Narrative:

I was scheduled to operate to dfw. Prior to the flight; both the captain and I discussed that we were both very unfamiliar with dfw (my first time and his first time in 7 years). Both of us noticed that there was a note regarding that foqa has had a high rate of unstabilized approaches that occur at dfw. We were given the bonham 5 arrival and we were told to expect runway 35C. We complied with all the applicable restrictions; including the restriction to; 'cross and maintain 220 KTS at stonz.' we ended crossing stonz at 11;000 ft for departure traffic and finally getting a descent clearance to 7;000 ft abeam the field. At that time; ATC cleared us down to 3;000 ft and hurry down and expect a short approach. After slowing and getting the flaps to 20 degrees we got a turn to the base turn at 5;000-6;000 ft. At this time I called for the gear to be selected down (much earlier than I normally do) and I was able to stabilize the aircraft well before 500 ft AGL as required by the company (day VMC conditions). We landed normally and taxied to the gate. While I did meet all aircraft and company limitations; it was certainly not the prettiest approach. After seeing first hand how operations work in dfw; I can understand why we have so many unstabilized approaches. There are three main issues that contributed in our case. 1) the cross and maintain 220 KTS at stonz is not conducive to slowing and configuring the aircraft. Also; I believe every other aircraft that frequently flies into dfw can configure somewhat at that speed. 2) expectation bias. I expected this approach to be just like other airports; slow abeam the field and have a 10-20 mile final. It wasn't until ATC said short approach that my expectation changed. 3) ATC. Short approaches are a great use of airspace and are a good thing. That said good communication is vital. If ATC had said expect a short approach earlier; I would have configured the aircraft differently.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A First Officer noted that after a DFW BONHAM 5 Arrival with a short approach to Runway 35C he understood why FOQA data was identifying an unusual number of unstabilized approaches.

Narrative: I was scheduled to operate to DFW. Prior to the flight; both the Captain and I discussed that we were both very unfamiliar with DFW (my first time and his first time in 7 years). Both of us noticed that there was a note regarding that FOQA has had a high rate of unstabilized approaches that occur at DFW. We were given the BONHAM 5 arrival and we were told to expect Runway 35C. We complied with all the applicable restrictions; including the restriction to; 'cross and MAINTAIN 220 KTS at STONZ.' We ended crossing STONZ at 11;000 FT for departure traffic and finally getting a descent clearance to 7;000 FT abeam the field. At that time; ATC cleared us down to 3;000 FT and hurry down and expect a short approach. After slowing and getting the flaps to 20 degrees we got a turn to the base turn at 5;000-6;000 FT. At this time I called for the gear to be selected down (much earlier than I normally do) and I was able to stabilize the aircraft well before 500 FT AGL as required by the Company (day VMC conditions). We landed normally and taxied to the gate. While I did meet all aircraft and company limitations; it was certainly not the prettiest approach. After seeing first hand how operations work in DFW; I can understand why we have so many unstabilized approaches. There are three main issues that contributed in our case. 1) The cross and MAINTAIN 220 KTS at STONZ is not conducive to slowing and configuring the aircraft. Also; I believe every other aircraft that frequently flies into DFW can configure somewhat at that speed. 2) Expectation Bias. I expected this approach to be just like other airports; slow abeam the field and have a 10-20 mile final. It wasn't until ATC said short approach that my expectation changed. 3) ATC. Short approaches are a great use of airspace and are a good thing. That said good communication is vital. If ATC had said expect a short approach earlier; I would have configured the aircraft differently.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2013 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.