Crazy windy approach on Saint Valentine's Day

Domodedovo airport is located far from seas and mountains, but rather often the air overthere is very turbulent that makes flying (and especially landings) be not easy trips.

We were prepared to face with large airspeed changes and discussed this possibility in the briefing, giving special attention to the stabilized approach awareness, but to be honest only after watching this video I saw how large were speed changes at  appx 500 feet AGL just after I had disconnected the autoflight.

This landing forced me to thought a lot about the modern view on stabilized approach criterias - according to them, this approach had to be terminated and a low altitude go-around had to be conducted.

But...



In the background of this approach, there was an important fact - the weather in all possible alternate airports was the same or even worse. From every point of view DME looked as a better option. First, it was our destination, our base, second - the same weather as everythere.

Knowing all the facts, if after exceeding a stabilised approach speed criteria (+10...-5 from Vapp or as per company policy +15...-10 in gusty weather) you perform a go around when the runway is so close... you will still have a necessity to land the bird somewhere.

Where?..

Facts Options Risks Decide Execute Check (FORDEC model of decision making process)

Ok, you have an airlield underneath the wings with the boiling air, which 100% will give you the same problems during the next attempt.

You have the winds info for other options - Vnukovo, Sheremetyevo, Voronezh and Belgorod - wind speeds are the same shit overthere. Voronezh has a bad visibility and in Belgorod you can expect an NDB approach only.

So, if you fly to anywhere out of Domodedovo you will only burn fuel and face with the same turbulent air and all together may cause even more troubles. Who knows?..

So, taking into account remaining fuel and actual weather, the best option defenitelly was to try to land in Domodedovo...

It was not an easy decision!

All these facts had been discussed prior to the approach and we decided to use the company policy, which allowed speed jumps of +15...-10 from Vapp if the airplane is affected by windy conditions.

Yes, the speed was jumping up and down. I did my best to counteract it but below 500', when my vigilance was shared between outside and inside, I didn't notice the lowest value of the speed - I just added the thrust and this helped. Shortly then we made a safe landing.

Several hours later I watched the video and saw that the speed had actually felt down to -12 of the Vapp! Moreover, the difference between the highest and lowest values was around 22 KTS, which can be judged as a need to perfrom a Windshear Escape Maneuver (a specific go around procedure).

This was a case on wich later I spent significat time being thinking... As per the book, the WEM is to be done in case of a windshear electronic warning or uncontrolled deviations from steady flight conditions below 1000 feet, and the speed change of 15+ KTS from Vapp is one of the criterias.

 But was it really 'uncotrolled'? Hm. This is a question!

After I landed the bird safely I knew it was controllable. But during the deviation and following correction not me nor my FO noticed that the speed change was so big, and - why we didn't notice this - was the issue on which I am still thinking.

* * *

There is no answer which technique to use to quickly guess the exact speed change if it happens. As you can see in the video, it can happen really fast, and it requires some time and vigilance to be recognized. As a pilot flying you are greatly concentrated in moving flight controls and thrust levers and you are thinking mostly about how to correct new deviation, but not about calculating the difference between high and low values.

Thus, it is the PM who should do this, but, again, I swear - it is not easy to quickly recognize, to judge and make a decision to call for a go around - everything happens so quickly that after you realised that this was a deviation, it could be already corrected. Thus, it means, that the deviation was controllable!

After that It will look stupid and can be even unsafe if you call for a go around - when a deviation has been corrected and the airplane is so close to the runway being flying within criterias of a stabilized approach!

But, if you throw out all this "philosophy" and judge in accordance with what is written in the book in black and white, our case was a perfect example of an unstabilized approach.

* * *

I made a voluntary report and then had a discussion with the chief pilot, who, being a pilot himself, agreed that in such circumstances our actions were correct.

But this is not the solution for future cases.

I am not the only pilot who questions the modern stabilized approach recommendations. Such questions are constantly arized among pilots all over the world, but still there is no answer or changes made in the standard recommendations produced by Fligt Safety Foundation in the ALAR Toolkit.

These recommendations are not ideal and sometimes pilots have to violate with them because they  just need to return the airplane to the ground safely. Untill nowadays no aiplane can fly for indefinite time.

I am wondering  if there is a possibility to create rules and procedures, which will cover all possible situations and prescribe pilots' actions?..

In the QRH Boeing write that it is not possible. I agree.

So, what is the point - being a Captain you have to judge and to be ready to take full weight of responsibility for you decisions in questionable situations. Then you have to prepare to answer questions of your boss and to advocate your decisions. I can not swear that you'll be always understood and your decisions be accepted as good.

This is a part of our job.

Fly Safe!