no flaps landing from ILS approach

[dell30rb]

I went flying with a friend who is an instrument student, taking his checkride soon, I have been flying safety pilot for him several times in my 152 and letting him get some hood time and shoot approaches etc. He regularly flies a 172 with his instructor.

Going down an ILS in the 152, the plan is to have him pull the hood off at something near minimums. Toward the end, he's getting out of shape on the ILS, so I call for him to pull the hood off early. He pulls the hood off around 500 agl, and starts to line back up with the runway. Around 150 agl we are still high and I suggest flaps. He says no, I don't ask why, not wanting to distract him further. This terminates in a bad landing, lots of float, flared high, dropped it on, about 2000 feet remaining on a 5500 foot runway. He usually lands my airplane decently, with 20 degrees of flaps and a 65kt approach..

I later suggested that I thought the landing would have worked out better if he had put some flaps in. He said that his instructor told him that when breaking out near minimums, not to change configuration before landing (adding flaps).

I also asked what his instructor recommends on an ILS approach in the 172. no flaps, 90kts.

Whats your opinion? Breaking out between 200-500agl in a skyhawk or 152, is slowing and adding flaps a distracting and dangerous thing? Lets assume good visibility, daytime.

 

[denverpilot]

The distance chewed up, speaks for itself.

He was a passenger instead of a pilot, because of something someone told him, instead of doing what it took to get the aircraft down and stopped in a reasonable distance.

Ask him if that approach would have worked out well on a wet or snowy runway. ILS approaches often lead to such things, ya know? There's also shorter runways out there at the bottom of approaches...

I say... fly the damn plane. If you need the flaps, get them out.

$20 the instructor had a bad experience with an iced up airplane that scared the poo out of him/her. Put the flaps out and the stall horn started screaming...

 

[dell30rb]

$20 the instructor had a bad experience with an iced up airplane that scared the poo out of him/her. Put the flaps out and the stall horn started screaming...

I was not aware the flaps would make the stall horn scream on an iced up airplane.. thought the bad juju with flaps and ice was slowing down and the disrupted airflow over an ice covered elevator

 

[wsuffa]

It depends. If the runway is long enough (and with an ILS, the runway will almost be long enough especially for a 152), then one ought to be able to bleed off the additional airspeed without any problem. If the runway is wet or otherwise slick, I want to be as slow as possible (meaning "flaps").

My preference (in my plane) is not to put in flaps until I've broken out and am committed to landing. Dropping gear at glideslope intercept will put me pretty darn close to glideslope descent as long as I don't mess with power or other aspects of configuration.

On a nonprecision approach, things do change... I always use flaps at the appropriate time when I break out (unless I'm doing practice approaches that will terminate in a missed approach).

 

[Threefingeredjack]

1.) Fly the approach configured to land. Period. If you are in a 172 going down an ILS I'm guessing you're going to have plenty of runway even if you have not used any flaps. That being said, Denverpilot was bang on the mark when he called your friend a passenger. Look out the window, evaluate the situation, do what you must. Fly the airplane.

 

[dell30rb]

1.) Fly the approach configured to land. Period. If you are in a 172 going down an ILS I'm guessing you're going to have plenty of runway even if you have not used any flaps.

True, there was plenty of runway. Actually had he just pulled the power all the way off upon "breaking out" and not added flaps he would have got it down in a reasonable distance. He still had trouble with the flare though.

Alternately, if he simply reduced power to the usual 1400 rpm upon breaking out, slowed and added normal landing flaps, I think things would have turned out much better for us.

I'm of the opinion that, if the visibility and ceiling are so low on breaking out that I cannot have plenty of time to add landing flaps and slow to a normal landing speed... the weather is probably below minimums, and I should go missed.

 

[wabower]

Adding flaps (but usually the final notch) when runway is assured has been debated for many years. I think your friend is getting bad advice, and would encourage his instructor to obtain clarification from the DPE who will conduct the checkride. If he declines to do, I would discontinue training with him. I can't imagine any circumstances that would justify the procedure he is currently using, unless demonstrating loss of directional control will be a required item during the ride.

I went flying with a friend who is an instrument student, taking his checkride soon, I have been flying safety pilot for him several times in my 152 and letting him get some hood time and shoot approaches etc. He regularly flies a 172 with his instructor.

Going down an ILS in the 152, the plan is to have him pull the hood off at something near minimums. Toward the end, he's getting out of shape on the ILS, so I call for him to pull the hood off early. He pulls the hood off around 500 agl, and starts to line back up with the runway. Around 150 agl we are still high and I suggest flaps. He says no, I don't ask why, not wanting to distract him further. This terminates in a bad landing, lots of float, flared high, dropped it on, about 2000 feet remaining on a 5500 foot runway. He usually lands my airplane decently, with 20 degrees of flaps and a 65kt approach..

I later suggested that I thought the landing would have worked out better if he had put some flaps in. He said that his instructor told him that when breaking out near minimums, not to change configuration before landing (adding flaps).

I also asked what his instructor recommends on an ILS approach in the 172. no flaps, 90kts.

Whats your opinion? Breaking out between 200-500agl in a skyhawk or 152, is slowing and adding flaps a distracting and dangerous thing? Lets assume good visibility, daytime.

 

[dell30rb]

I can't imagine any circumstances that would justify the procedure he is currently using, unless demonstrating loss of directional control will be a required item during the ride.

That's certainly true, though I hope he does ok with the 172 if he has practiced a lot of no flaps landings with his instructor in that plane.

In my plane, which I have seen him land reasonably well many times (with flaps) I thought it was ridiculous not to slow, add flaps and land normally, considering the amount of time he had and the bad no flaps landing I witnessed.

 

[wabower]

Agreed. Something is awry, most likely between the instructor's ears.

That's certainly true, though I hope he does ok with the 172 if he has practiced a lot of no flaps landings with his instructor in that plane.

In my plane, which I have seen him land reasonably well many times (with flaps) I thought it was ridiculous not to slow, add flaps and land normally, considering the amount of time he had and the bad no flaps landing I witnessed.

 

[TMetzinger]

For an instrument student, I think that he should be flying approaches in a consistent manner, and avoiding configuration changes inside the final approach fix, particularly on an ILS.

For a non-precision dive and drive approach where one will normally be at MDA some minutes from the airport? MAYBE then holding the flaps until the runway's in sight makes sense as many of the non-precisions are more like approaches to the traffic pattern than they are to the runway itself.

But an ILS has the potential of putting you 100 feet off the ground (if you have the required visual references) before you can see the runway to land, and until you have significant experience flying your airplane on instruments and altering configurations, you shouldn't be messing with stuff on the final approach segment.

Strongly agree that the student should find out what the DPE is expecting, and the CFII should know this already.

 

[Palmpilot]

When I was going for my private (in a 172), one of the things I was taught was how to do no-flap landings. I never had any trouble with them on our (then) 2500 foot runway, although we don't get ice on the runway here, and the process did involve slipping, which I imagine this instructor would consider to be even more distracting than putting the flaps down.

When I went for my instrument rating a year later, my instructor showed me how to land out of an ILS to minimums using flaps.

Runways with ILSes tend to be longer, but I agree with the folks who say that once you make the transition to visual, you need to do whatever is appropriate under the conditions. A pilot needs to be proficient in both full-flaps and no-flaps landings.

 

[poadeleted20]

I teach the use of the first notch of flaps from the start. It gets the big pitch moment change out of the way and allows the pilot to deploy the rest when s/he commits to land so the landing is "normal" without fighting the airplane and trim setting. It also keeps the power somewhere up on the "warm" range, which is good for a lot of reasons.

 

[Jaybird180]

 

[Palmpilot]

I teach the use of the first notch of flaps from the start. It gets the big pitch moment change out of the way and allows the pilot to deploy the rest when s/he commits to land so the landing is "normal" without fighting the airplane and trim setting. It also keeps the power somewhere up on the "warm" range, which is good for a lot of reasons.

That sounds like a good way to do it, and is the method I use in a 182.

 

[sarangan]

1.) Fly the approach configured to land. Period. If you are in a 172 going down an ILS I'm guessing you're going to have plenty of runway even if you have not used any flaps. That being said, Denverpilot was bang on the mark when he called your friend a passenger. Look out the window, evaluate the situation, do what you must. Fly the airplane.

At 90 knots in a 172, that's almost close to cruise speed, so I leave the flaps up. At 200 ft AGL there is plenty of time to extend flaps and slow down, especially in a 5000 ft runway. Yes, it can get busy on short final, but should not be a safety hazard. The only advantage I can see for using flaps that far out on final is better visibility.

 

[wabower]

If you're operating within the approved limits, why does proximity to cruise speed matter? Why wouldn't it be better to get the busy-work out of the way before reaching the FAF then just fly the approach and land without touching anything? Try it sometime, you may find that it's delightfully simple. I demonstrate this method frequently, several pilots have adopted it.

Being busy on short final isn't

At 90 knots in a 172, that's almost close to cruise speed, so I leave the flaps up. At 200 ft AGL there is plenty of time to extend flaps and slow down, especially in a 5000 ft runway. Yes, it can get busy on short final, but should not be a safety hazard. The only advantage I can see for using flaps that far out on final is better visibility.

 

[bbchien]

When in the real world, when the mins are uncomfortable for CTL and he needs to accept a downwind ILS to get in, he will die flying like that.

Tell him.

 

[Sac Arrow]

At 90 knots in a 172, that's almost close to cruise speed, so I leave the flaps up. At 200 ft AGL there is plenty of time to extend flaps and slow down, especially in a 5000 ft runway. Yes, it can get busy on short final, but should not be a safety hazard. The only advantage I can see for using flaps that far out on final is better visibility.

But it's fast for an approach speed, in a 172. I would shoot for more like 70 kts, then throw all the flaps out when I break out, depending on the runway.

 

[EppyGA]

In my Warrior I like to get stabilized at 90kts with one notch of flaps in as I start down the pipe. I found the sooner I slow it up and get configured the better the workload becomes. Breakout, drop more flaps and land.

 

[wabower]

By what standards is it a fast approach?

But it's fast for an approach speed, in a 172. I would shoot for more like 70 kts, then throw all the flaps out when I break out, depending on the runway.

 

[denverpilot]

I should throw this one out here for the hounds to chew on... since it relates to the thread...

I just had a DPE tell me after my checkride that he seriously recommends I fly approaches in my particular C-182 at 110 knots due to the behavior it exhibits at 90 of slowing too much with small pitch changes (due to drag from the STOL kit).

If I come bombing down an ILS at 110 at Flaps 10, as recommended, it's going to take one hell of a "whoa Nellie" dump of power and flaps if the runway is short, to make even an attempt at a reasonable landing distance.

That's going to take some practice. And wouldn't be "stabilized" at all.

Max Flap extension speed is 95 beyond 10 degrees of flaps, too.

So I'd be chopping away all power, and learning how long it takes (because you'd better keep your eyes on the ILS needles in case that cloud re-envelops you) to slow from 110 to 95 and then without looking, flaps 40.

All while trying to hold those needles centered. Hmm.

Could it be done consistently and smoothly with practice? Probably. Is it right? Smart? Necessary? When tired?

I'm in agreement with him that an adjustment of some sort might help with the behavior at 90 knots, but I'm not sure 110 knots is the best solution.

Slowing to 80 from 90 during an approach, if a pitch up is required jist isn't that big a deal in an airplane that stalls at 53 clean, Vx is 59 at sea level and 63 at 10,000' DA.

Plus, at light weights, he's also recommended an approach speed higher than Va. Va at max gross is 110, dropping to 89 knots at 1950 lbs.

Let's just say I'm not quite sold on the DPE's idea just yet. Granted, he had one flight in the airplane and one approach to try out this idea, with me acting as faulty autopilot, so I'm not knocking him for looking for a solution to the speed issue.

Just goes to show that you don't necessarily want to do every single thing you're taught without applying a bit of thought to it. Even if the person who recommended it has more flight time than God and just gave you a checkride... Bust out the POH and apply a little brainpower to it.

People in the right seat of my airplane are always thinking it needs to fly faster. It's decked out as much as a 182 can be for slowwwwww unless you stick a canard on the nose cowling and up the horsepower to 300 for all that behind the power curve flying, as the one single even slower famous STOL mod for this airframe, does.

In the case of the 172 pilot, he should go study the landing distance tables. They'll tell a story that shouldn't be ignored. Fly it whatever way you want to, but fly it knowing what compromises you're accepting with the additional speed.

 

[Threefingeredjack]

Just a little clarification to my post as it was poorly written and not as precise as it could have been

1.) Fly the approach configured to land. Period. If you are in a 172 going down an ILS I'm guessing you're going to have plenty of runway even if you have not used any flaps. In this configuration in this aircraft I would consider it configured to land. As you advance into more complex aircraft it should be ingrained that after the FAF you are just flying the plane. Gear and flaps are deployed for landing. When you break out a power reduction is all you need to effect the landing.

That being said, Denverpilot was bang on the mark when he called your friend a passenger. Look out the window, evaluate the situation, do what you must. Fly the airplane.No matter what someone tells you, it does not remove the responsibility the pilot has to properly manipulate the aircraft safely.

 

[Fearless Tower]

By what standards is it a fast approach?

No kidding.....I can't imagine doing 70 Kts from the FAF all the way down the ILS in a 172.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[azure]

I've never shot an approach in a 152. But in a 172, I was taught to fly the ILS with no flaps until breaking out (practice to minimums), and then pull the power all the way to idle, slow into the white arc, and add flaps as needed and land. I think anyone should be able to slow a 172 from basically cruise descent to landing speed, adding flaps if necessary, from 200 AGL and AFAIK any runway with an ILS should be long enough to be able to do this comfortably.

 

[Threefingeredjack]

No kidding.....I can't imagine doing 70 Kts from the FAF all the way down the ILS in a 172.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

It would be hard to concentrate on the needles with the radio screaming about maintaining maximum forward speed.

 

[wabower]

I'm not buying it. Doesn't sound like you are either. How about flying flaps 20 at 80?

By coincidence I was working at the annual recurrent flight school for Cessna twins yesterday and today, providing such service to a friend in his Cessna 340. He had somehow convinced himself that using partial flaps and higher approach speed was a better way than I taught him a few years ago, so we put it to the test. He quickly proved to himself that reducing speed by 10 knots and using full flaps will roughly cut his total landing distance by 50%.

I should throw this one out here for the hounds to chew on... since it relates to the thread...

I just had a DPE tell me after my checkride that he seriously recommends I fly approaches in my particular C-182 at 110 knots due to the behavior it exhibits at 90 of slowing too much with small pitch changes (due to drag from the STOL kit).

If I come bombing down an ILS at 110 at Flaps 10, as recommended, it's going to take one hell of a "whoa Nellie" dump of power and flaps if the runway is short, to make even an attempt at a reasonable landing distance.

That's going to take some practice. And wouldn't be "stabilized" at all.

Max Flap extension speed is 95 beyond 10 degrees of flaps, too.

So I'd be chopping away all power, and learning how long it takes (because you'd better keep your eyes on the ILS needles in case that cloud re-envelops you) to slow from 110 to 95 and then without looking, flaps 40.

All while trying to hold those needles centered. Hmm.

Could it be done consistently and smoothly with practice? Probably. Is it right? Smart? Necessary? When tired?

I'm in agreement with him that an adjustment of some sort might help with the behavior at 90 knots, but I'm not sure 110 knots is the best solution.

Slowing to 80 from 90 during an approach, if a pitch up is required jist isn't that big a deal in an airplane that stalls at 53 clean, Vx is 59 at sea level and 63 at 10,000' DA.

Plus, at light weights, he's also recommended an approach speed higher than Va. Va at max gross is 110, dropping to 89 knots at 1950 lbs.

Let's just say I'm not quite sold on the DPE's idea just yet. Granted, he had one flight in the airplane and one approach to try out this idea, with me acting as faulty autopilot, so I'm not knocking him for looking for a solution to the speed issue.

Just goes to show that you don't necessarily want to do every single thing you're taught without applying a bit of thought to it. Even if the person who recommended it has more flight time than God and just gave you a checkride... Bust out the POH and apply a little brainpower to it.

People in the right seat of my airplane are always thinking it needs to fly faster. It's decked out as much as a 182 can be for slowwwwww unless you stick a canard on the nose cowling and up the horsepower to 300 for all that behind the power curve flying, as the one single even slower famous STOL mod for this airframe, does.

In the case of the 172 pilot, he should go study the landing distance tables. They'll tell a story that shouldn't be ignored. Fly it whatever way you want to, but fly it knowing what compromises you're accepting with the additional speed.

 

[jesse]

I'm not buying it. Doesn't sound like you are either. How about flying flaps 20 at 80?

After having watched things from the right seat for many hours in his airplane, and having flown it a little, I'm not convinced anything needed to change. Easiest is not always best..but it most certainly can fly fine at 90 knots with the flaps up.

That said I do have a great deal of respect for the DPE which is why I use him. He does checkrides as they should be done. I want a second opinion.

Perhaps there was a configuration I should have had Nate do that would have been better. There is always something to improve.

 

[jesse]

As to if one should be touching the flaps -- there is a LOT to consider here:

When I'm flying an approach in the Cherokee 180 I do not touch the flaps until I break out. The reason? It's dirt simple to apply them and speed isn't an issue. Just reach down and yank the old johnson bar. You've now got flaps.

When I'm flying the Debonair I also do not touch the flaps on an approach. The flap position indicator is literally painted lines on the flap. In order to have any idea how much flap you've deployed you must look over your shoulder at the wing. I have no interest in doing that while flying an approach in IMC. I do not touch the flaps until I've broken out and if I break out on a large runway with an ILS at minimums I wouldn't touch them at all.

If you're doing the above in an A36..well it has a flap selector that has three settings: Up, Approach, Land. You can easily apply approach flaps without much thought. Using flaps on the approach in it does make sense.

In a 172 or 182 I'm not convinced you need to apply flaps until you've broken out because well they aren't fast airplanes and they slow down easy. Why mess with things when they don't need to be messed with?

Get into slicker airplanes and now you want flaps on the approach.

There isn't a right answer to this, everyone will have a different answer, and it is very type and runway specific. The main thing is that whatever you do - you do so consistently so that you can do it well.

 

[sarangan]

If you're operating within the approved limits, why does proximity to cruise speed matter? Why wouldn't it be better to get the busy-work out of the way before reaching the FAF then just fly the approach and land without touching anything? Try it sometime, you may find that it's delightfully simple. I demonstrate this method frequently, several pilots have adopted it.

Being busy on short final isn't

The point I was trying to make was that 90 knots is too fast in a 172 for a final approach, but if that is what is being flown (due to ATC requests or other reasons) then I don't see the point of adding so much extra drag in a piston airplane at that speed. Yes, I teach all different instrument approach scenarios, from full flaps to no flaps, low speed to high speed so I am comfortable with all of them. Even flew a 120 knot approach to minimum in an Archer, but there I had over 10,000 ft of runway.

 

[Everskyward]

It would be hard to concentrate on the needles with the radio screaming about maintaining maximum forward speed.

ATC is not supposed to assign speed adjustments inside the final approach fix.

b. Do not assign speed adjustment to aircraft:

1. At or above FL 390 without pilot consent.

2. Executing a published high altitude instrument approach procedure.

3. In a holding pattern.

REFERENCE-
FAAO JO 7110.65, Para 4-6-4, Holding Instructions.

4. Inside the final approach fix on final or a point 5 miles from the runway, whichever is closer to the runway.

http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/atc/atc0507.html

 

[Fearless Tower]

ATC is not supposed to assign speed adjustments inside the final approach fix.


http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/atc/atc0507.html

I have most definitely been given the 'maintain maximum forward speed' on the ILS to near mins in a Warrior with 737s coming up behind at PVD.

Hear it lot at PHX too, although that tends to be mostly visual approaches.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Everskyward]

I have most definitely been given the 'maintain maximum forward speed' on the ILS to near mins in a Warrior with 737s coming up behind at PVD.

It would be interesting to hear from Roncachamp about this since it seems to state it clearly in this document.

 

[jesse]

I have most definitely been given the 'maintain maximum forward speed' on the ILS to near mins in a Warrior with 737s coming up behind at PVD.

Hear it lot at PHX too, although that tends to be mostly visual approaches.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

It would be interesting to hear from Roncachamp about this since it seems to state it clearly in this document.

I've received it many times -- but never inside the final approach fix or within 5 miles of the runway. They'll generally say it quite a bit before that.

They're not supposed to assign an adjustment inside the FAF or within 5 miles. Doesn't mean they can't tell you to go fast before that point expecting you'll continue to do so.

 

[Everskyward]

I've received it many times -- but never inside the final approach fix or within 5 miles of the runway. They'll generally say it quite a bit before that.

Right. We often hear something like "160 to [name of FAF]." But after that you can slow down to your normal approach speed. For us it's usually more like 130.

 

[Fearless Tower]

It would be interesting to hear from Roncachamp about this since it seems to state it clearly in this document.

Roncachamp has routinely stated that New England controllers do not do things by the book.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[denverpilot]

Jesse, I found bombing around Nebraska at 90 knots to be just fine for me. No worries. Never felt like you "missed" anything. It was far funnier to watch you try to figure out what the heck to do about slow flight under the hood, the way it'll slow up and rock back and forth with the rudder going stop to stop without a stall break. Especially when it was -10F outside. I was quite relieved when you said, "You're going to have to fly it faster to do slow flight under the hood. I was getting a workout! GRIN!

Wayne, Flaps 20 is an odd duck in my airplane. The ailerons droop with the flaps and at 20' they're almost equal. The entire wing is now at "Flaps 20" so to speak. The downside is that it limits up-aileron travel, so if you're dealing with a gusty crosswind, you probably don't want them there. It's also quite a bit of drag, but not outrageously so.

That said, the airplane is solid as a rock for straight and level in that configuration (with more power than clean, of course). One co-owner loves Flap 20 landings. They're more predictable and the speed doesn't bleed off rapidly like at Flaps 40. If you flare a little high with Flaps 20' you can fix it with nothing but pitch. If you do it at 40, you'd better be ready to add power to arrest the sink rate or it'll be an "arrival" more than a graceful landing.

I honestly haven't dabbled with Flaps 30 enough in it. I just get them all out there and deal with it. The ailerons are starting back up at that point.

(The P-models also have "detents" for those settings but the handle is attached to a continuous rheostat which means you can really put them anywhere in the range. It's nice for "slowly milking them up" if you find yourself in a scenario where you can just barely accelerate. Under the hood, I'm usually trying to avoid leaning over there and doing that over any extended period of time, so the handle gets moved to specific spots. VFR departing the pattern, I sometimes bring them up little bumps at a time, because you can make the transition very smooth doing that -- no real good reason other than its fun to try to change back pressure the exact amount needed for each small movement.)

And it's hard to describe just how rock-solid I mean by rock-solid. 182s are already pretty resistant to speed changes if the power is set and left alone. It's like you pitched it forward and attached the gear to a railroad rail at Flap 20 with power set for level flight at slow cruise.

(By the time the flaps reach 40, the ailerons have come back up and are only slightly down. I'm hunting for my PDF of the STC maintenance manual that details the rigging... it gives the specifics for how much aileron droop is involved at each flap position. Mis-rigging the aileron droop can probably make things quite exciting at flap extension.)

Anyway... I'll experiment a bit. I know 110 isn't the final answer but it did hold that speed flaps-up like it wanted to be there. I'm betting Flaps 10 or 20 with more power. I'm sure a configuration can be found that it wants to hold like a dog with a bone. 182s are known for being stable pickup trucks, it'll just take a little experimentation to find what this one really likes.

The DPE suspected that the leading edge cuff that's added in the Roberston system is what makes it "want" to slow down a bit as the angle of attack is changed around 90 knots indicated. I won't argue with that, I think he's dead-on. With Flap 10 out at 110 my butt felt odd, since the nose pitches downward at bit in that configuration, but it just sat there. My butt can be retrained.

It takes another inch of MP up here at home on top of the speeds and configurations that Jesse and I worked out, just because of the altitude... so I'll be playing around with it to get "high DA" numbers for it anyway, so it'll be a good time to re-do numbers with multiple flap configurations and then give it a little up or down push and see if it hunts with a phugoid or if it puts the nose back where it came from and goes back to the desired speed quickly or not.

I actually enjoy recording that kind of data so it'll be a fun flight.

The whole behavior is really subtle. As Jesse said, he was in the airplane and never felt it was any sort of issue. And I should give the DPE credit. One of my themes is "don't be a passenger". He noticed this subtle behavior and immediately set to work figuring out a way to "fix" it, even as subtle as it is. And used it as a learning experience during the ride, which is something I appreciate very much.

He had one flight in the airplane and went to work on finding a solution for a very subtle behavior. I've flown it for over 100 hours and thought it was just "normal". Once you have someone with that much experience point it out, only then does it become glaringly obvious.

Speaks volumes to his credit, even if the first attempted solution may not have been the "best" one. It certainly wasn't "bad".

And it shows that there's still an art to all of this stuff, and even with 100 hours in an airplane, there's always something new to learn.

 

[flyingron]

Nice thing about flying a relatively short landing distance plane on an ILS.
You rarely find ILSs to real short runways.

 

[poadeleted20]

By what standards is it a fast approach?

The FAA's, which suggest 1.4-1.5 Vs0, slowing to 1.3 Vs0 for the final visual segment. Flying the final segment of an instrument approach at nearly twice Vs0 unnecessarily complicates what you need to do when you break out visually at MDA or near DA. It's an advanced maneuver which need not be attempted until you are pretty comfortable with flying approaches in actual instrument conditions.

 

[wsuffa]

I have most definitely been given the 'maintain maximum forward speed' on the ILS to near mins in a Warrior with 737s coming up behind at PVD.

Hear it lot at PHX too, although that tends to be mostly visual approaches.

Likewise CLT. Though it was a 767 on my tail there.

It would be interesting to hear from Roncachamp about this since it seems to state it clearly in this document.

I think the difference is that the assignment is not, technically, a speed adjustment that is assigned. The times I've heard it used, it's been "maintaing best forward speed as long as possible, one mile from (final approach fix), cleared for the ILS whatever approach". The speed assignment is made outside the FAF, and it's pilot's discretion as to when "possible" is. Hence the need to have good pilot judgement in the plane you're flying. It's less of an issue if you're burning kerosene or you're flying a Lancair IV.

 

[wabower]

Simply respond with the maximum speed you are willing to use. Then both you and ATC know how what to expect. A number of factors can impact max fwd speed, some beyond yours or ATC's control.

I have most definitely been given the 'maintain maximum forward speed' on the ILS to near mins in a Warrior with 737s coming up behind at PVD.

Hear it lot at PHX too, although that tends to be mostly visual approaches.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD