Failure to adequately maintain the aiming point (i.e., duck-under).
IX
Page 8 of 13
Excessive bank angle when capturing the final approach course (up to 40-degree); Activation of a GPWS warning: Mode 1 : SINK RATE; Mode 2A : TERRAIN (not full flaps); Mode 2B : TERRAIN (full flaps).
Late extension of flaps or flaps load relief system activation (as applicable), resulting in the late effective extension of flaps; Flight-parameter excessive deviation when crossing the stabilization height: Excessive airspeed (up to V
REF
+ 70 kt);
Not aligned (up to 20-degree heading difference); Excessive bank angle (up to 40 -degrees); Excessive vertical speed (up to 2000 ft/mn); Excessive glide slope deviation (up to 2 dots);
Excessive bank angle, excessive sink rate or excessive maneuvering while performing a side-step; Speedbrakes being still extended when in short final (i.e., below 1000 ft above airfield elevation); Excessive flight-parameter deviation(s) down to runway threshold; High runway-threshold crossing (up to 220 ft); Long flare and extended touchdown.
The following four-step strategy is proposed: Anticipate; Detect; Correct; and, Decide.
Page 9 of 13
X.1 Anticipate
Some factors likely to result in a rushed and unstabilized approach can be anticipated. Whenever practical, flight crews and controllers should avoid situations that may result in rushed approaches. The descent-and-approach briefing provides an opportunity to identify and discuss factors such as : Non-standard altitude or speed restrictions requiring a careful energy management: An agreed strategy should be defined for the management of the descent, deceleration and stabilization (i.e., following the concepts of next targets and approach gate); This strategy will constitute a common objective and reference for the PF and PNF.
X.2 Detect
Defined excessive-parameter-deviation criteria and a defined stabilization height provide the PF and PNF with a common reference for effective: Monitoring (i.e., early detection of deviations); and, Back-up (i.e., timely and precise deviation callouts for effective corrections).
To provide the time availability and attention required for an effective monitoring and back-up, the following should be avoided: Late briefings; Unnecessary radio calls (e.g., company calls); Unnecessary actions (e.g., use of ACARS); and, Non-pertinent intra-cockpit conversations (i.e., breaking the sterile-cockpit rule).
Reducing the workload and cockpit distractions and/or interruptions also provides the flight crew with more alertness and availability to: Cope with fatigue; Comply with an unanticipated ATC request (e.g., runway change or visual approach); Adapt to changing weather conditions or approach hazards; and, Manage a system malfunction (e.g., flaps jamming or gear failing to extend or to downlock).
Page 10 of 13
X.3 Correct
Positive corrective actions should be taken before deviations develop into a challenging or a hazardous situation in which the only safe action is a go-around. Corrective actions may include: The timely use of speed brakes or the early extension of landing gear to correct an excessive altitude or an excessive airspeed; Extending the outbound leg or downwind leg.
X.4 Decide
If the aircraft is not stabilized on the approach path in landing configuration, at the minimum stabilization height, a go-around must be initiated unless the crew estimates that only small corrections are necessary to rectify minor deviations from stabilized conditions due, amongst others, to external perturbations. Following a PNF flight parameter exceedance callout, the suitable PF response will be: Acknowledge the PNF callout, for proper crew coordination purposes Take immediate corrective action to control the exceeded parameter back into the defined stabilized conditions Assess whether stabilized conditions will be recovered early enough prior to landing, otherwise initiate a go-around.
The following behaviors often are involved in the continuation of an unstabilized approach: Confidence in a quick recovery (i.e., postponing the go-around decision when parameters are converging toward target values); Overconfidence because of a long and dry runway and/or a low gross-weight, although airspeed and/or vertical speed are excessive; Inadequate readiness or lack of commitment to conduct a go-around; A change of mindset should take place from: We will land unless ; to, Lets be prepared for a go-around and we will land if the approach is stabilized and if we have sufficient visual references to make a safe approach and landing.
Go-around envisaged but not initiated because the approach was considered being compatible with a safe landing; and, Absence of decision due to fatigue or workload (i.e., failure to remember the applicable excessive deviation criteria).
Page 11 of 13
XI
Depending on the type of approach and aircraft equipment, the most appropriate level of automation and visual cues should be used to achieve and monitor the stabilization of the aircraft. When breaking-out of the cloud overcast and transitioning to visual references, the pilots perception of the runway and outside environment should be kept constant by maintaining: Drift correction: To continue tracking the runway centerline, resisting prematurely align the aircraft with the runway centerline; the tendency to
Aiming point (i.e., the touchdown zone): To remain on the correct flight path until flare height, resisting the tendency to move the aiming point closer and, thus, descend below the desired glide path (i.e., duck-under); and,
Final approach speed and ground speed: To maintain the energy level.
XII
Page 12 of 13
XIII
Regulatory references
ICAO Annex 6 Operations of Aircraft, Part I International Commercial Air transport Aeroplanes, Appendix 2, 2.1.25 ICAO Procedures for Air navigation services Aircraft Operations (PANS-OPS, Doc 8168), Volume I Flight Procedures (particularly, Part IX - Chapter 1 - Stabilized Approach Parameters, Elements of a Stabilized Approach and Go-around Policy)
XIV
Airbus References
Flight Crew Operating Manuals (FCOM) Standard Operating Procedures A318/A319/A320/A321 & A330/A340 Flight Crew Training Manuals (FCTM) Approach General Trajectory Stabilization
XV
This FOBN is part of a set of Flight Operations Briefing Notes that provide an overview of the applicable standards, flying techniques and best practices, operational and human factors, suggested company prevention strategies and personal lines-of-defense related to major threats and hazards to flight operations safety. This FOBN is intended to enhance the reader's flight safety awareness but it shall not supersede the applicable regulations and the Airbus or airline's operational documentation; should any deviation appear between this FOBN and the Airbus or airlines AFM / (M)MEL / FCOM / QRH / FCTM, the latter shall prevail at all times. In the interest of aviation safety, this FOBN may be reproduced in whole or in part - in all media - or translated; any use of this FOBN shall not modify its contents or alter an excerpt from its original context. Any commercial use is strictly excluded. All uses shall credit Airbus. Airbus shall have no liability or responsibility for the use of this FOBN, the correctness of the duplication, adaptation or translation and for the updating and revision of any duplicated version.
Airbus Customer Services Flight Operations Support and Services 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte - 31707 BLAGNAC CEDEX FRANCE
FOBN Reference : FLT_OPS APPR SEQ 01 REV 02 OCT. 2006
Page 13 of 13
Flight Operations Briefing Notes Approach Techniques Aircraft Energy Management during Approach
Introduction
Inability to assess or manage the aircraft energy level during the approach often is cited as a causal factor in unstabilized approaches. Either a deficit of energy (being low and/or slow) or an excess of energy (being high and/or fast) may result in approach-and-landing accidents, such as: Loss of control; Landing short; Hard landing; Tail strike; Runway excursion; and/or, Runway overrun.
This Flight Operations Briefing Note provides background information and operational guidelines for a better understanding of: Energy management during intermediate approach: How fast can you fly down to the FAF or outer marker?
Energy management during final approach: Hazards associated with flying on the backside of the power curve (as defined by Figure 2). Refer also to the Flight Operations Briefing Note Factors Affecting the Final Approach Speed (VAPP).
Page 1 of 11
II
Statistical Data
Approximately 70 % of rushed and unstable approaches involve an incorrect management of the aircraft energy level, resulting in an excess or deficit of energy, as follows: Being slow and/or low on approach : 40 % of events; Being fast and/or high on approach: 30 % of events.
III
One of the tasks of the pilot is to control and monitor the energy level of the aircraft (using all available cues) in order to: Maintain the aircraft at the appropriate energy level throughout the flight phase: Keep flight path, speed, thrust and configuration; or,
Recover the aircraft from a low energy or high energy situation, i.e., from: Being too slow and/or too low; or, Being too fast and/or too high.
Controlling the aircraft energy level consists in continuously controlling each parameter: airspeed, thrust, configuration and flight path, and in transiently trading one parameter for another. Autopilot and flight director modes, aircraft instruments, warnings and protections are designed to assist the flight crew in these tasks.
IV
Going Down and Slowing Down : How Fast Can you Fly Down to the Marker?
A study by the U.S. NTSB acknowledges that maintaining a high airspeed down to the outer marker (OM) does not favor the capture of the glideslope beam by the autopilot or the aircraft stabilization at the defined stabilization height. The study concludes that no speed restriction should be imposed when within 3 nm to 4 nm before the OM, mainly in instrument meteorological conditions (IMC).
Page 2 of 11
Nevertheless, ATC requests for maintaining a high airspeed down to the marker (160 kt to 200 kt IAS typically) are frequent at high-density airports, to increase the aircraft landing rate. The purpose of the following part is to: Recall the definition of stabilization heights; Illustrate the aircraft deceleration characteristics in level flight and on a 3-degree glide path; Provide guidelines for assessment of the maximum speed which, reasonably, can be maintained down to the marker, as a function of: The distance from the OM to the runway threshold; and, The desired stabilization height.
Deceleration on a 3 degree glide path: With landing flaps and gear down: 10 to 20 kt per nm.
Note: A 3 degree glide path is typically equivalent to a descent-gradient of 300 ft-per-nm or a 700 ft/mn vertical speed, for a final approach ground speed of 140 kt. Decelerating on a 3 degree glide path in clean configuration usually is not possible.
Page 3 of 11
When established on a typical 3 degree glide slope path with only slats extended (i.e., with no flaps), it takes approximately 3 nm (1000 ft) to decelerate down to the target final approach speed and to establish the landing configuration. Speedbrakes may be used to achieve a faster deceleration, as allowed by the aircraft type (i.e. speedbrakes inhibition). Usually the use of speedbrakes is not recommended when below 1000 ft above airfield elevation and/or in the landing flaps configuration. Typically, slats should be extended not later than 3 nm before the FAF. Figure 1 illustrates the aircraft deceleration capability and the maximum possible speed at the OM, based on a conservative deceleration rate of 10 kt per nm on a 3 degree glide path. The following conditions are considered: IMC (stabilization height 1000 ft above airfield elevation); and, Final approach speed (VAPP) = 130 kt.
The maximum deceleration achievable between the OM (typically 6.0 nm from the runway threshold) and the stabilization point (1000 ft above airfield elevation / 3.0 nm) is: 10 kt-per-nm x (6.0 3. 0) nm = 30 kt. In order to be stabilized at 130 kt at 1000 above airfield elevation, the maximum speed that can be accepted and maintained down to the OM is: 130 kt + 30 kt = 160 kt.
Deceleration Segment ( 10 kt/nm )
OM
MM
2000 ft
Figure 1 Deceleration along Glide Slope - Typical Note: The OM may be located from 4 to 6 NM from the runway threshold. Whenever being required to maintain a high speed down to the marker, the above quick computation may be considered for assessing the feasibility of the ATC request.
Page 4 of 11
Required thrust
Stable Unstable
90
100
110
120
160
170
180
190
200
Airspeed ( kt )
Figure 2 Power Curve Typical The power curve is divided in two parts: The left side of the power curve, called the backside of the power curve; The right side of the power curve.
Page 5 of 11
the
available-thrust
and
the
thrust-required-to-fly
Represents the climb or acceleration capability (if the available-thrust exceeds the required-thrust); or, Indicates that speed and/or flight path cannot be maintained (if the required-thrust exceeds the available-thrust).
The right part of the power curve is the normal area of operation. The thrust balance is such that, when the thrust is set to fly VAPP on the glideslope, any increase of the aircraft speed due to a perturbation is rapidly washed out, because a higher thrust would be required to fly at this higher speed on the glideslope. Conversely, when the thrust is set to fly VAPP on the glideslope, any speed loss due to a perturbation is rapidly washed out, because a lower thrust would be required to fly at this lower speed on the glideslope. In other words, in case of perturbation, the aircraft speed tends to come back to the speed stabilized with that thrust level. The right part of the curve is called the stable part. On the backside of the power curve, the thrust balance is such that, at given thrust level, any tendency to decelerate increases the thrust-required-to-fly and, hence, amplifies the tendency to decelerate. Conversely, any tendency to accelerate decreases the thrust-required-to-fly and, hence, amplifies the tendency to accelerate. The minimum thrust speed (V minimum thrust) usually is equal to 1.35 to 1.4 V stall, in landing configuration. The minimum final approach speed (i.e. VLS) is slightly in the backside of the power curve. Note: On Airbus aircraft, this part of the curve is rather flat. If the airspeed drops below the final approach speed, more thrust is required to maintain the desired flight path and/or to regain the target speed. If the thrust is set at idle, approximately 5 seconds are necessary to obtain the engine thrust required to recover from a speed loss or to initiate a go-around (as illustrated in Figure 3, Figure 4 and Figure 5).
Page 6 of 11
80
Thrust ( in % GA thrust )
60
40
20
Approach idle
0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time ( seconds )
Figure 3 Engine Response Scatter- Typical The acceleration capability of high by pass ratio jet engine is dictated by its physical characteristics and controlled to: Protect the engine against a stall or flameout; Comply with the engine and aircraft certification requirements (U.S. FAR Part 33 and FAR Part 25, respectively, or the applicable equivalent regulation).
The engine certification (FAR Part 33) ensures a time of 5 seconds or less to accelerate from 15 % to 95 % of the go-around thrust. The aircraft certification (FAR Part 25) ensures that the thrust achieved after 8 seconds from power application (starting from flight/approach idle) allows a minimum climb gradient of 3.2 % for go-around.
Page 7 of 11
Thrust ( in % of GA thrust )
80
60
40
20
0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time ( seconds )
Figure 4 Certified Thrust Response Typical
Maneuvers
Flying a stabilized approach (3-degree glide path / VAPP) Arresting altitude loss and achieving level flight Achieving Positive Climb
% of TOGA Thrust
20 % 30 % > 30 %
Page 8 of 11
Figure 5 illustrates the go-around trajectories associated with flying an approach with: Speed on the target final approach speed (VAPP) with idle thrust; Speed below VAPP (VAPP 10 kt) with idle thrust.
In case of go-around, the initial altitude loss and the time required for recovering the initial altitude are increased if airspeed is lower than the final approach speed and/or if thrust is set at idle. In particular, the effect of lack of thrust (i.e. thrust at idle) is significant in terms of altitude loss.
V APP / Stabilized thrust 10 0 -10 V APP / Idle -20 V APP - 10 kt / Idle -30 -40 -50 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Time ( seconds )
Figure 5 Effect of Initial Speed and Thrust on Altitude Loss during Go-around (Typical)
Page 9 of 11
VI
Nevertheless, in all three cases, the throttles/thrust levers must be advanced to the maximum thrust (i.e., TOGA thrust) while initiating the maneuver.
VII
VIII
Regulatory References
ICAO Annex 6 Operation of Aircraft, Part I International Commercial Air Transport Aeroplanes, Appendix 2, 5.18, 5.19. ICAO Procedures for Air navigation Services Aircraft Operations (PANS-OPS, Doc 8168), Volume I Flight Procedures.
IX
Other References
U.S. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Report NTSB-AAS-76-5 Special Study: Flight Crew Coordination Procedure in Air Carrier Instrument Landing System Approach Accidents.
Page 10 of 11
This Flight Operations Briefing Note (FOBN) has been adapted from the corresponding ALAR Briefing Note developed by Airbus in the frame of the Approach-and-Landing Accident Reduction (ALAR) international task force led by the Flight Safety Foundation. This FOBN is part of a set of Flight Operations Briefing Notes that provide an overview of the applicable standards, flying techniques and best practices, operational and human factors, suggested company prevention strategies and personal lines-of-defense related to major threats and hazards to flight operations safety. This FOBN is intended to enhance the reader's flight safety awareness but it shall not supersede the applicable regulations and the Airbus or airline's operational documentation; should any deviation appear between this FOBN and the Airbus or airlines AFM / (M)MEL / FCOM / QRH / FCTM, the latter shall prevail at all times. In the interest of aviation safety, this FOBN may be reproduced in whole or in part - in all media - or translated; any use of this FOBN shall not modify its contents or alter an excerpt from its original context. Any commercial use is strictly excluded. All uses shall credit Airbus and the Flight Safety Foundation. Airbus shall have no liability or responsibility for the use of this FOBN, the correctness of the duplication, adaptation or translation and for the updating and revision of any duplicated version. Airbus Customer Services Flight Operations Support and Services 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte - 31707 BLAGNAC CEDEX France FOBN Reference : FLT_OPS APPR SEQ03 REV02 OCT. 2005
Page 11 of 11