no flaps landing from ILS approach

Ron Levy said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think a lot depends on what you're used to. I was taught to fly approaches in a 172 at 90 knots, so I'm used to it, and none of the CFIIs I've flown with since has ever complained about it. :dunno:
 
I was taught 90 knots in the 172 and in the TB-9, and when pulling off the hood at MDA for a non precision or at DA for an ILS it was easy to reconfigure for landing.

It's DIFFERENT when you really only have a mile or less visibility, or it's at night. The first time I flew an ILS to mins for real was to KTEB in snow and visibility was less than a mile, in a 206. I crossed the FAF at 90 but was at less than 80 with full flaps when I broke out because I slowed and changed configuration as part of the descent. I would not have wanted to be doing 90 and have to reconfigure the airplane in those conditions.
 
TMetzinger said:
It's DIFFERENT when you really only have a mile or less visibility, or it's at night. The first time I flew an ILS to mins for real was to KTEB in snow and visibility was less than a mile, in a 206. I crossed the FAF at 90 but was at less than 80 with full flaps when I broke out because I slowed and changed configuration as part of the descent. I would not have wanted to be doing 90 and have to reconfigure the airplane in those conditions.
Click to expand...

Did you use timing or DME to tell you when to do this?
 
Neither. As I hit the FAF, I reduced power more than needed for an ILS descent at 90., and adjusted pitch to remain on glideslope while decelerating. As I slowed I went from flaps 10 to flaps 20 and then flaps 30 while adjusting pitch for GS and power for airspeed, until I was stable, on GS, at maybe 78 KIAS. That took a couple hundred feet vertically.

I was familiar with the 206, I was comfortable flying in actual (even though this was the first approach where weather was reported at minimums), so it wasn't a big deal to maintain that speed until DA and beyond to very short final, where I pulled out power and settled to the runway. The 206 drops like a rock without power and full flaps.
 
Ron Levy said:
The FAA's, which suggest 1.4-1.5 Vs0, slowing to 1.3 Vs0 for the final visual segment.
Click to expand...
That is the visual segment - ie, after you break out.

When someone mentions approach speed when referring to flying an ILS, I typically take that as meaning the speed from the FAF inbound.
 
I am being taught in the 172M to be configured with one notch of flaps before the FAF and fly the GS at 100 mph. When I "break out", I pull the power and dump the rest of the flaps and land full flaps. Does not seem to be a problem. We do the ILS at KHST and cannot touch wheels. My instructor gets a bit nervous because I think most of his students go around as soon as they pull the hood off but I want to make sure I have that transition down so I take it to rounded at about 30' and then add the power.

Now I understand that you can get in a bit of a bind, time-wise, if you only have the lights at DA and continue lower without seeing the runway but that is the exception for most IFR scenarios, especially for Part 91, isn't it?

Is there some other reason for those that do not add flaps? Let's assume you break out at 300 or 400'?
 
I don't do enough approaches at different configurations to know, but consider the OP's reason may be the different sight pictures with flaps vs no flaps. Factor :dunno:
 
Just one more comment in case I haven't been clear. It think it's a very good thing for an instrument pilot to be able to fly his airplane in various configurations at various speeds all the way to touchdown, and be able to vary those configurations/speeds while tracking an ILS through the goo.

But the situation under discussion is (as I understand it) an instrument student, and the goal there is to find a limited set of options that consistently give the desired results and pass the checkride.

The other stuff, in my opinion, is advanced and comes later, unless the student has money and time to burn and wants to be "advanced" when he takes the checkride.
 
There is absolutely nothing "advanced" about extending the flaps prior to flying an ILS approach. If anything, it's much simpler than farting around with them at the end.



TMetzinger said:
Just one more comment in case I haven't been clear. It think it's a very good thing for an instrument pilot to be able to fly his airplane in various configurations at various speeds all the way to touchdown, and be able to vary those configurations/speeds while tracking an ILS through the goo.

But the situation under discussion is (as I understand it) an instrument student, and the goal there is to find a limited set of options that consistently give the desired results and pass the checkride.

The other stuff, in my opinion, is advanced and comes later, unless the student has money and time to burn and wants to be "advanced" when he takes the checkride.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
There is absolutely nothing "advanced" about extending the flaps prior to flying an ILS approach. If anything, it's much simpler than farting around with them at the end.
Click to expand...

Why does the FAA include wing flaps as part of The definition of complex?
 
Dunno. Maybe they decided that Pacers, Cessna 150's and other planes of the 1950's were too complicated for the average toad and needed to be defined differently.

Jaybird180 said:
Why does the FAA include wing flaps as part of The definition of complex?
Click to expand...
 
TMetzinger said:
Just one more comment in case I haven't been clear. It think it's a very good thing for an instrument pilot to be able to fly his airplane in various configurations at various speeds all the way to touchdown, and be able to vary those configurations/speeds while tracking an ILS through the goo.

But the situation under discussion is (as I understand it) an instrument student, and the goal there is to find a limited set of options that consistently give the desired results and pass the checkride.

The other stuff, in my opinion, is advanced and comes later, unless the student has money and time to burn and wants to be "advanced" when he takes the checkride.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, weather forecasts are not always good enough for a pilot to know, prior to takeoff, whether the weather at the destination will require "advanced" skills, or just enough to pass the checkride. That's why I'm glad that my CFII showed me how to reconfigure for a full-flaps landing after an ILS to minimums. As Bruce and others said, real world conditions could mandate a downwind ILS, or there could be water or ice on the runway.
 
wabower said:
There is absolutely nothing "advanced" about extending the flaps prior to flying an ILS approach. If anything, it's much simpler than farting around with them at the end.
Click to expand...

You missed my point entirely. "Advanced" would be extending them during the descent. I'd recommend a student extend them at or before the FAF or the GS intercept.
 
Palmpilot said:
Unfortunately, weather forecasts are not always good enough for a pilot to know, prior to takeoff, whether the weather at the destination will require "advanced" skills, or just enough to pass the checkride. That's why I'm glad that my CFII showed me how to reconfigure for a full-flaps landing after an ILS to minimums. As Bruce and others said, real world conditions could mandate a downwind ILS, or there could be water or ice on the runway.
Click to expand...

By the time the pilot is commencing the approach, he should have a very good idea of the weather on the approach, and fly accordingly.
 
Jaybird180 said:
Why does the FAA include wing flaps as part of The definition of complex?
Click to expand...

When I started my commercial in 1976, the 182 was "complex": cs prop and cowl flaps was complex enough.
 
Sorry. I mistakenly combined your comments with another post.

TMetzinger said:
You missed my point entirely. "Advanced" would be extending them during the descent. I'd recommend a student extend them at or before the FAF or the GS intercept.
Click to expand...
 
Wait. He took 3500 feet to land and stop a 152? Was he at Vne?
 
Ron Levy said:
That was never "complex.". Back then, you didn't need complex for commercial.
Click to expand...

IDK, it was a long time ago but my memory is that I could not do the commercial work in a 150 and had to move to the 182. So there was "something". Didn't the whole "complex" designation come along later?
 
Not at vne, just high on the glideslope (which puts ya down a little ways down the runway). Couple that with no flaps (floated a lot more than with 20 degrees) and approaching a little fast

If you're not comfortable adding flaps in a 172 and landing normally after breaking out at 200agl, you are probably not proficient enough to be shooting approaches to minimums.

I understand changing configurations while tracking the GS in the goo is an advanced thing and Tim is right.. I would not want my students doing that on a checkride.

Bruce brings up an interesting point. I took a ride with the DPE in question who had me land with an 8kt tailwind from an ils. I pulled power after breaking out, slowed, added 20 degrees of flaps, kept tracking the GS and landed normally. She said i did a great job.

If my friend is good at making no flaps landings in the 172 i think he'll do fine with the DPE, though if she has him pull the hood off a 400agl and he has all kinds of time (like in my original post) to add flaps and land normally, and he elects instead to make a no flaps landing, she might not like that too much.
 
alfadog said:
IDK, it was a long time ago but my memory is that I could not do the commercial work in a 150 and had to move to the 182. So there was "something"
Click to expand...
Greedy FBO/flight school?

Didn't the whole "complex" designation come along later?
Click to expand...
I know it was not in effect for CP and CFI when I got my CFI in 1973, but it was in effect when reinstated my CFI (which lapsed while I was floating around in the middle of the Pacific Ocean) in June 1977.

The only case where complex and a straight-leg 182 might have gotten mixed up was the old system where you needed a "high performance" endorsement for any plane over 200 HP or with retractable gear/etc. Only thing was, you could get the endorsement in one and be covered for the other, which I thought and still think was pretty pointless. Further, the FAA made it worse by not coming up with a new name for the over-200HP class when they split off complex. As a result, people who'd earned their "high performance" endorsement in an Arrow but had never flown an over-200HP plane before the split were not legal after the split to fly a Dakota or C-182 or the like, even though they had an endorsement which said "high performance" in their logbooks. I've tripped over a couple of them in recent years illegally but unwittingly flying things like a Cherokee Six.
 
Ron Levy said:
Greedy FBO/flight school?

I know it was not in effect for CP and CFI when I got my CFI in 1973, but it was in effect when reinstated my CFI (which lapsed while I was floating around in the middle of the Pacific Ocean) in June 1977.

The only case where complex and a straight-leg 182 might have gotten mixed up was the old system where you needed a "high performance" endorsement for any plane over 200 HP or with retractable gear/etc. Only thing was, you could get the endorsement in one and be covered for the other, which I thought and still think was pretty pointless. Further, the FAA made it worse by not coming up with a new name for the over-200HP class when they split off complex. As a result, people who'd earned their "high performance" endorsement in an Arrow but had never flown an over-200HP plane before the split were not legal after the split to fly a Dakota or C-182 or the like, even though they had an endorsement which said "high performance" in their logbooks. I've tripped over a couple of them in recent years illegally but unwittingly flying things like a Cherokee Six.
Click to expand...

Interesting. Thanks. I tried to find older CFRs online but the free versions only go back to 1996 or so. Older than that are only subscription-based like Lexus that I do not have access to. Oh well, no biggie.
 
Ron Levy said:
Greedy FBO/flight school?

I know it was not in effect for CP and CFI when I got my CFI in 1973, but it was in effect when reinstated my CFI (which lapsed while I was floating around in the middle of the Pacific Ocean) in June 1977.

The only case where complex and a straight-leg 182 might have gotten mixed up was the old system where you needed a "high performance" endorsement for any plane over 200 HP or with retractable gear/etc. Only thing was, you could get the endorsement in one and be covered for the other, which I thought and still think was pretty pointless. Further, the FAA made it worse by not coming up with a new name for the over-200HP class when they split off complex. As a result, people who'd earned their "high performance" endorsement in an Arrow but had never flown an over-200HP plane before the split were not legal after the split to fly a Dakota or C-182 or the like, even though they had an endorsement which said "high performance" in their logbooks. I've tripped over a couple of them in recent years illegally but unwittingly flying things like a Cherokee Six.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't the FAA just have grandfathered them like they did with tailwheel?
 
Jaybird180 said:
Wouldn't the FAA just have grandfathered them like they did with tailwheel?
Click to expand...
Only if they had actually logged PIC time in an over-200HP plane before the effective date of the new rule, just like they did with tailwheel.
(2) The training and endorsement required by paragraph (f)(1) of this section is not required if the person has logged flight time as pilot in command of a high-performance airplane, or in a flight simulator or flight training device that is representative of a high-performance airplane prior to August 4, 1997.
Click to expand...
(2) The training and endorsement required by paragraph (i)(1) of this section is not required if the person logged pilot-in-command time in a tailwheel airplane before April 15, 1991.
Click to expand...
A pre-1997 HP endorsement earned in an airplane of 200HP or less does not count to meet the current HP requirement, since the current reg requires that the training for the endorsement have been in "an airplane with an engine of more than 200HP." Thus, a pre-1997 HP endorsement earned in a plane which is not high performance by current rules, say, a Piper Arrow, doesn't meet the current regulation for a HP endorsement, and doesn't fill that requirement. If someone with such an endorsement had flown even a few minutes in a C-182 or Dakota or the like before 8/4/97, they'd be grandfathered under the exception above, but if not, they need a "new" HP endorsement in something which meets the current definition.
 
Ron Levy said:
Only if they had actually logged PIC time in an over-200HP plane before the effective date of the new rule, just like they did with tailwheel.


A pre-1997 HP endorsement earned in an airplane of 200HP or less does not count to meet the current HP requirement, since the current reg requires that the training for the endorsement have been in "an airplane with an engine of more than 200HP." Thus, a pre-1997 HP endorsement earned in a plane which is not high performance by current rules, say, a Piper Arrow, doesn't meet the current regulation for a HP endorsement, and doesn't fill that requirement. If someone with such an endorsement had flown even a few minutes in a C-182 or Dakota or the like before 8/4/97, they'd be grandfathered under the exception above, but if not, they need a "new" HP endorsement in something which meets the current definition.
Click to expand...


Yes, I would not need an HP endorsement as I have PIC time in the 182 from 1976 but did need to get the complex endorsement to fly the Arrow. My club has a 182 and all I would need is a checkout. Never bothered as I would rather fly my Arrow for less money.
 
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.
Click to expand...

That's the way I was taught. I don't see any need to blaze down the ILS unless ATC has a problem with you proceeding at a slower speed. Flying a little slower when things are busy makes it easier on the pilot.
 
The airplane does not know what the weather is. As Three-Fingered Jack says, just fly it like a normal approach...hang out approach flaps before you start down. Without getting into the math, it should take about 40 seconds from breakout to runway; if anyone thinks that 40 seconds is a short time, I volunteer to stick my finger in his/her eye for a mere five seconds (holding it there, of course) while they re-evaluate that opinion. Forty seconds is more than enough to hang out landing flaps and do whatever needs to be done to land safely.

Bob Gardner
 
Ron Levy said:
Greedy FBO/flight school?

I know it was not in effect for CP and CFI when I got my CFI in 1973, but it was in effect when reinstated my CFI (which lapsed while I was floating around in the middle of the Pacific Ocean) in June 1977.

The only case where complex and a straight-leg 182 might have gotten mixed up was the old system where you needed a "high performance" endorsement for any plane over 200 HP or with retractable gear/etc. Only thing was, you could get the endorsement in one and be covered for the other, which I thought and still think was pretty pointless. Further, the FAA made it worse by not coming up with a new name for the over-200HP class when they split off complex. As a result, people who'd earned their "high performance" endorsement in an Arrow but had never flown an over-200HP plane before the split were not legal after the split to fly a Dakota or C-182 or the like, even though they had an endorsement which said "high performance" in their logbooks. I've tripped over a couple of them in recent years illegally but unwittingly flying things like a Cherokee Six.
Click to expand...

I took my commercial ride in an Aeronca 7EC in 1958 and my instrument rating in a Tri-Pacer not too long after that.

I believe you're in the ballpark about complex coming along in the mid-1970s or thereabouts.
 
Why would anyone change configuration while on the GP and LOC?

Okay, ATC tells you to keep your speed up because a B-757 is behind you and you expect to break out at 1,500' AGL anyway. I get that.

But if you're shooting a real live, no kidding ILS to mins why wouldn't you just configure to landing status? Gear and Flaps in the landing config? What's gained by moving flaps below 200' AGL? What's lost?
 
Captain said:
Why would anyone change configuration while on the GP and LOC?
Click to expand...
Because they aren't flying jet. Kind of silly to be flying the needles in from the FAF to touchdown with full flaps in a PA28 or 172.

So, you either land with little to no flaps or you reconfigure before landing.
 
I see no reason one can't dump full flaps after crossing the fence.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Because they aren't flying jet. Kind of silly to be flying the needles in from the FAF to touchdown with full flaps in a PA28 or 172.

So, you either land with little to no flaps or you reconfigure before landing.
Click to expand...

That would take quite a while. At 90 kts you have plenty of time between the FAF and DH
 
Jaybird180 said:
I see no reason one can't dump full flaps after crossing the fence.
Click to expand...
That's what I teach. Just enough flaps to get the big pitch trim change out of the way before you start the final segment, and then drop the rest when you commit to land, just as you'd do on half a mile final or so in the VFR pattern. But changing configuration between GS intercept and the decision-to-land point just makes the approach that much more difficult, and you can play with that fancy stuff after you have both the rating and some wet-wing time.
 
I have a hard time seeing dumping more flaps between the runway and 100' above TDZE. Seems way too close to be changing the shape of the wing to me and I've thought that way before I ever flew a jet.
 
Different strokes for different folks, I guess.
 
Captain said:
I have a hard time seeing dumping more flaps between the runway and 100' above TDZE. Seems way too close to be changing the shape of the wing to me and I've thought that way before I ever flew a jet.
Click to expand...

The wing changes in a very predictable manner.

I understand there are situations where you don't want to add flaps.

But a no flaps landing in a 172 after every approach? They land much better with flaps...
 
Last edited:
I frankly don't think it matters at all, and changing flap settings with runway assured is about as as simple as any maneuver pilots are required to perform. But when the edict came down that flap changes were not permitted since they violated the FAA's "stabilized approach" concept, we had no choice but to comply. Fortunately, this idiocy didn't last long and we soon received a memo that "clarification of interpretation" had been issued by FSDO and we were free to continue teaching and testing the same procedure as before. In the meantime, however, we knew that making book (landing distance) numbers required full flaps, so the only way to get them out and pass the check-ride was to extend them prior to FAF.

Events of this nature are the reason I answer every question regarding "what the FAA wants/thinks/likes/recommends" with "who at the FAA?" Some of us still remember when the FAA decided that altitude is controlled by the yoke and speed by the throttle.

Jaybird180 said:
Why would it matter 50-100 agl and stability is maintained?
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top