5 ms·

Not having handles where they should be at 1000 callout should have been an instant toga party.

aaronmdjones 6d ago
That they passed their minimums and still weren't set up correctly is shocking, yes. How can you commit to landing instead of going around when you're not configured for landing? The more egregious thing to me though is ignoring the GPWS callouts on approach because they were chasing the glideslope. If you can't maintain a stable approach, you need to go around, it's the first thing you learn. You expect this behaviour from a first-timer in the sim, not a commercial cargo pilot.
- WalterBright 6d ago
  > You expect this behaviour from a first-timer in the sim, not a commercial cargo pilot. I'm curious - are commercial pilots reprimanded for doing a go-round after messing up the approach?
  - aaronmdjones 6d ago
    No, they're reprimanded for continuing. https://skybrary.aero/tutorials/stabilised-approach https://skybrary.aero/tutorials/stabilised-approach
  - arcfour 6d ago
    No. They might have to say why they went around but they can't be punished for it (that's a great way to open yourself up to liability even stripping away all of the human elements). And I can't imagine any reason that an airline would truly care since they don't want their planes crashing so they don't want to discourage pilots from going around if they need to do so. The delay incurred is usually fairly small anyways, maybe 20-30 minutes. However I will say that the majority of unstable approaches (97%!!) do continue to landing: https://flightsafety.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Go-around-study_final.pdf https://flightsafety.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Go-aroun... ...but I think that most of these unstable approaches are likely marginally unstable and only in one dimension. This landing was so far outside the realm of normal it's actually mind boggling that it actually happened. Pilots are trained to immediately go around without questioning it if many of the things that happened on this flight occur (such as not being in landing configuration well before touching down!)

That they passed their minimums and still weren't set up correctly is shocking, yes. How can you commit to landing instead of going around when you're not configured for landing? The more egregious thing to me though is ignoring the GPWS callouts on approach because they were chasing the glideslope. If you can't maintain a stable approach, you need to go around, it's the first thing you learn. You expect this behaviour from a first-timer in the sim, not a commercial cargo pilot.

WalterBright 6d ago
> You expect this behaviour from a first-timer in the sim, not a commercial cargo pilot. I'm curious - are commercial pilots reprimanded for doing a go-round after messing up the approach?
- aaronmdjones 6d ago
  No, they're reprimanded for continuing. https://skybrary.aero/tutorials/stabilised-approach https://skybrary.aero/tutorials/stabilised-approach
- arcfour 6d ago
  No. They might have to say why they went around but they can't be punished for it (that's a great way to open yourself up to liability even stripping away all of the human elements). And I can't imagine any reason that an airline would truly care since they don't want their planes crashing so they don't want to discourage pilots from going around if they need to do so. The delay incurred is usually fairly small anyways, maybe 20-30 minutes. However I will say that the majority of unstable approaches (97%!!) do continue to landing: https://flightsafety.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Go-around-study_final.pdf https://flightsafety.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Go-aroun... ...but I think that most of these unstable approaches are likely marginally unstable and only in one dimension. This landing was so far outside the realm of normal it's actually mind boggling that it actually happened. Pilots are trained to immediately go around without questioning it if many of the things that happened on this flight occur (such as not being in landing configuration well before touching down!)