ATC, Approaches and Expectations

[Unregistered]

I got a wake up call flying the RNAV 36L approach into KNEW Lakefront Airport in New Orleans. I expected (now there's a bad idea) a routine approach. All seemed normal as ATC vectored me in and cleared me to fly the approach from the west starting at SAFES, saying to maintain 3,500 feet. I thought, OK, approach altitude is 2,600 but they must have their reasons.

Flying along at my Mooney's usual 160kt approach speed, I began to close in on TOYBO where you would normally intersect the glideslope (at 2,600ft) and begin the descent. Problem was, I was still at 3,500. Querying ATC, they said again "maintain 3,500" for clearance over airspace below. That's about when I got nervous. I had been slowing down, but being 900ft higher that I expected and way above glideslope threw me off. Just before reaching TOYBO, ATC cleared me for the descent and instructed me to contact tower. Mooneys are pretty slippery and it was some quick action to slow the plane down (we got real dirty real fast), get it back on track and down to a good landing.

Later, come to find out, there is a Naval Air Station you have to fly over just to the south of KNEW and it is routine for ATC to keep planes higher than published on approaches from the south. Now, I am much more conscious of both vertical and horizontal factors (especially airspeed) when executing my approaches!

 

[flyingron]

Unlike ILS glideslopes, there's no issue being slam dunked onto the LPV (or VNAV) glideslope from the top. 7 miles to lose 2800 isn't exactly the FAA idea of stabilized approach but as you realized it's not impossible.

 

[kkoran]

160 kts. is your normal approach speed?

 

[Hank S]

160 kts. is our normal approach speed?

That's faster than my cruise speed! There's a reason CFIIs recommend slowing before the IAF. But some planes have high gear speeds send speed brakes, some of us don't have either.

I've come don the glide slope at 130+ to keep up with other traffic, but I did have to slow down to put out the wheels and land.

 

[James331]

That's faster then I shoot approaches in a turboprop.

What's the deal with folks wanting to shoot approachs at warp speed?

Do they understand they are increasing their catagory and often lowering the mins they can shoot the approach to? Also on a slam dunk like this they are stacking the deck against themselves.

 

[midlifeflyer]

160 kts. is your normal approach speed?

My thought exactly. In fast singles my SOP is to slow to 120 when I expect vectoring to start and be down to 100-105 for the final intercept vector.

As a pilot friend once said to me when he was a bit behind and I suggested he might slow down, "that seems to work better." (after, of course, looking at me in shock and surprise that someone might suggest such a thing!)

 

[jordane93]

160 kts. is your normal approach speed?

Maybe his Mooney is a 747. And I don't think 747's approach that fast!

 

[midlifeflyer]

Flying along at my Mooney's usual 160kt approach speed, I began to close in on TOYBO where you would normally intersect the glideslope (at 2,600ft) and begin the descent. Problem was, I was still at 3,500. Querying ATC, they said again "maintain 3,500" for clearance over airspace below. That's about when I got nervous. I had been slowing down, but being 900ft higher that I expected and way above glideslope threw me off.

The comments (including my own) about your "usual approach speed" aside, it's about situational awareness. It's not uncommon to be held at a higher altitude than one would like for traffic reasons. A common one in my area is flying from the Raleigh area to Greenville, SC passing south of Charlotte. You will be held high until clearing the KCLT approach path before being instructed to head to a lower altitude for an approach into KGMU, typically with an "expedite" instruction.

Point is that in your situation, at some stage, probably back at SAFES, it was time to anticipate the need to get down fast and plan for it, which means planning an expedited descent without exceeding airspeed limitations.

My choice would be to slow down to a speed that will allow an expedited descent clean. Someone who prefers to keep up the speed might consider at least slowing to Vlo or, if applicable to speed brake deployment.

 

[Bill]

That's faster than my cruise speed! There's a reason CFIIs recommend slowing before the IAF. But some planes have high gear speeds send speed brakes, some of us don't have either.

I've come don the glide slope at 130+ to keep up with other traffic, but I did have to slow down to put out the wheels and land.

In the 201 I like to be down to 90kts by the FAF.

 

[MooneyDriver78]

In the 201 I like to be down to 90kts by the FAF.

But you can be at 120 knots until 2-3 miles before, drop the gear, first flaps, back off the throttle so MP is about 17 and be down to 90 when crossing the fix, assuming a non precision approach, right?

 

[jesse]

Slow down, drop your gear, and dropping the altitude would be a non-issue.

 

[poadeleted20]

What's the deal with folks wanting to shoot approachs at warp speed?

See "Macho" in in the FAA's Five Hazardous attitudes (Chapter 17 in the Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge). I've lost track of how many pilots I've gotten "over the hump" on an Instrument Rating finish-up course just by teaching them to "STFD" (if you'll pardon the language).

 

[TMetzinger]

Sometimes, if you're mixing it up with jets, you might wish (or you might be asked) to keep your speed up. But normally that means 120 knots, not 160.

On visual approaches, I've flown fast airplanes at 160 to a one mile final, then used my "drag weapons" (speedbrakes, gear, flaps) to be at touchdown speed over the numbers.

In instrument conditions, I put my needs first ahead of ATC requests. If they ask me to keep my speed up, then they get as fast as I feel comfortable, and no faster. How fast that will be will depend on a bunch of factors.

 

[EdFred]

Aaaaaaaaand there's Ron with his canned "If you don't do it the Ron way, you suffer from a hazardous attitude" response.

I need to check the over/under pool on this one. Troy might have won this time.

 

[James331]

Sometimes, if you're mixing it up with jets, you might wish (or you might be asked) to keep your speed up. But normally that means 120 knots, not 160.

On visual approaches, I've flown fast airplanes at 160 to a one mile final, then used my "drag weapons" (speedbrakes, gear, flaps) to be at touchdown speed over the numbers.

In instrument conditions, I put my needs first ahead of ATC requests. If they ask me to keep my speed up, then they get as fast as I feel comfortable, and no faster. How fast that will be will depend on a bunch of factors.

I don't always agree with Ron, I'm not sure if it's a macho thing, but it ain't a good idea.

Once I'm on the approach I'm flying my speeds, 160 to a one mile final, I don't even pull that in a turboprop. Especially after the FAF/ one dot below the the GS, no way, ATC knows my type and I'm not flying like a idiot because they stacked 3 fast movers behind me.

Are you flying a IAP or a DZ landing?

Don't be your own worst enemy.

 

[35 AoA]

yeah, my "approach speed" in the Hornet is like 130-140 depending on weight. OP should probably slow down, I know a Mooney doesn't have any need for being that fast on final having flown plenty of other "slick" singles

 

[MooneyDriver78]

yeah, my "approach speed" in the Hornet is like 130-140 depending on weight. OP should probably slow down, I know a Mooney doesn't have any need for being that fast on final having flown plenty of other "slick" singles

I don't think he meant approach speed, I think he meant descent speed, 160 is pretty normal in Mooneys unless you back way off on the throttle, normal numbers would 22 and 160, then once leveled out you would start slowing down, and continue throttling down till you get below Vle which is 130-120.
Then people like Mike Busch that recommend WOT all the way (to prevent shock cooling), obviously he flies a Cessna and doesn't have trouble slowing down, bad advice for Mooney pilots because you'll be in the yellow even in a modest 500fpm descent if not the red.

 

[TMetzinger]

I don't always agree with Ron, I'm not sure if it's a macho thing, but it ain't a good idea.

Once I'm on the approach I'm flying my speeds, 160 to a one mile final, I don't even pull that in a turboprop. Especially after the FAF/ one dot below the the GS, no way, ATC knows my type and I'm not flying like a idiot because they stacked 3 fast movers behind me.

Are you flying a IAP or a DZ landing?

Don't be your own worst enemy.

You did see the word "visual", right, in relation to the 160 knot final? In a mooney or trinidad or bo it's quite easy to go from 160 to 75 in the space of one mile. Not a normal approach certainly but not difficult either.

When discussing IAPs you and I are in agreement.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[MooneyDriver78]

You did see the word "visual", right, in relation to the 160 knot final? In a mooney or trinidad or bo it's quite easy to go from 160 to 75 in the space of one mile. Not a normal approach certainly but not difficult either.

in a mile?? Without speed brakes ?
No way, even if you pull back to idle, you have to stop descending and climb to slow down that fast, and forget about shock cooling


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[EdFred]

in a mile?? Without speed brakes ?
No way, even if you pull back to idle, you have to stop descending and climb to slow down that fast, and forget about shock cooling


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, in a mile. No climb necessary. Ever heard of a slip? Ever heard of it used to lose speed by raising the nose and arresting the descent? Probably not because you had some crap instructor that never taught you beyond the PTS.

And there is no such thing as shock cooling in a normally aspirated single, especially when you've already been down at 1000ish AGL.

 

[TMetzinger]

Well in the mooney it was speedbrakes, then gear, then flaps. In the trinidad the wing is fatter and the gear speed is higher, so pull power and lower gear then flaps, and you're slowing nicely.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[comanchepilot]

If I ever suspect I'm about to be slam dunked [and its verra common on the VOR/GPS-A into my home airport - you're 10 miles out, at 5000, with the airport elevation at 1000 and the minima 1nm out at 1400 (+/-) I start slowing down - drop the gear - then just bump along at 100mph. . .

I had a day when it was 800ovc and the tops were about 1500 and SoCal has me at 5000 about 8 out and I slow down and they rag at me for slowing down - I said that I need 1300fpm at this point to the FAF, is that in the controller handbook? They turned me 180 - descended me - and then turned me back in at the plan altitude. Penalty Vector for bringing it up?

At the end of the day I want to be safe and I KNOW on that I'm going to get slam dunked on that approach 9 times out of 10. You need to know where you are, what your speeds are and what you are going to have to do - remember - the crossing alts are designed to allow for safe rates of descent - don't let ATC force you into a 1000fpm rate of descent inside the FAF to make minimums . . . .

 

[EdFred]

don't let ATC force you into a 1000fpm rate of descent inside the FAF to make minimums . . . .

Heck, if I'm alone, I will often be greater than 1500fpm descent inside of 5 miles when visual. But I usually do it with a slip, not a dive. NO forcing needed.

 

[comanchepilot]

Heck, if I'm alone, I will often be greater than 1500fpm descent inside of 5 miles when visual. But I usually do it with a slip, not a dive. NO forcing needed.

1500fpm visual is your choice . . . you are ready for it - you are planning it - you have the airport in sight.

Forcing a single piston 1500 rod in IMC adds a level of concentration that just explodes the workload completely unnecessarily - the thought of managing a slip in IMC is daunting!

In my case 1000fpm would not 'unduly' threaten safety - home airport - done the approach often - familiar terrain - I'm breaking out 800 AGL - but thats less than a minute to impact - something to consider!

You need to cross the FAF at or above the specified altitude. You can be above it - meaning you can be in a 1000fpm+ rod to the minima - I don't like that - I think its bad form as well as bad piloting- YMMV - but I have done it - when I've been kept on an IFR flight plan by ATC even though I've intended to cancel - and then slam dunked visually.

 

[flyingron]

And there is no such thing as shock cooling in a normally aspirated single, especially when you've already been down at 1000ish AGL.

Yeah, Continental and Superior went through the analysis. What kills cylinders isn't cooling, it's heating.

 

[flyingron]

Well since my standard non-precision descent is 800 fpm, I wouldn't consider 1000 that bad.
Chasing down to a LPV needle might be dicey at higher rates, but going down to a MDA or intermediate altitude? Well you know when that's going to come up and can slow the descent to not overshoot.

 

[midlifeflyer]

If I ever suspect I'm about to be slam dunked [and its verra common on the VOR/GPS-A into my home airport - you're 10 miles out, at 5000, with the airport elevation at 1000 and the minima 1nm out at 1400 (+/-) I start slowing down - drop the gear - then just bump along at 100mph. . .

In other situations also. As I was vectored outbound, ATC advised me I was #6 for the approach. It was a fly-in and the ceiling was about 1100 so most of the folks coming in at that point were IFR. Looking at my tablet, I could see someone had gone missed. So as I turned outbound, I advised Approach, "If it works for you I am going to slow to 100 kts." The response? "That would be great. Thank you!"