Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
General None Reported / Taken
Human Factors; Aircraft; Company Policy
Upon being cleared for the approach I let the aircraft fly through the LOC course. I disconnected the Autopilot and hand flew it back onto the course. I noticed that I was low and proceeded to fly 3/4 of the approach about a dot low; thinking I could slowly correct the aircraft. I was within stable criteria for both 1000' and 500' callouts. The unstable approach began during power reduction and flare. I noticed I was off centerline and corrected left; however I over corrected and let the aircraft slide past the centerline in the flare. I banked back to the right and that's when I noticed we were over-banked and close to having a right wing strike. I verbally said 'correcting' to which I heard an 'okay' from the Captain (CA). During all this I also noticed I flared high and was floating down the touchdown zone. I corrected back to the left and touch downed firmly on the left main towards the end of the touchdown zone.Pilot induced over correcting of the aircraft. Also slight over thinking about landing a 900 after flying 200s for about a month. I over-controlled by reacting like I was landing a 200 and not the heavier 900. Also according to the Captain I left too much power in when correcting and didn't go to idle till the 10' call.Also contributing was a poor approach by trying to quickly get on the approach after ATC said cleared for the visual. The final part of the arrival had been a distraction with ATC saying that if we saw the airport we could do the visual and if not we'd have to go 25 miles further out. So that part of the approach was quick descents trying to get under the scattered cloud deck so we could legally say we have the airport. We joined the approach at 190 knots and only flaps 20. ATC asked us to stay at 190 since we were the closest to the runway.More observation time from Line Check Airman (LCA) or senior CA on guys with less than [a few] months of seniority. At the very least CA needs to be willing to mentor new guys and/or speak up. I haven't had a single tip; trick; or barely any comment since Initial Operating Experience (IOE). Even after a bad landing most of the CA will just say it happens and move on. This leads to bad habits quickly forming in the low time guys and leading to poor airman ship; especially when moving between 3 models regularly.We need an Advanced Qualification Program (AQP) and/or mentoring program that has low time guys flying every so often with a LCA. It doesn't need to be a check event. Just something every few months with us being observed in the real world environment. At the very least we need to require First officer (FO) evaluations to be done by CAs and a regular update meeting with the Chief Pilot's office. My previous carrier required [numerous] FO evaluations to be completed and marked off as good standing before the first year was over. During this time you meet with the Chief Pilot (CP) office once every few months to go over those reports. They would offer advice and training in your weak areas to help you become a better and safer pilot.I also feel like there is no oversight of the probation FOs. We are released from IOE and the next time the company knows anything about us is the next recurrent unless something bad happens. This mindset needs to change.
CRJ-900 First Officer reported an unstable approach and landing due to a rushed approach and lack of experience on the 900 model.