IR training and bad landings

[nddons]

I'm early on in my instrument training, but is there a direct correlation between instrument training and poor landings? My patterns and landings have been awful! It may be fatigue, but I was wondering if there is something to flying in 3 dimensions, but seeing in 2 dimensions (the instruments under the hood), and then moving to 3 dimensions again in the pattern. Last night I took my hood off a couple of miles from the airport. The tower had just closed so it was late dusk, but I seemed to have trouble getting my act together in setting up the airplane for landing, visualizing the pattern, and landing the darn thing.

I'm sure the fix is to spend some quality time in the pattern, but is this unusual?

 

[ScottM]

It is hard to transition back to using your eyes!

BTW if you want to do some flying, I am up to flying as your safety pilot if you want to fly as mine??

 

[tonycondon]

sounds about right. during instrument training you typically only do one landing per lesson, often after a fairly stressful set of approaches. previously you did many landings per lesson.

 

[poadeleted20]

It is hard to transition back to using your eyes!

...which is exactly why we have to practice that during IR training. You don't get much time to think about the landing when you break out at DH in half a mile vis.

 

[nddons]

...which is exactly why we have to practice that during IR training. You don't get much time to think about the landing when you break out at DH in half a mile vis.

So Ron are you saying that this is a common (or uncommon) phenomenon that I'm experiencing? I'm not looking for an excuse for bad landings (God knows I have a flight bag full of those), but rather trying to understand that this will be an issue I need to focus on as soon as I'm out from under the hood or eventually at DH.

 

[TMetzinger]

I had the same issues. IR training is high workload, and until you're really comfy with making approaches you don't really have the spare capacity to focus on the landings the way you used to - coupled with the fact that a typical approach brings you to short final and from there you might still have to circle.

First thing that can help is getting the airplane configured for landing EARLY. You only want to have to do two things in the last segment of the approach: Find the runway and land on it. You don't want to be thinking about GUMPS or radios or anything else, you should have that all done when crossing the FAF or shortly after.

The other thing to do is go up and do some pattern work.

I remember how LOUSY my "look out the window and fly" skills were when I finished the instrument and started the commercial. We actually put a towel across the whole panel for a couple of lessons until I got used to using the real horizon and not the 4" one.

The good news is that with experience, your brain "gets it" and you'll reach a point where the transition is pretty seamless.

Stick with it!

 

[dmccormack]

...which is exactly why we have to practice that during IR training. You don't get much time to think about the landing when you break out at DH in half a mile vis.

Absolutely -- I know some folks stress the Missed Approach and hardly ever land after a practice approach. I'm grateful I wasn't taught this way. Nearly every approach ended in a landing after the hood came off at minimums.

The biggest problem was too much speed on the approach. 90 KIAS in a C172 is ok, but some folks posit 110-120 in a Bonanza.

It's a slippery airplane, and while flaps help slow it down, it causes alot to happen in a short time with a DH of 200'.

So I'm a convert to the "fly the approach with the intent to land" school. This means approach flaps, slower approach speeds, and the expectation to transition from all gauge scan to adding in the Visual component as part of the scan when within a certain range of DH or MDA.

Now, this doesn't mean you're not ready for the missed. But always flying to miss means you'll be landing fast and long more often.

 

[poadeleted20]

So Ron are you saying that this is a common (or uncommon) phenomenon that I'm experiencing? I'm not looking for an excuse for bad landings (God knows I have a flight bag full of those), but rather trying to understand that this will be an issue I need to focus on as soon as I'm out from under the hood or eventually at DH.

I'm not sure it's common in IR training, but it happens when your focus slips at the end of a long flight or if you haven't done much landing practice lately.

 

[Jack Allison]

I didn't notice anything strange in my landings when I was doing the IR. BTW, good for you doing the IR. I found it a tough but extremely rewarding rating. Those first couple times you're in IMC (hopefully with your CFII) and the runway lights come into view, you go "Wow, this stuff works...and it's way cool!" Keep at it and post your progress.

 

[nddons]

It is hard to transition back to using your eyes!

BTW if you want to do some flying, I am up to flying as your safety pilot if you want to fly as mine??

I'll take you up on that, Scott. Thanks for the offer. (Flying is the ultimate in bipartisanship!)

 

[Teller1900]

Of the folks I've talked to (and myself included) it's very common. Like everyone said, it's simply a matter of lack of practice and what practice you do get is usually at the end of a long, tiring flight. Don't worry, you'll learn how to land again when you start your commercial training!

 

[KennyFlys]

I'll take you up on that, Scott. Thanks for the offer. (Flying is the ultimate in bipartisanship!)

It might be interesting to be a fly on the windscreen during that flight.


Inside, of course!

 

[drizzt76]

I had the same problem after taking off the hood at minimums. I felt like you have to cage your eyeballs again. My landings were fine but I thing Greg B. will attest it was more luck than skill. To be honest I looked up and found the FBO is on the wrong side of the runway...I also let my situational awarness lapse. You will get better at the transition from 2D to 3D....it just takes a couple times.

 

[Pi1otguy]

When I did my IR training my landings got progressively worse until I finally got my IR. I found that pattern work improved things for the next flight, but overall it just slowed the decline in landing. By the time I flew with the DPE, I could fly an ILS or an NDB perfectly but I blew the -0/+100 ft landing spot.

I think someone knew this since the PTS merely states "... transitions to safe landing" or something like that. You landings will get better after you get the IR. Also, consider your approach speed. Some CFIIs train for 90+ kts during the approach due to local traffic and such. If so, consider that going from 90 kts clean to 65kts dirty can be tricky if done during the "breakout".

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I don't know if you've done any circle-to-land stuff yet, but that's another example of where going from hood to visual really messes with your head.

During my IR training, I did a night CTL and was about to do the "normal" pattern practice of starting to descend abeam the numbers. CFI made me hold altitude until final, then we went around the pattern visually. The difference was amazing.

And no, you don't need (or want) to start descending abeam the numbers when your "pattern" is only 400 AGL!

 

[dmccormack]

I don't know if you've done any circle-to-land stuff yet, but that's another example of where going from hood to visual really messes with your head.

During my IR training, I did a night CTL and was about to do the "normal" pattern practice of starting to descend abeam the numbers. CFI made me hold altitude until final, then we went around the pattern visually. The difference was amazing.

And no, you don't need (or want) to start descending abeam the numbers when your "pattern" is only 400 AGL!

Excellent, excellent point!!

On Circle to land maneuvers, I NEVER begin a descent until established on final.

That said, CTL is a rare, rare event given the ubiquity of RNAV approaches these days...

 

[Pi1otguy]

That said, CTL is a rare, rare event given the ubiquity of RNAV approaches these days...

Really?

 

[gprellwitz]

Excellent, excellent point!!

On Circle to land maneuvers, I NEVER begin a descent until established on final.

That said, CTL is a rare, rare event given the ubiquity of RNAV approaches these days...

Why do you say that? I ask, because I'm looking at a flight tomorrow to DWU, where the only approaches (an SDF and a VOR/GPS overlay) are to Rwy 10. Winds are expected to be 230/9 (we won't mention the TS in the area). So I'd have no choice but to do a CTL.

This requirement can be due to terrain, obstructions, or another airport in the vicinity (note that there are no approaches from the south of PWK or north of 1C5, for example, because of ORD).

 

[dmccormack]

Why do you say that? I ask, because I'm looking at a flight tomorrow to DWU, where the only approaches (an SDF and a VOR/GPS overlay) are to Rwy 10. Winds are expected to be 230/9 (we won't mention the TS in the area). So I'd have no choice but to do a CTL.

This requirement can be due to terrain, obstructions, or another airport in the vicinity (note that there are no approaches from the south of PWK or north of 1C5, for example, because of ORD).

Wow -- an SDF -- I have to fly 45 min to find one of those but it's been OTS for years!

My personal rule on CTL is not to begin the descent from the MDA until I'm established on Final.

Several reasons:

• There's no reason to use a "normal" VFR pattern since I am below 1000' AGL already.
• I commit to landing and descending below MDA after the runway and environment are clearly in sight, and -- in my opinion -- I'm only commited to land after everything lines up in front of me -- not to the side or over or under my wing.
• There is no guarantee that after descending from Downwind or base that the runway will continue to be in sight -- low vis & clouds is why we're flying an approach, right?
• CTL is already a tough maneuver in real conditions -- why up the pucker factor by maneuvering closer to the ground than I really need to be?
• Finally -- I have never heard a reason why I should begin the descent from a CTL before final.

 

[TMetzinger]

Some CFIIs train for 90+ kts during the approach due to local traffic and such. If so, consider that going from 90 kts clean to 65kts dirty can be tricky if done during the "breakout".

Absolutely. While I sympathize with the desire to keep speed up in training, when you're doing it for real don't be afraid to slow down early. At all uncontrolled airports you'll own the approach until you cancel IFR, and the same will go for towered ones not served by Class B or C airspace.

If I know the approach is just for bringing me down to 800 AGL or so where I'll break out, I'll keep it fast because I know I'll be able to transition to visual and slow down in plenty of time. If I'm doing an ILS and the weather is anywhere near minimums, I'm configured for landing when I leave the FAF, and if that means I'm flying final at 80 knots, that's what it means.

 

[poadeleted20]

On Circle to land maneuvers, I NEVER begin a descent until established on final.

There are a lot of airports at which that restriction will ruin any chance of getting in, where the circling mins are 800, 900, or even 1200 feet AGL. If you try staying that high until turning final, you'll either be so high so close you can't get down to the runway, or you'll have to go so far out you'll lose sight of the runway (assuming IMC visibilities). A better rule is not to leave MDA until you're in a position to descend using normal maneuvers and descent rate to the runway. For a 900 HAA, that would be about the time you turn base. For a 400 HAA, that would be on final. Just think of yourself as being in the visual pattern and make it fit so it works.

And if you lose sight of the runway in the process, you should never have left MDA in the first place.

 

[ScottM]

I ask, because I'm looking at a flight tomorrow to DWU, where the only approaches (an SDF and a VOR/GPS overlay) are to Rwy 10. Winds are expected to be 230/9 (we won't mention the TS in the area). So I'd have no choice but to do a CTL. .

With a 9 knot tailwind you can elect to land downwind. What are the runway lengths?

My home airport has only a GSP-B and VOR-A that both lead into runway 27.
I was coming home one night in IMC and shot the GPS-B approach breaking out 200 above MDA and had vis of 1 mile. Winds were 080@7 and I'll be darned if I am going to CTL in those conditions. I landed straight in and had more than enough runway.

IMHO CTL would have been the fools approach to make in those conditions. Had the winds been too strong to land and stop then it is time to divert to an airport where I can make the approach I want. Fortunately 3CK has a GPS-08 approach to diver to and is closer to my home than my airport.

 

[gprellwitz]

With a 9 knot tailwind you can elect to land downwind. What are the runway lengths?

Yeah, I know. The winds at home are 24014G24, and there's NO way I'd land downwind with that! But with the 5000' runway at DWU, it's not really a problem. Of course, since they expect the ceilings to be 3500', a CTL wouldn't be an issue anyway; it's a VFR approach in this instance.

 

[dmccormack]

There are a lot of airports at which that restriction will ruin any chance of getting in, where the circling mins are 800, 900, or even 1200 feet AGL. If you try staying that high until turning final, you'll either be so high so close you can't get down to the runway, or you'll have to go so far out you'll lose sight of the runway (assuming IMC visibilities). A better rule is not to leave MDA until you're in a position to descend using normal maneuvers and descent rate to the runway. For a 900 HAA, that would be about the time you turn base. For a 400 HAA, that would be on final. Just think of yourself as being in the visual pattern and make it fit so it works.

I haven't encountered one yet that had that high minimums for a Cat A a/c (which is all I've flown IMC thus far), where I had to circle to land in IMC -- just too rare a combination of circumstance for me, I suppose.

That said, if I encounter one with 1000' Cat A MDA for CTL, I will most likely begin a descent on base -- where the turn to final does not obstruct the view of the runway in a high wing airplane.

And if you lose sight of the runway in the process, you should never have left MDA in the first place.

Around here where the ridges and rolling hills make all sorts of weird weather things happen, clouds and ground fog can be 1/4 mile vis here and 5 mile vis across the street. I've seen VVS socked in when it's clear at my office -- 1.8 miles away.

You can see the runway on downwind, and lose it on base or final (especially in a high wing airplane in which you lose sight of the runway on every turn).

 

[dmccormack]

IMHO CTL would have been the fools approach to make in those conditions. Had the winds been too strong to land and stop then it is time to divert to an airport where I can make the approach I want.

Would CTL even been possible in those circumstances?

My experience has been that when winds are strong, vis is usually good beneath the ceiling, and ceilings tend to be higher when the wind is strong.

Of course there are always exceptions... but the combination -- CTL + high winds + low vis/clg + have-to-be-at-that-airport-at-that-time + me flying --- has not occurred yet.

 

[ScottM]

Would CTL even been possible in those circumstances?

Possible, legal yes. Survivable...well I did not want to find out.

Since it was a GPS-B approach and not a GPS-27 approach the circle and straight in minimums were identical. I guess technically even the straight in landing is classified as a CTL, at least according to the chart. But the GPS-B approach does bring you straight to the runway.

 

[dmccormack]

Possible, legal yes. Survivable...well I did not want to find out.

Since it was a GPS-B approach and not a GPS-27 approach the circle and straight in minimums were identical. I guess technically even the straight in landing is classified as a CTL, at least according to the chart. But the GPS-B approach does bring you straight to the runway.

Most LNAV (GPS) approaches straight-in MDA are between 400-800 AGL, with the Circling minimum 100-200' higher.

So on those approaches, if you fly straight in, get to MDA, and decide to circle -- you need to climb to the circling MDA.

For those approaches where MDA is the same, moot point.

But it would be pretty risky/foolish to descend to straight-in MDA, and then break it off to circle because the wind changed that much during the 3-7 minutes of the approach.

 

[poadeleted20]

My home airport has only a GSP-B and VOR-A that both lead into runway 27.
I was coming home one night in IMC and shot the GPS-B approach breaking out 200 above MDA and had vis of 1 mile. Winds were 080@7 and I'll be darned if I am going to CTL in those conditions. I landed straight in and had more than enough runway.

The issue of landing straight in when only circling minima are published is one which many pilots do not understand. The fact that no straight-in minima are published does not mean you can't legally land straight in if the approach is aligned with the runway, but it does mean that the minima will be developed based on obstacle protection within the entire circling protected area (see Figure 5-4-23 in section 5-4-20), not the much smaller trapezoidal area aligned with the runway centerline that is protected for straight-ins. This often raises the MDA significantly above what it would be if straight-in minima were provided.

Why would an approach aligned with the runway not have straight-in minima? Usually, that occurs when the descent gradient from the FAF to the TDZ exceeds the 400 ft/nm limit in TERPS for straight-in minima to be published. The thinking is that you just won't be able to get down to the runway without circling over the field once you get there. Thus, in order to do what Scott did, you have to descend on a steeper gradient than the FAA feels is guaranteed to be do-able safely. In many cases, especially in a Cat A plane with a headwind, that's not hard to do. However, in a LearJet, it could be scary.

 

[poadeleted20]

I haven't encountered one yet that had that high minimums for a Cat A a/c (which is all I've flown IMC thus far), where I had to circle to land in IMC -- just too rare a combination of circumstance for me, I suppose.

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." In fact, you'll find quite a few in the Mid-Atlantic region if you page throught the Terminal Procedures book.

That said, if I encounter one with 1000' Cat A MDA for CTL, I will most likely begin a descent on base -- where the turn to final does not obstruct the view of the runway in a high wing airplane.

Do you refuse to leave TPA until on base in similar circumstances when operating under VFR? If not, I don't see the point of delaying the descent and potentially causing yourself to be unable to descend to the runway in a low-vis situation, forcing yourself into a missed approach from below MDA (a bad corner to be in). Remember, you're training your students to fly all sorts of planes at all sorts of airports, not just a 172 at the home 'drome.

 

[poadeleted20]

But it would be pretty risky/foolish to descend to straight-in MDA, and then break it off to circle because the wind changed that much during the 3-7 minutes of the approach.

While that's true when straight-in minima are published, there are no straight-in minima on an approach labeled VOR-A or GPS-B -- circling only.

 

[dmccormack]

Do you refuse to leave TPA until on base in similar circumstances when operating under VFR? If not, I don't see the point of delaying the descent and potentially causing yourself to be unable to descend to the runway in a low-vis situation, forcing yourself into a missed approach from below MDA (a bad corner to be in). Remember, you're training your students to fly all sorts of planes at all sorts of airports, not just a 172 at the home 'drome.

Of course not -- but standard TPA is 1000' AGL, with variations from 800-1200' AGL.

Most Circling approach MDAs range from 600 to 1000' AGL.

If I'm 600' AGL on a circling downwind, why descend before being established on final?

If I'm 1000' AGL on downwind, and out of the clouds and the runway is in sight, then it's a VFR landing, with normal pattern procedures.

That said -- of all the airports I've flown to in the past year with IMC and real approach required -- all have been served by an IAP that precluded the need for circling, and the few times I've had to circle, I've used the IAP to get "in the pattern", canceled VFR, and landed using normal VFR pattern procedures.

While I think it's important to consider all the possible options/conditions/situations, I just haven't had the need to do a CTL at MDA minimums -- the complete list of circumstances simply hasn't presented itself yet -- at home or away -- but we all do far more approaches at home than we do away.

One local airport I use has only one IAP , but when the weather's so poor that a LOC 5 is required, the winds will almost always permit a straight in. Given the nearby ridge and obstructions, it's simply not in my playbook to CTL at that airport at minimums -- and I know it pretty well.

Discretion is the better part of valor and I would fly the extra 10-20 miles and land an airport with more options.

 

[poadeleted20]

If I'm 600' AGL on a circling downwind, why descend before being established on final?

Depends on visibility and what you're flying. In faster planes with near-minimum vis, you might well have to start down off the perch to get down without losing sight of the runway (even if your approach category provides a larger obstruction-clear area at that MDA).

If I'm 1000' AGL on downwind, and out of the clouds and the runway is in sight, then it's a VFR landing, with normal pattern procedures.

Not necessarily (say, if the ceiling is 1200 or the vis is just over a mile, especially if it's in an E-to-the-surface area), but you have the right idea.

While I think it's important to consider all the possible options/conditions/situations, I just haven't had the need to do a CTL at MDA minimums -- the complete list of circumstances simply hasn't presented itself yet -- at home or away -- but we all do far more approaches at home than we do away.

I'll accept that, but realize that as an instructor, you must prepare your trainees for more than that.

 

[dmccormack]

I'll accept that, but realize that as an instructor, you must prepare your trainees for more than that.

I agree -- and it's precisely why I want more experience flying actual myself in a variety of situations before setting up the IA shingle. It's only be recently that I have felt confident and comfortable in the left seat doing approaches down to near minimums (haven't had the opportunity for minimums in quite a while here).

I'm in no rush and have plenty of primary & a couple of Comm students, but should be doing IA work by fall.

 

[Tristar]

Everyone comes across stages or even just moments of bad landings. It happens. Don't let it get you down. The trouble is in the fact that you're concentrating more on your approaches than your landings. No prob, you'll catch up again during your fun flights and/or especially during a commercial rating where landings become once again a primary learning experience.

I remember after one of my stage checks the examining instructor walked in and said, "who taught her how to land?!" My CFI, "I guess her last instructor." The other CFI, "well thats the first time I didn't feel like I had to replace the tires!" It was a good feeling.

Don't worry, you'll get it.

 

[nddons]

Everyone comes across stages or even just moments of bad landings. It happens. Don't let it get you down. The trouble is in the fact that you're concentrating more on your approaches than your landings. No prob, you'll catch up again during your fun flights and/or especially during a commercial rating where landings become once again a primary learning experience.

I remember after one of my stage checks the examining instructor walked in and said, "who taught her how to land?!" My CFI, "I guess her last instructor." The other CFI, "well thats the first time I didn't feel like I had to replace the tires!" It was a good feeling.

Don't worry, you'll get it.

Thanks, Tristan. I'm not quite up to approaches yet - just working on constant rate / airpseed climbs & descents, turning climbs and descents, compass turns, etc. So the CTL discussion gave me a headache

 

[Tristar]

Enjoy those unusual attitudes, they're useful. Those are my favs!

The real fun part/brain work will come during the approaches. Its a great feeling when you finally nail a good ILS!! Busting out of clouds just before the runway is the neatest sight!

 

[jesse]

Personally, at the end of the instrument lesson, the landing is the most fun to me. I try to do something a little non-standard from time to time to keep my visual maneuvering skills in check.

Of course, you might screw it up, but who cares. The main thing is that the landing is well controlled and slow. It's hard to really bend anything up or lose control if you touch down at a slow speed.

 

[KennyFlys]

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." In fact, you'll find quite a few in the Mid-Atlantic region if you page throught the Terminal Procedures book.
Do you refuse to leave TPA until on base in similar circumstances when operating under VFR? If not, I don't see the point of delaying the descent and potentially causing yourself to be unable to descend to the runway in a low-vis situation, forcing yourself into a missed approach from below MDA (a bad corner to be in). Remember, you're training your students to fly all sorts of planes at all sorts of airports, not just a 172 at the home 'drome.

Something about that post seems strangely familiar.

 

[KennyFlys]

Enjoy those unusual attitudes, they're useful. Those are my favs!

The real fun part/brain work will come during the approaches. Its a great feeling when you finally nail a good ILS!! Busting out of clouds just before the runway is the neatest sight!

I have a young student I think may be Tristan's Texas counterpart. She began using the term, "Cruel and Unusual Attitudes." She and my oil exec student couldn't get enough of 'em.

I guess it comes from my finding those maneuvers are sort on my sadistic side of being an instructor.

 

[nddons]

Ahhhhh. Nothing like a quality hour in the pattern to make things right again! I even brought my wife along as the final judge to my good landings.

Now bring on IR flight #4 on Wednesday!

Thanks to all for the advice.