always too high on final....how to fix

SoCal RV Flyer said:
Me too. Never a formal calcuation on when to depart cruise and descend...just a sense of "it's time." I'm usually no higher than 8500' anyway. I tend to get down near pattern altitude a little earlier than most, just to get stabilized for landing and reduce workload in the pattern.
Click to expand...
I always have a rough idea of when I want to descend and just use the rule of thumb to back it up. I mostly do this with pax because I don't want to do a chop and drop descent and blow out their ears. If I'm with pax, I'll do 500fpm. By myself I couldn't care less. It's not some crazy formula either. Multiply the altitude by 3 and that's roughly how many miles out you should begin your descent. Again, I mostly use it to keep my pax happy so I'm not doing a kamikaze dive.
 
I would piggy back on Jordan's formula to multiply the altitude that you want to "lose" which is your altitude prior to the descent down to pattern altitude not field elevation. So for example if I need to lose 4000' I need to start descending at 12 miles out at a 500 fpm descent rate.
 
What I like to do is keep it at 8500 until I'm about 3nm out. Then I chop power, haul back on the stick, bank right, left rudder. This way I can spin it to short final. The benefit is that I retain enough altitude that if I have an engine out, I have plenty of glide left. It's really all about safety, ya know?
 
That's definitely going to depend on aircraft. When I'm covering almost 3 miles per minute in descent I'm going to need to double the descent rate or the distance - which is why I emphasize doing things in minutes not miles.
 
EdFred said:
That's definitely going to depend on aircraft. When I'm covering almost 3 miles per minute in descent I'm going to need to double the descent rate or the distance - which is why I emphasize doing things in minutes not miles.
Click to expand...
Yep for higher performance I'll multiply my altitude by 4-6 depending on my speed. The rule of thumb seems to work well for your typical GA single like a 172 or Warrior.
 
Last edited:
At 90 knots you're traveling at 1.5 nm per minute, and since a 500fpm descent would take two minutes, that's 3 nm.
120 knots -> 4 nm
150 knots -> 5 nm
...etc...
 
oh cool, this thread has morphed from helping the OP from being too high on final to planning descents. since I already offered the OP my advice for being too high on final, I'm a 'minutes out' guy for my descents. using 1000fpm makes "calculating" my descent pretty easy. double it for 500fpm for a pax comfort descent. super easy.
 
jordane93 said:
Yep for higher performance I'll multiply my altitude by 4-6 depending on my speed. The rule of thumb seems to work well for your typical GA single like a 172 or Warrior.
Click to expand...
So if you're at FL300, you'd start you're descent at 180nm? That's burning a lot of gas. The 3 to 1 works for me, but some add 10nm for comfort. In most circumstances, I start thinking about descending at 120nm and then will ask for lower as I approach the 3-1 point.
 
There is another rule of thumb (which I'm reluctant to post, LOL). Groundspeed X 5 = rate of descent. So if your groundspeed is 400 knots you should descend at 2000 FPM. At 100 knots groundspeed, it's 500 FPM.
 
Cooter143 said:
So if you're at FL300, you'd start you're descent at 180nm? That's burning a lot of gas. The 3 to 1 works for me, but some add 10nm for comfort. In most circumstances, I start thinking about descending at 120nm and then will ask for lower as I approach the 3-1 point.
Click to expand...
I'm a dumb pilot:(. I always make sure I have the advisory VNAV enabled.
 
Timbeck2 said:
I would piggy back on Jordan's formula to multiply the altitude that you want to "lose" which is your altitude prior to the descent down to pattern altitude not field elevation. So for example if I need to lose 4000' I need to start descending at 12 miles out at a 500 fpm descent rate.
Click to expand...
Assuming you're doing under 100kts, otherwise you'll need more than 500fpm.
 
The OP is flying a 172, I fly a Cherokee. There is a reason its called a "rule of thumb." It isn't exact but it will get you in the ball park.
 
jordane93 said:
I'm a dumb pilot:(. I always make sure I have the advisory VNAV enabled.
Click to expand...

Easy math seems a lot harder when the computer can just give you the answer. I used to keep my mind busy calculating descent points and required descent rates but when the FMS puts an X where you'll intercept your altitude, there no point. Those brain cells can be put to better use.
 
jordane93 said:
I'm a dumb pilot:(. I always make sure I have the advisory VNAV enabled.
Click to expand...
I've gotten lazy since I now fly an airplane with VNAV. But back in the day, the Lear 35s didn't. Heck they didn't even have altitude capture. :eek2:
 
Cooter143 said:
So if you're at FL300, you'd start you're descent at 180nm? That's burning a lot of gas. The 3 to 1 works for me, but some add 10nm for comfort. In most circumstances, I start thinking about descending at 120nm and then will ask for lower as I approach the 3-1 point.
Click to expand...
If you're at FL300 you're probably flying a turbine which has entirely different fuel efficiency characteristics, operating characteristics, and cabin pressurization negating the need for ~500fpm descents.
 
Cooter143 said:
Easy math seems a lot harder when the computer can just give you the answer. I used to keep my mind busy calculating descent points and required descent rates but when the FMS puts an X where you'll intercept your altitude, there no point. Those brain cells can be put to better use.
Click to expand...
I still like to double check the computer just for my sake. Luckily the CRJ isn't the most advanced jet so I still need to use my brain sometimes.
 
dmspilot said:
If you're at FL300 you're probably flying a turbine which has entirely different fuel efficiency characteristics, operating characteristics, and cabin pressurization negating the need for ~500fpm descents.
Click to expand...
I didn't know 500fpm was a goal people really targeted. I don't fly GA very much so my thinking isn't as geared to think in those terms. I don't think I ever really thought much about it even when I did.

It's kind of difficult to hold 500 VSI in a faster airplane unless you dial it in the autopilot. The only time I've considered it was when flying patients. I think mostly in terms of glide path and VSI is what it is. But, I guess that does depend on what I'm flying.
 
Everskyward said:
I've gotten lazy since I now fly an airplane with VNAV. But back in the day, the Lear 35s didn't. Heck they didn't even have altitude capture. :eek2:
Click to expand...
I'm kind of glad I'm flying the CRJ as my first jet. I've got friends who are flying E170/5 and they don't need to do any work. Dad flew DC-9s for NWA/Delta and was a check airman. I still can't believe they just retired those things a few years ago.
 
Cooter143 said:
I didn't know 500fpm was a goal people really targeted. I don't fly GA very much so my thinking isn't as geared to think in those terms. I don't think I ever really thought much about it even when I did.

It's kind of difficult to hold 500 VSI in a faster airplane unless you dial it in the autopilot. The only time I've considered it was when flying patients. I think mostly in terms of glide path and VSI is what it is. But, I guess that does depend on what I'm flying.
Click to expand...
500 is my target in GA planes for pax comfort. Any more than that and they'll complain about their ears. A lot of times, NY will slam dunk us when I'm going VFR eastbound back to FRG and I'll end up having to do >1000 fpm just to make it to a decent altitude.
 
I let my wife figure it, she needs something to keep her busy. ;)
 
:DUh...I never been higher than Like 2000 ft while training, so descending to 1000 feet I have down pretty good so far.
 
SToL said:
Speaking of those who are electronically challenged, (joking) on the other end of the spectrum are the people who get on the radio and say, "N12345 is on approaching blah blah, any other aircraft in the area please announce"! Who the heck thought this was an good idea to start teaching people? There are some areas where if you say that you're gonna hear 30 people come back to you. Besides, when you talk like that you immediately single yourself out as someone ripe to be made fun of.

Just announce your intentions and then listen up and see and avoid. In theory the people closest to you who feel they may possibly be an issue, will answer up. You don't need to hear from the other 29 or 28 people.

PJ
Click to expand...

Another one that bugs me is when people say "last call" on the end of their transmission. I don't understand why anyone would find that information valuable.
 
Cooter143 said:
So if you're at FL300, you'd start you're descent at 180nm? That's burning a lot of gas. The 3 to 1 works for me, but some add 10nm for comfort. In most circumstances, I start thinking about descending at 120nm and then will ask for lower as I approach the 3-1 point.
Click to expand...

Since the post you quoted specifically referenced light single engine ga aircraft I doubt there would be any opportunity to apply the suggested rule of thumb for a descent from FL300
 
Tarheelpilot said:
Since the post you quoted specifically referenced light single engine ga aircraft I doubt there would be any opportunity to apply the suggested rule of thumb for a descent from FL300
Click to expand...

It also referenced high performance, which is why the 4-6:1 rule was mentioned. That's what I responded to. He said the 3:1 works well for light single engine GA aircraft, I was pointing out it works well for the HP as well. He is also an airline pilot so I'm sure he's seen the flight levels.
 
I usually turn base 600 to 800 agl, base to final 300 to 500 agl, in the archer base is usually 80kts, final 70 until across the fence then 65kt, of course all that goes out the window when ATC ask you to do something different from the norm, like extend downwind or slow on base for spacing.
 
Cooter143 said:
It also referenced high performance, which is why the 4-6:1 rule was mentioned. That's what I responded to. He said the 3:1 works well for light single engine GA aircraft, I was pointing out it works well for the HP as well. He is also an airline pilot so I'm sure he's seen the flight levels.
Click to expand...
I see. Makes more sense now.
 
Cooter143 said:
I can do it, you should be able to do it, now just go do it. That doesn't really help the OP much with his problem. I doubt any of the instructors offering advice here still need to use the instructional techniques they teach to their students. It's one thing to be able to do it, and another to be able to teach it.
Click to expand...

My post was merely an observation of the mental calculations many pilots do during a VFR descent, etc. If your answer to the OPs problem is to use ground references... I can tell you that I was initially taught that way and it put me behind the learning curve when it was time to venture out to other airports (I'm speaking from experience). If you were taught or teach that way, let me tell you I've been there, done that and know it to be a sucky and possibly lazy way to train a pilot how to land. Also, I was NOT inferring that because I can do it he OP should be able to do it. But as I said... with practice and guidance, it will eventually come together for him just as it did for all of us and without the crutch of using some water tower or arbitrary road to indicate when to start a turn to base...
 
FlySince9 said:
My post was merely an observation of the mental calculations many pilots do during a VFR descent, etc. If your answer to the OPs problem is to use ground references... I can tell you that I was initially taught that way and it put me behind the learning curve when it was time to venture out to other airports (I'm speaking from experience). If you were taught or teach that way, let me tell you I've been there, done that and know it to be a sucky and possibly lazy way to train a pilot how to land. Also, I was NOT inferring that because I can do it he OP should be able to do it. But as I said... with practice and guidance, it will eventually come together for him just as it did for all of us and without the crutch of using some water tower or arbitrary road to indicate when to start a turn to base...
Click to expand...

No need to be defensive, I'm just pointing out the difference in doing something and teaching something. One of the things about instructing is that you have to find ways to communicate and describe how it's done, and then build a path to get there. The practice and guidance must have content, not just empty repetition until a lightbulb comes on, if it ever does. Instructing involves stepping stones, that don't necessarily have to remain after the goal is achieved. I pointed out a means to provide consistency so that a sight picture can be developed a lot more quickly. If you don't like it, fine. But, you're wrong to characterize it as sucky and lazy and whatever else you said about it. Why don't you describe you're method of showing up to the same point on final consistently, then I'll describe my way and we'll see who most likely has the most precision and consistency?
 
I don't understand this need to have a set of finite rules in a fluid environment. Each pilot knows what it takes to land an airplane and each has a preferred method of getting there. You do what it takes to get the airplane to do what you need it to do so you are where you need to be. For me, its passing thru 600' AGL on Base to Final Turn . But anyone that claims that every landing is perfectly planned and executed without any variance to their "normal" way of doing it is telling fish stories. This is where the OP needs to get... Yes, some get there sooner than others, but it is still the goal.
 
FlySince9 said:
I don't understand this need to have a set of finite rules in a fluid environment. Each pilot knows what it takes to land an airplane and each has a preferred method of getting there.
Click to expand...

The OP does not and was asking for help. The rules provide consistency and can be adjusted when necessary.

You do what it takes to get the airplane to do what you need it to do so you are where you need to be.
Click to expand...

That is the whole point of his question, HOW? That is also the point I made about being an instructor.

But anyone that claims that every landing is perfectly planned and executed without any variance to their "normal" way of doing it is telling fish stories.
Click to expand...

I don't know who's claimed that (red herring?), but you can certainly set standards and perform to those standards consistently. I'm not sure why I've gotten so much grief over bringing up ground references other than that people aren't open to different perspectives. I don't really care if you or anyone else uses them, but I'm more than happy to explain why and how they can help. I don't see what's wrong with bouncing different ideas back and forth and sorting through the merits of them rationally.
 
Cooter143 said:
...I don't see what's wrong with bouncing different ideas back and forth and sorting through the merits of them rationally.
Click to expand...

That's why we're here and is the essence of a forum. Everyone has an opinion and everyone is right. The trick is to find what's right for you.
 
Last post on this subject :rolleyes:: The OP asked a question that has no "answer." Only as many opinions and techniques as there are pilots trying to help him/her.... I started this with a simple observation that was slightly off point and wasn't an attack on anyone or any method, and certainly not directed toward the OP. You decided to take it out of context to make a point...

Timbeck2 said:
That's why we're here and is the essence of a forum. Everyone has an opinion and everyone is right. The trick is to find what's right for you.
Click to expand...

And that is all I'm trying to say... To develop, thru practice and guidance your own... That said, I stand by MY OPINION that using arbitrary ground references, rather than using the runway and positions relative to that runway are counterproductive to the end goal...
 
FlySince9 said:
Last post on this subject :rolleyes:: The OP asked a question that has no "answer." Only as many opinions and techniques as there are pilots trying to help him/her.... I started this with a simple observation that was slightly off point and wasn't an attack on anyone or any method, and certainly not directed toward the OP. You decided to take it out of context to make a point...



And that is all I'm trying to say... To develop, thru practice and guidance your own... That said, I stand by MY OPINION that using arbitrary ground references, rather than using the runway and positions relative to that runway are counterproductive to the end goal...
Click to expand...
And.....you are correct! But that won't deter a lot more hot gas, ad nauseum.
 
Cooter143 said:
I'm not sure why I've gotten so much grief over bringing up ground references other than that people aren't open to different perspectives. I don't really care if you or anyone else uses them, but I'm more than happy to explain why and how they can help.
Click to expand...

FWIW, I'm pretty sure I've used ground references in the past.

Something like, "Traffic permitting, I'd like to see you fly your base leg no wider than xxx road - if you're forced any wider than that, be sure to slow down and maintain altitude - don't just descend automatically."

Of course, at an airport like Opa Locka or N Perry, a student will get a lot of practice on both E/W and N/S runways, each with their own landmarks. And straight-ins have their own challenges. But, yes, the ultimate goal is to teach angles and perspectives, not arbitrary points on the ground.
 
Alright, I'll say my piece and be done. Trying to invite real discussion here is like trying to reason with my 4yr old. But in all honesty, it's easier with him because he's not stubborn and defensive. Everyone wants to toss in their criticism without actually joining the discussion. If you have a better method, offer it up. Disagreements aren't personal attacks until you make them that way.

@FlySince9, I've been generous and started simply by pointing out a flaw in your post. I probably could have phrased it more construtively, so I apologize if it came off as personal. But you have since confirmed that you have nothing of substance to offer the OP. Just because there is more than one opinion or method, doesn't mean all methods are equal or that none should be taught. Otherwise, why develop or teach any techniques at all? There is benefit in discussing the methods and seeing which is superior. I have changed my habit patterns multiple times because someone pointed out a better way.

@Jimmy cooper, you need to grow up man. What good have you brought to the discussion?
 
Teaching patterns using landmarks is a bad practice unless that is used as a stepping stone for "Okay, now that we're over the McDonald's, you see what the runway looks like? Keep that in your head, because that's the position you want to be in when turning downwind to base at any other airport."

The problem with landmarks is they work at one specific airport. Abeam the numbers, 45, etc. work at most airports, with the only needed ground reference being the runway itself.

I think naturally you're going to use landmarks at familiar airports over a period of time. Like I know when I'm downwind at SBD, I want to time my base turn so I'm pointed at the In N Out, and then turning final basically over In N Out. But that is more of a positioning crosscheck after I already established where I needed to be after a number of landings at that airport, by first using abeam/45/etc.
 
Good to know some landmarks, because in some cases the tower will reference them too. The canal east of KCNO comes to mind. Agree w/ icrphoenix that they are useful at an airport you consistently fly into... it makes for less workload. An interesting case is Fallbrook (L18) where--when in the traffic pattern for 18--the runway reveals itself only after flying about halfway through the base leg (it's behind a 15-ft mound that basically runs the length of the runway). It helped a lot to study it on Google Earth before flying there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top