 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
A319 flight crew reported continuing the approach to landing even though not meeting stabilized approach criteria.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 1523422 |
| Time | |
| Date | 201803 |
| Local Time Of Day | 0601-1200 |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | PBI.Tower |
| State Reference | FL |
| Environment | |
| Light | Daylight |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Make Model Name | A319 |
| Operating Under FAR Part | Part 121 |
| Flight Phase | Final Approach |
| Route In Use | Visual Approach |
| Flight Plan | IFR |
| Person 1 | |
| Function | First Officer Pilot Not Flying |
| Qualification | Flight Crew Instrument Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP) Flight Crew Multiengine |
| Person 2 | |
| Function | Captain Pilot Flying |
| Qualification | Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP) Flight Crew Instrument Flight Crew Multiengine |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe Deviation - Procedural Published Material / Policy Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach |
Narrative:
I was pm (pilot monitoring). Ca (captain) was PF (pilot flying). Visual approach 28R at pbi. PF was fast at FAF at 1;500 ft. PF called flaps 3 at 1;100 ft. I advised we were now too close to 1;000 ft afe and would not get flaps out in time for stable approach. He repeated command and I complied at 1;000 ft. He then called for flaps full around 800 ft afe; although landing configuration was planned 3; I complied at 800 ft but then noticed we were planned config 3. The discussion was about being stable at 1;000 ft and I as pm failed to advise PF of incorrect call for flap full because of planned config 3. At 700 ft I said go around because of flap movement below 1;000 and configuration different than planned. Captain responded; no we are fine. I should have stated unstable go around for the second time but did not. PF landed on 28R and did not go around as I stated at 700 ft. We were stable at 500 ft; but without a doubt should have gone around at 1;000 ft. I should have said unstable; go around for a second time and if PF ca didn't comply; then take the aircraft from him and execute GA (go around) myself.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: A319 flight crew reported continuing the approach to landing even though not meeting stabilized approach criteria.
Narrative: I was PM (Pilot Monitoring). CA (Captain) was PF (Pilot Flying). Visual approach 28R at PBI. PF was fast at FAF at 1;500 ft. PF called flaps 3 at 1;100 ft. I advised we were now too close to 1;000 ft AFE and would not get flaps out in time for stable approach. He repeated command and I complied at 1;000 ft. He then called for flaps full around 800 ft AFE; although landing configuration was planned 3; I complied at 800 ft but then noticed we were planned config 3. The discussion was about being stable at 1;000 ft and I as PM failed to advise PF of incorrect call for flap full because of planned config 3. At 700 ft I said go around because of flap movement below 1;000 and configuration different than planned. Captain responded; no we are fine. I should have stated unstable go around for the second time but did not. PF landed on 28R and did not go around as I stated at 700 ft. We were stable at 500 ft; but without a doubt should have gone around at 1;000 ft. I should have said unstable; go around for a second time and if PF CA didn't comply; then take the aircraft from him and execute GA (Go Around) myself.
Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site 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.