Narrative:

Initially we received a clearance to 6000 ft and to maintain 250 KTS. Leaving approximately 7500 ft, we received a heading change to 240 degree to intercept the localizer to runway 27 and to descend to cross loner intersection (11.7 DME) at or above 3000 ft and to maintain 250 KTS. At this time I was off autoplt and maintaining my descent profile in the indicated airspeed mode (IAS). Unfortunately the 3000 ft was not entered into the altitude selector and the flight director leveled me off at 6000 ft. Just about the time I realized the situation, ATC advised they showed us level at 6000 ft and asked had we received our approach clearance. We advised we had and then they asked if we were still able to land on runway 27. (The time between leveling off at 6000 ft and initiating the descent again, realizing it hadn't been selected, was less than 45 seconds). I visually saw the runway and determined I could land safely if allowed to slow to approach speed. This was approved and we were cleared for the approach. I placed the aircraft in the landing confign and held my airspeed at the final approach speed all the way to the runway threshold. I kept my mind open to a missed approach and asked the first officer to review and read aloud the missed approach instructions, which he did. Approaching 1000 ft I arrested the sink rate to intercept the GS and determined we were in a position to safely continue the approach. At approximately 800 ft (360 ft above decision height of 443 ft) due to bird island obstruction of 200 ft, we received 3 GPWS pull up commands. I determined we were slightly above the electronic GS, on speed, sink was stable and not excessive, therefore I elected to continue the approach. The required 500 ft call was made by the first officer, which indicated the sink and speed were both stable and the aircraft landed smoothly on the 1000 ft marker with no float. The reversers were used and no braking was required until the turn off at the end of the runway. In analyzing the inspector's displeasure with my high sink, power off approach I came up with the following thoughts: inspectors, designated examiners, check airmen and pilots of part 121 and 135 are trained to be stabilized with the aircraft in the landing confign and sink rate of less than a thousand FPM, before descending below 1000 ft above the airport touchdown zone when IFR. For visual approachs and lndgs such as ours, the approach shall be stabilized before descending below 500 ft above the airport elevation. The reasons for this are obvious and very logical. We ask our crews to fly at fuel efficient lrc speeds, to climb at optimum weights and temperatures, and to program VNAV dscnts when possible to coincide with fuel conservation, local stars and noise abatement restrictions. We then design aircraft that will fit into this environment. Controllers are increasingly asking pilots of old generation and new generation aircraft to conform to approach and landing profiles best suited to aircraft that have the capability of coming down and slowing down simultaneously. As a result crews are becoming more and more skilled and comfortable with the attitude of steeper approachs. It has become apparent (not from this approach because it was pilot induced, but from a wide variety of global flying experience) that it's becoming more common to find yourself accepting high sink approachs in lieu of an expensive and time consuming missed approach when it is not absolutely necessary to go around. My personal experience is approximately 10000 hours. I have been flying heavy transports for 10 yrs, the last 2 of which have been involved with flight training on the widebody transport. I am personally very comfortable in the aircraft in that attitude due to the fact that as a check airman I am frequently put in these situations by students that don't descend early enough. Over the yrs I have found the only way to come down in a widebody transport in a stabilized fashion when high and close to the airport is to slow down to min approach speed with full flaps and to utilize manufacturer's wonderfully unique direct lift control design for maximum passenger comfort. The approach is flown with airspeed controled by means of pitch until it is desirable to slow the descent rate with the application of power. The FAA advises that the approach angle must be controled and appropriate to both the airplane and the approach being flown. Although I realize this was not a 'standard' approach, it was definitely a stable approach and landing. Is this type of approach applicable to the widebody transport? Apparently the examiner did not think so, and I disagree.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FAA AIR CARRIER INSPECTOR COMPLAINS THAT WDB CAPT FLEW A STEEP, UNSTABILIZED APCH TO A SHORT RWY IN A WDB.

Narrative: INITIALLY WE RECEIVED A CLRNC TO 6000 FT AND TO MAINTAIN 250 KTS. LEAVING APPROX 7500 FT, WE RECEIVED A HDG CHANGE TO 240 DEG TO INTERCEPT THE LOC TO RWY 27 AND TO DSND TO CROSS LONER INTXN (11.7 DME) AT OR ABOVE 3000 FT AND TO MAINTAIN 250 KTS. AT THIS TIME I WAS OFF AUTOPLT AND MAINTAINING MY DSCNT PROFILE IN THE INDICATED AIRSPD MODE (IAS). UNFORTUNATELY THE 3000 FT WAS NOT ENTERED INTO THE ALT SELECTOR AND THE FLT DIRECTOR LEVELED ME OFF AT 6000 FT. JUST ABOUT THE TIME I REALIZED THE SITUATION, ATC ADVISED THEY SHOWED US LEVEL AT 6000 FT AND ASKED HAD WE RECEIVED OUR APCH CLRNC. WE ADVISED WE HAD AND THEN THEY ASKED IF WE WERE STILL ABLE TO LAND ON RWY 27. (THE TIME BTWN LEVELING OFF AT 6000 FT AND INITIATING THE DSCNT AGAIN, REALIZING IT HADN'T BEEN SELECTED, WAS LESS THAN 45 SECONDS). I VISUALLY SAW THE RWY AND DETERMINED I COULD LAND SAFELY IF ALLOWED TO SLOW TO APCH SPD. THIS WAS APPROVED AND WE WERE CLRED FOR THE APCH. I PLACED THE ACFT IN THE LNDG CONFIGN AND HELD MY AIRSPD AT THE FINAL APCH SPD ALL THE WAY TO THE RWY THRESHOLD. I KEPT MY MIND OPEN TO A MISSED APCH AND ASKED THE FO TO REVIEW AND READ ALOUD THE MISSED APCH INSTRUCTIONS, WHICH HE DID. APCHING 1000 FT I ARRESTED THE SINK RATE TO INTERCEPT THE GS AND DETERMINED WE WERE IN A POS TO SAFELY CONTINUE THE APCH. AT APPROX 800 FT (360 FT ABOVE DECISION HEIGHT OF 443 FT) DUE TO BIRD ISLAND OBSTRUCTION OF 200 FT, WE RECEIVED 3 GPWS PULL UP COMMANDS. I DETERMINED WE WERE SLIGHTLY ABOVE THE ELECTRONIC GS, ON SPD, SINK WAS STABLE AND NOT EXCESSIVE, THEREFORE I ELECTED TO CONTINUE THE APCH. THE REQUIRED 500 FT CALL WAS MADE BY THE FO, WHICH INDICATED THE SINK AND SPD WERE BOTH STABLE AND THE ACFT LANDED SMOOTHLY ON THE 1000 FT MARKER WITH NO FLOAT. THE REVERSERS WERE USED AND NO BRAKING WAS REQUIRED UNTIL THE TURN OFF AT THE END OF THE RWY. IN ANALYZING THE INSPECTOR'S DISPLEASURE WITH MY HIGH SINK, PWR OFF APCH I CAME UP WITH THE FOLLOWING THOUGHTS: INSPECTORS, DESIGNATED EXAMINERS, CHK AIRMEN AND PLTS OF PART 121 AND 135 ARE TRAINED TO BE STABILIZED WITH THE ACFT IN THE LNDG CONFIGN AND SINK RATE OF LESS THAN A THOUSAND FPM, BEFORE DSNDING BELOW 1000 FT ABOVE THE ARPT TOUCHDOWN ZONE WHEN IFR. FOR VISUAL APCHS AND LNDGS SUCH AS OURS, THE APCH SHALL BE STABILIZED BEFORE DSNDING BELOW 500 FT ABOVE THE ARPT ELEVATION. THE REASONS FOR THIS ARE OBVIOUS AND VERY LOGICAL. WE ASK OUR CREWS TO FLY AT FUEL EFFICIENT LRC SPDS, TO CLB AT OPTIMUM WTS AND TEMPS, AND TO PROGRAM VNAV DSCNTS WHEN POSSIBLE TO COINCIDE WITH FUEL CONSERVATION, LCL STARS AND NOISE ABATEMENT RESTRICTIONS. WE THEN DESIGN ACFT THAT WILL FIT INTO THIS ENVIRONMENT. CTLRS ARE INCREASINGLY ASKING PLTS OF OLD GENERATION AND NEW GENERATION ACFT TO CONFORM TO APCH AND LNDG PROFILES BEST SUITED TO ACFT THAT HAVE THE CAPABILITY OF COMING DOWN AND SLOWING DOWN SIMULTANEOUSLY. AS A RESULT CREWS ARE BECOMING MORE AND MORE SKILLED AND COMFORTABLE WITH THE ATTITUDE OF STEEPER APCHS. IT HAS BECOME APPARENT (NOT FROM THIS APCH BECAUSE IT WAS PLT INDUCED, BUT FROM A WIDE VARIETY OF GLOBAL FLYING EXPERIENCE) THAT IT'S BECOMING MORE COMMON TO FIND YOURSELF ACCEPTING HIGH SINK APCHS IN LIEU OF AN EXPENSIVE AND TIME CONSUMING MISSED APCH WHEN IT IS NOT ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY TO GAR. MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE IS APPROX 10000 HRS. I HAVE BEEN FLYING HVY TRANSPORTS FOR 10 YRS, THE LAST 2 OF WHICH HAVE BEEN INVOLVED WITH FLT TRAINING ON THE WDB. I AM PERSONALLY VERY COMFORTABLE IN THE ACFT IN THAT ATTITUDE DUE TO THE FACT THAT AS A CHK AIRMAN I AM FREQUENTLY PUT IN THESE SITUATIONS BY STUDENTS THAT DON'T DSND EARLY ENOUGH. OVER THE YRS I HAVE FOUND THE ONLY WAY TO COME DOWN IN A WDB IN A STABILIZED FASHION WHEN HIGH AND CLOSE TO THE ARPT IS TO SLOW DOWN TO MIN APCH SPD WITH FULL FLAPS AND TO UTILIZE MANUFACTURER'S WONDERFULLY UNIQUE DIRECT LIFT CTL DESIGN FOR MAX PAX COMFORT. THE APCH IS FLOWN WITH AIRSPD CTLED BY MEANS OF PITCH UNTIL IT IS DESIRABLE TO SLOW THE DSCNT RATE WITH THE APPLICATION OF PWR. THE FAA ADVISES THAT THE APCH ANGLE MUST BE CTLED AND APPROPRIATE TO BOTH THE AIRPLANE AND THE APCH BEING FLOWN. ALTHOUGH I REALIZE THIS WAS NOT A 'STANDARD' APCH, IT WAS DEFINITELY A STABLE APCH AND LNDG. IS THIS TYPE OF APCH APPLICABLE TO THE WDB? APPARENTLY THE EXAMINER DID NOT THINK SO, AND I DISAGREE.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 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.