When can you descend from circling MDA?

[flyboy595]

Whats up guys,
quick question on descent from MDA on a circling approach. Ive been doing research on this and am getting tons of different answers. Since the FARs allow for descent from MDA when the aircraft is in a position to land with a normal descent rate, has the required in flight visibility, and has the runway in sight, can you begin the circling descent whenever you want? I don't see why it would break any regs to descend on downwind, if thats how you normally fly a pattern and you're maintaining visual obstacle clearance.

 

[HighFlyingA380]

Whats up guys,
quick question on descent from MDA on a circling approach. Ive been doing research on this and am getting tons of different answers. Since the FARs allow for descent from MDA when the aircraft is in a position to land with a normal descent rate, has the required in flight visibility, and has the runway in sight, can you begin the circling descent whenever you want? I don't see why it would break any regs to descend on downwind, if thats how you normally fly a pattern and you're maintaining visual obstacle clearance.

While you may start descending on the downwind during a normal pattern, remember that when at MDA, you're now quite a bit lower than VFR pattern altitude. So, if you started descending while abeam the numbers with a "normal descent rate," then you'll be too low. So you'll normally need to maintain MDA until base/final before you begin descending in order to maintain the "normal descent rate."

 

[poadeleted20]

Since the FARs allow for descent from MDA when the aircraft is in a position to land with a normal descent rate, has the required in flight visibility, and has the runway in sight,

That's pretty close to the regulation, which requires three things to leave MDA:

• Required flight visibility (measured from the cockpit, not on the ground)
• The aircraft is continuously in a position from which a descent to a landing on the intended runway can be made at a normal rate of descent using normal maneuvers, and
• Runway environment in sight.

The flight vis part is pretty straight-forward -- you look out the window and decide if you can see that far or not.

The runway environment is defined in 91.175 as consisting of ten items, any one of which is sufficient to leave MDA. However, on a circling maneuver, you might want a bit more than just the approach light system in sight -- personally I'd want the whole runway and the area around the airport to be visible so I don't run into anything sticking up on the path I'll be flying from where I am to the runway.

The "normal rate of descent/normal maneuvers" is a bit harder to nail down. I pretty much look at it as though I were arriving VFR, and never go below where I'd be in the VFR traffic pattern to that runway. So, if the HAA for that MDA was 1200 feet, I'd be descending from MDA on the downwind. However, if the HAA was 400 feet, I'd stay at MDA until making the base to final turn -- the same place I'd be leaving 400 AGL in the VFR pattern.

can you begin the circling descent whenever you want?

No -- only when you have all three of those listed parameters met. But once you do, you're on your own to descend safely without hitting anything.

I don't see why it would break any regs to descend on downwind, if thats how you normally fly a pattern and you're maintaining visual obstacle clearance.

If the MDA is above normal TPA, I agree. If the MDA is below normal TPA, I would hold the descent a bit further as described above.

 

[poadeleted20]

While you may start descending on the downwind during a normal pattern, remember that when at MDA, you're now quite a bit lower than VFR pattern altitude.

Not always (I've seen HAA's well above TPA, even as much as 1800 feet), but if it is lower than TPA, then leaving MDA at that point would not be using normal maneuvers and a normal rate of descent as required by 91.175.

So, if you started descending while abeam the numbers with a "normal descent rate," then you'll be too low. So you'll normally need to maintain MDA until base/final before you begin descending in order to maintain the "normal descent rate."

Exactly so when the MDA is below TPA.

 

[flyboy595]

Make sense. Thanks guys. One more: is there a ROT for when to slow down? If I fly approaches at 90 kts do I wait until I start that descent to reduce power?
edit: in a 172 where normal speed on final is around 65

 

[coloradobluesky]

At some point you transition from flying the plane in IMC (or simulated IMC) to VFR. At that point you start flying the plane VFR. Take the googles off and join the pattern and fly the plane. Get into the pattern and land the plane normally. It helps if you work it out ahead of time so you know which way to turn.

Instead of going missed, go ahead and transition into the pattern and land the plane during practice. You can scrub speed anywhere you can pull the power and level out. Fly the pattern at normal pattern speeds and flap settings.

Wouldn't hurt to practice some downwind landings. Real IFR ops sometimes require them. Would you rather take the ILS and a 15 knot tailwind and get down to 200' or take the VOR and only get down to 800', when the ceiling is, oh, say 600'??

People wonder if they can land the plane after coming out of the clouds on a "real" approach. All I can say, is, you better be able to. Just transition back to VFR flying like you've already done a lot of. You'll be able to do it, no problem.

 

[poadeleted20]

Make sense. Thanks guys. One more: is there a ROT for when to slow down? If I fly approaches at 90 kts do I wait until I start that descent to reduce power?
edit: in a 172 where normal speed on final is around 65

For instrument approaches in light singles like yours, PIC teaches slowing to instrument approach speed (90 in your case) and configuring for the approach (10 degrees of flap in your 172):

• 3 minutes/5 miles from the IAF for a full approach
• turning perpendicular to the final approach course ("base leg") when being vectored around the "box pattern"
• 5-10 miles from the FAF when receiving vectors to final

This accomplishes several things:

• Slows the plane enough that you will be able to select full flaps for landing later on without worrying about max flap speed
• Slows the process so you have more time to think (important for IR trainees and new IFR pilots)
• Moves tasks which have to be done up further so you aren't flailing to get them done on final at the expense of maintaining good course/GS tracking
• Ensures a more stabilized approach

As one becomes more comfortable with instrument approaches, you can delay your initial configuration for full approaches to a point further in. That's a matter of practice and experience, but we always recommend being approach-configured (gear/flaps/prop/etc) no later than the FAF regardless of your experience level.

So, for a circling approach, by the PIC method, you'd already be in typical downwind configuration long before reaching circling MDA. That really improves your chances of finding the runway and safely maneuvering within the lateral limits of the circling protected area (1.3 nm for a Category A operation in a C-172) as well as avoiding distractions of retrimming or reconfiguring during the circling maneuver.

Regardless of how you get there, we teach that full flaps and slowing to landing approach speed (65 in your case) is done at the "commit to land" point, about 400 feet (or less on an ILS to mins) on final with all 91.175 parameters met. In the case of a circling approach, that would about 400 feet AGL at 3/4 mile from the runway -- right be about where you'd turn final in the VFR pattern.

 

[John Collins]

I would be extra careful in descending while circling. Remember there is only 300 feet of clearance from the terrain or obstacles in the circling area at MDA. At night you just might not see those obstructions on downwind or base. As far as I am concerned, I don't want to start my descent until on base or final. If the MDA is well above the pattern altitude, I am not inclined to circle, particularly at night.

 

[poadeleted20]

I would be extra careful in descending while circling. Remember there is only 300 feet of clearance from the terrain or obstacles in the circling area at MDA. At night you just might not see those obstructions on downwind or base. As far as I am concerned, I don't want to start my descent until on base or final. If the MDA is well above the pattern altitude, I am not inclined to circle, particularly at night.

That's certainly a choice one can make, but if you do decide to circle from a high MDA, remember that if the MDA is "well above pattern altitude", it is not possible to wait until base/final to leave MDA and still be able to stay within the circling maneuvering area while using only normal maneuvers and a normal rate of descent. Your only choices are to descend as you would in the normal VFR pattern or, like John, go somewhere else.

 

[tehmightypirate]

As one becomes more comfortable with instrument approaches, you can delay your initial configuration for full approaches to a point further in. That's a matter of practice and experience, but we always recommend being approach-configured (gear/flaps/prop/etc) no later than the FAF regardless of your experience level.

Ron, do you recommend deploying flaps before even being on the glide slope for a precision approach? I've tried it when I lower flaps prior to intercepting the glide slope and after and found that if I deploy 10 degrees flaps while on the glide slope it really can mess me up sometimes.

The routine I've adopted is being setup for the approach descent (flaps, speed, etc) prior to intercepting the FAF (which also insures being setup prior to FAF).

 

[jordane93]

Ron, do you recommend deploying flaps before even being on the glide slope for a precision approach? I've tried it when I lower flaps prior to intercepting the glide slope and after and found that if I deploy 10 degrees flaps while on the glide slope it really can mess me up sometimes.

The routine I've adopted is being setup for the approach descent (flaps, speed, etc) prior to intercepting the FAF (which also insures being setup prior to FAF).

I was taught to get the first notch of flaps in and 90 kts before the FAF

 

[Captain]

For a precision approach I complete the final configuration AT the FAF. If GS intercept is at the lowest published intercept altitude then the configuration starts with the GS coming alive and final flaps occur at capture. If I capture the GS above the lowest published intercept altitude then I fly it clean until I get within a mile or so to be fully configured at the FAF.

For non-precision approaches I cross the FAF with gear down and partial flaps. I am confined prior to the FAF by a mile or so to see the exact power required to hold level. This will be used again at MDA. At MDA I put full flaps when I have the runway or lights and start a descent. The extra drag helps here. The standard call in this situation is, "Flaps down, leaving MDA, cancel my Flight Director, confirm missed approach altitude set'. Verbatim, every time.

In the past three planes I've flown having full flaps and flying level at MDA is just way too much drag. An engine failure would set up a real ugly situation where power and flap retraction would be necessary for continued life...all happening way too close to Vmc for my comfort.

 

[poadeleted20]

For a precision approach I complete the final configuration AT the FAF. If GS intercept is at the lowest published intercept altitude then the configuration starts with the GS coming alive and final flaps occur at capture. If I capture the GS above the lowest published intercept altitude then I fly it clean until I get within a mile or so to be fully configured at the FAF.

Those are more advanced techniques that I suggest one not try to use until one is comfortable flying precision approaches with a less demanding technique such as what PIC teaches for IR training as I described earlier.

 

[poadeleted20]

Ron, do you recommend deploying flaps before even being on the glide slope for a precision approach?

For those new to instrument flying, absolutely yes, especially in planes like the high-wing Cessnas which have a dramatic pitch trim change with the application of the first increment of flaps. You don't need to increase the difficulty factor of the GS intercept by adding a large trim change to the equation rather than just reducing power and letting the nose drop three degrees.

I've tried it when I lower flaps prior to intercepting the glide slope and after and found that if I deploy 10 degrees flaps while on the glide slope it really can mess me up sometimes.

Exactly my point.

The routine I've adopted is being setup for the approach descent (flaps, speed, etc) prior to intercepting the FAF (which also insures being setup prior to FAF).

That's a very good technique for those in instrument training or recently instrument rated. Once you get all the skills more internalized by exercise over months or years of instrument flying, you can try the more difficult techniques such as Captain uses for configuring on precision approaches.

 

[peerlesscowboy]

Ron, do you recommend deploying flaps before even being on the glide slope for a precision approach? I've tried it when I lower flaps prior to intercepting the glide slope and after and found that if I deploy 10 degrees flaps while on the glide slope it really can mess me up sometimes.

The routine I've adopted is being setup for the approach descent (flaps, speed, etc) prior to intercepting the FAF (which also insures being setup prior to FAF).

FWIW, in something like a Skyhawk (I fly a Cessna 170) the airplane is quite stable at 90 knots with zero flaps. Just trim for 90 kt prior to FAF and when you intercept the GS power back and slide down the 'slope. The advantage here is you don't have to deal with a pitch change associated with a flap reconfiguration early in a missed approach, OTOH if you've got the runway in sight at DH you'll have plenty of time to deploy landing flaps then (you're still half a mile from the runway).

 

[poadeleted20]

FWIW, in something like a Skyhawk (I fly a Cessna 170) the airplane is quite stable at 90 knots with zero flaps. Just trim for 90 kt prior to FAF and when you intercept the GS power back and slide down the 'slope. The advantage here is you don't have to deal with a pitch change associated with a flap reconfiguration early in a missed approach, OTOH if you've got the runway in sight at DH you'll have plenty of time to deploy landing flaps then (you're still half a mile from the runway).

For the average 172 pilot, who probably flies more like 50-100 hours a year, trying slow from 90 knots clean at 200 fee to proper landing speed with full flaps isn't going to help the quality of your landings. Based on my observation of those who try it, you will almost certainly be landing long, floating, porpoising, etc, and that leads to landing accidents. Saving the day by going around in such conditions means having to shoot another approach to mins. Also, going from 10 flaps to zero flaps after applying full throttle and pitching to climb attitude (about 8 degrees nose up) is no harder than what you do on a go-around off a balked landing (probably easier since you have only 10 flaps instead of 30-40), and you've trained for that since pre-solo days.

All things considered, PIC has refined its recommendations to IR trainees and new IFR pilots over more than three decades based on experience with what works best, so I'll stick with that.

 

[peerlesscowboy]

For the average 172 pilot, who probably flies more like 50-100 hours a year, trying slow from 90 knots clean at 200 feet to proper landing speed with full flaps isn't going to help the quality of your landings. ................

At 90 knots in a 172 you can start deploying flaps immediately if desired at which point I'd hardly call the airplane "clean" if one could ever call a Skyhawk "clean".
I'll defer to you on the abilities of the "average 172 pilot" but I'd suggest if a guy can't gracefully slow a 172 from 90 knots clean to a proper landing speed and configuration in half a mile he needs some serious recurrent training.

 

[EdFred]

At 90 knots in a 172 you can start deploying flaps immediately if desired at which point I'd hardly call the airplane "clean" if one could ever call a Skyhawk "clean".
I'll defer to you on the abilities of the "average 172 pilot" but I'd suggest if a guy can't gracefully slow a 172 from 90 knots clean to a proper landing speed and configuration in half a mile he needs some serious recurrent training.

Especially since a precision approach has you aiming for a strip of concrete that is 99% of the time going to be a mile long. Even early on my instructors had me doing late transitions, and I do the same thing with all my students. There's no reason that once visual, you shouldn't be able to nose up slip to kill off speed, and then let the slip out and get back to normal attitude once dirty.

Sound more like deficiency with the instructors, rather than the (student) pilots.

 

[austinglasair]

I'd rather be at MDA if I inadvertently punched back in during the circling maneuver rather than being lower than MDA. I'm protected within the radius of TERP'd area for that category at that altitude.

 

[Captain]

Those are more advanced techniques that I suggest one not try to use until one is comfortable flying precision approaches with a less demanding technique such as what PIC teaches for IR training as I described earlier.

You obviously have more experience training ILS's than I.

Are you saying you teach to be 'fully' configured while flying level and waiting to capture the GS? I don't remember the flap speeds in a Cessna but it seems like you'd be going very slow 5 miles or more from the runway. I'd be cautious that my student would be cut loose from training and then find themselves at an airport with an ILS and faster traffic behind. 60kts is a mile a minute so a 5 mile final would take 5 minutes assuming no wind. Throw wind into it and that last segment could be very long indeed.

Maybe I mis read you. I guess the question is do you train level intercept with fully deployed flaps or just final configuration at some partial flap setting?

 

[poadeleted20]

You obviously have more experience training ILS's than I.

Are you saying you teach to be 'fully' configured while flying level and waiting to capture the GS?

Depends on what you mean by "fully". What PIC teaches (and I adopted) for initial IR training is approach configuration, not landing configuration, for the entire approach. That would be gear down, first increment of flaps, prop to climb setting, and speed inside the white arc so full flap extension can be made promptly upon "commit to land" (or as much of that as is applicable to what you're flying). We teach folks learning instrument flying to assume that configuration as discussed in Post #3.

For refresher training with pilots who've been flying IFR for a while, I'm happy for them to do some slowing from cruise (especially in complex airplanes), but only down maybe just inside the top of the partial flap or gear extension range (whichever is lower so both can be extended later) by the IAF, and then down inside the white arc approaching the FAF. However, as stated above, I really want folks to have that first increment of flaps set before the FAF so there's not nearly the pitch change and ballooning tendency upon application of landing flaps. If you're flying an ILS to mins, that effect going from zero to landing flaps could send you back up into the clouds or sailing way above the glide path before you control it (I've seen folks gain 50 feet doing that) or have you in a rather unstabilized decelerating condition at 50-100 feet, and that isn't good, either.

I don't remember the flap speeds in a Cessna but it seems like you'd be going very slow 5 miles or more from the runway.

Even for a C-172, our system would still allow you to be a 90 knots on the final segment, and I don't think anyone would consider that "very slow" unless you were at ATL or ORD at rush hour.

I'd be cautious that my student would be cut loose from training and then find themselves at an airport with an ILS and faster traffic behind. 60kts is a mile a minute so a 5 mile final would take 5 minutes assuming no wind. Throw wind into it and that last segment could be very long indeed.

I agree, and that's why we teach staying inside the white arc (around 100 KIAS in a 172/182), not slowing to landing speed (60-65 knots in those planes).

Maybe I mis read you. I guess the question is do you train level intercept with fully deployed flaps or just final configuration at some partial flap setting?

The latter -- typically 10 degrees in a 172.

 

[peerlesscowboy]

.................... I don't remember the flap speeds in a Cessna but it seems like you'd be going very slow 5 miles or more from the runway. ...........

Top of the white arc in a 170B is 100 mph, convert that to knots and you've got roughly 90 kts or so? At that speed zero vs 10* flap is I'd say mostly a matter of preference? If you're coming into the aforementioned ORD at rush hour I'd guess approach would expect you to pedal a little faster.

 

[peerlesscowboy]

.............................
Even for a C-172, our system would still allow you to be a 90 knots on the final segment, and I don't think anyone would consider that "very slow" unless you were at ATL or ORD at rush hour.
.........

My system allows you to be at 90 knots on final too, the only difference is where you chose to start dropping flaps. And if the approach controller at ORD tells you to "keep your speed up" that's not a problem.

 

[poadeleted20]

My system allows you to be at 90 knots on final too, the only difference is where you chose to start dropping flaps.

...and that means increasing the difficulty factor. Yes, I'm sure you can handle it, but after a couple of thousand hours giving instrument flight training to IR trainees, I'm here to tell you that folks get through IR training and the IR practical test with a lot less sweat (and training time) if they do it the PIC way.

 

[HighFlyingA380]

... If you're coming into the aforementioned ORD at rush hour I'd guess approach would expect you to pedal a little faster.

They (cough cough Mark... ) complain if we're only doin' 140... They stop being verbally perturbed (abusive? ) once we pass 160.

 

[peerlesscowboy]

...and that means increasing the difficulty factor. Yes, I'm sure you can handle it, but after a couple of thousand hours giving instrument flight training to IR trainees, I'm here to tell you that folks get through IR training and the IR practical test with a lot less sweat (and training time) if they do it the PIC way.

I'll take your word for that, OTOH personally I don't find it more difficult.

 

[peerlesscowboy]

They (cough cough Mark... ) complain if we're only doin' 140... They stop being verbally perturbed (abusive? ) once we pass 160.

My red line is 160 mph, the whiz wheel says that's 137 knots, "that's all I got".

 

[PPC1052]

The "normal rate of descent/normal maneuvers" is a bit harder to nail down. I pretty much look at it as though I were arriving VFR, and never go below where I'd be in the VFR traffic pattern to that runway. So, if the HAA for that MDA was 1200 feet, I'd be descending from MDA on the downwind. However, if the HAA was 400 feet, I'd stay at MDA until making the base to final turn -- the same place I'd be leaving 400 AGL in the VFR pattern.

No -- only when you have all three of those listed parameters met. But once you do, you're on your own to descend safely without hitting anything.

If the MDA is above normal TPA, I agree. If the MDA is below normal TPA, I would hold the descent a bit further as described above.

I heard a DPE giving a presentation on taking the IFR check ride who analogized this to a VOR A. Given that a straight in approach can be up to 30 degrees off center before it is considered a VOR A (with only circling minimums), she believed that you can begin your descent (assuming the other requirements are met) if you are within 30 degrees of the center of the run way.

Your thoughts?

 

[poadeleted20]

I heard a DPA giving a presentation on taking the IFR check ride who analogized this to a VOR A. Given that a straight in approach can be up to 30 degrees off center before it is considered a VOR A (with only circling minimums), she believed that you can begin your descent (assuming the other requirements are met) if you are within 30 degrees of the center of the run way.

Bad idea. The fact that straight-in mins may be given for a final approach course which is up to 30 degrees off the runway centerline (at least for Category A/B -- the limit is 15 for Cat C/D) does not protect you if you deviate off the final approach course outside the circling maneuver area. Further, inside the circling maneuver area, you get no more protection within 30 degrees of any runway centerline than you do anywhere else in that area, so being within 30 degrees of the runway doesn't change the fact that if you go below MDA while circling you could hit something. The only difference would be that on an approach with OCS protection (like an ILS or an LPV with the little gray shaded area at the bottom) you would have the 40:1 surface protected very close to the centerline. But even on a straight-in to an on-airport navaid, the trapezoid for protection at straight-in mins is nowhere near 30 degrees either side. Any way you look at it, you cannot safely leave MDA on a circling approach unless you can see everything along your flight path between you and the intended runway.

That said, I have heard some folks suggest that in order to avoid hitting things, one should not descend below MDA until within 30 degrees of the runway centerline, but that is only a slight variation in the recommendation some folks make about not leaving circling MDA until established on final to the landing runway. Either way, as discussed earlier, those are not viable suggestions if the MDA is more than about 500-600 AGL because if you wait that long, you would be too high to descend to the runway using "normal maneuvers and a normal rate of descent". Just realize that once you do leave MDA your obstruction protection is gone, so make sure you can see everything in your path to the runway before you do.

 

[azure]

I'll defer to you on the abilities of the "average 172 pilot" but I'd suggest if a guy can't gracefully slow a 172 from 90 knots clean to a proper landing speed and configuration in half a mile he needs some serious recurrent training.

I agree. I had some reservations about whether I'd be able to do it when I started instrument training in a 172. My CFII was against putting in partial flaps before breaking out because ATC regularly asked for "best forward speed" at local towered fields. So I went out solo at PTK and tried it in visual conditions. Down to short final on the VASI until 200 AGL, then slowed, added full flaps, and tried to land. The first time I was a bit sloppy and used half the runway, but I quickly got the hang of it. As Ed says, we are not talking a short field at Podunkville, this is at least a mile long runway and you are aiming for a point ~1000 feet past the threshold anyway. It shouldn't be beyond the skills of anyone who can get through a BFR.

 

[poadeleted20]

I agree. I had some reservations about whether I'd be able to do it when I started instrument training in a 172. My CFII was against putting in partial flaps before breaking out because ATC regularly asked for "best forward speed" at local towered fields. So I went out solo at PTK and tried it in visual conditions. Down to short final on the VASI until 200 AGL, then slowed, added full flaps, and tried to land. The first time I was a bit sloppy and used half the runway, but I quickly got the hang of it. As Ed says, we are not talking a short field at Podunkville, this is at least a mile long runway and you are aiming for a point ~1000 feet past the threshold anyway. It shouldn't be beyond the skills of anyone who can get through a BFR.

Landing accidents are #1 on the FAA's light plane accident hit parade, and nearly all of them involve unstabilized approaches. Every pilot seems to think s/he is Chuck Yeager, but the statistics show us that most folks aren't that good, and if they keep making unstabilized approaches to landings like the ones John and azure are describing, eventually they bend metal. Doing this in minimum weather conditions is just asking for trouble.

And so is letting a controller fly your plane. If the controller asks for "best forward speed," give them the best speed you can while ensuring a safe landing. I guarantee that telling the FAA Inspector investigating your landing accident "The controller wanted best forward speed" is not going to get you out of a 709 ride, and if you do this on that ride, you will not pass. In fact, it was just this sort of thing that led a pilot I know into a landing accident which resulted in a 709 ride, and this specific point was discussed at length by the Inspector giving the ride (at which I was in attendance, having retrained that pilot before the ride). I also guarantee you will never be written up by the FSDO for refusing to speed up on final above what you think is the proper speed for your aircraft under those conditions just to make a controller happy.

 

[azure]

Whatever. As I said, I had reservations at first too, and for the same reasons. Sounds like an unstabilized approach, too much to do in a short span of time and space. I found that the key was pulling the power to idle immediately, using pitch and trim to slow down in a steady, methodical way, and not trying to force the airplane onto the ground. And I never claimed to be a great stick.

If someone can't do it safely, then they should either get more training or not do it. But around here, you will have limited options for practicing the ILS if you insist on flying the whole descent on the GS at < 85 kts.

 

[EdFred]

Crappy instructors = crappy pilots.

Odd how some of us know more crappy pilots than others. Also sounds like some flight instructors are only doing what's needed to have the student pass the PTS. I always go a few notches further.

 

[dtuuri]

Just realize that once you do leave MDA your obstruction protection is gone, so make sure you can see everything in your path to the runway before you do.

At night, obstructions that penetrate a 3° slope in the visual portion of the final approach course are supposed to be lighted. Since the visual portion is only 8° to 9° left or right of centerline, that's where you'd normally be starting a rollout on final. Staying at MDA until rolling out on final at an unfamiliar airport and making a steeper than normal approach should protect against unknown obstacles, but introduces other potential risks, like landing too long. At some airports, like you say, it can't be done at all. Aspen or Eagle come to mind. Tred carefully when it comes to night circling approaches at unfamiliar fields.

From TERPS:

"250. FINAL APPROACH SEGMENT. <snip>
A visual portion within the final approach segment is also assessed for all
approaches (see Vol. 1, chapter 3, paragraph 3.3.2d)."​

There's a link to TERPS here, fourth column: http://www.avclicks.com/lessons.html

See page 3-15 for paragraph 3.3.2d as referenced in the above quote for the whole pizza.

dtuuri

 

[peerlesscowboy]

......................., and if they keep making unstabilized approaches to landings like the ones John and azure are describing, eventually they bend metal. Doing this in minimum weather conditions is just asking for trouble.

And so is letting a controller fly your plane. If the controller asks for "best forward speed," give them the best speed you can while ensuring a safe landing. ..................................

I certainly would never suggest a pilot do something he's not comfortable with nor letting ATC pressure him into something he's not comfortable with, however as I said upthread if a pilot isn't comfortable with slowing a 172 from 90 knots clean to a speed and configuration suitable for landing within half a mile he really needs some recurrent (or perhaps remedial) training on basic airmanship.

 

[poadeleted20]

At night, obstructions that penetrate a 3° slope in the visual portion of the final approach course are supposed to be lighted. Since the visual portion is only 8° to 9° left or right of centerline, that's where you'd normally be starting a rollout on final. Staying at MDA until rolling out on final at an unfamiliar airport and making a steeper than normal approach should protect against unknown obstacles, but introduces other potential risks, like landing too long.

You make it sound like we're talking about only a small increase in approach path angle. We're not. If you stay within 1.3nm of the end of the runway and don't begin your descent until rolling out, with MDA's in the 1000 AGL range, you could be talking about a 10-degree slope -- and that's not something you'd do even in the best conditions in an airplane.

 

[poadeleted20]

I certainly would never suggest a pilot do something he's not comfortable with nor letting ATC pressure him into something he's not comfortable with, however as I said upthread if a pilot isn't comfortable with slowing a 172 from 90 knots clean to a speed and configuration suitable for landing within half a mile he really needs some recurrent (or perhaps remedial) training on basic airmanship.

On the contrary, if I see someone flying a 172 clean at 90 knots to 200 AGL and then trying to deploy full flaps and slow to normal landing speed, I think that pilot needs remedial training on basic airmanship, focusing on the critical importance of a stabilized approach. And I guarantee the FAA agrees with me about the importance of making a stabilized approach to landing at an appropriate speed (and 90 KIAS does not fit the PTS definition of that that in a 172) or they wouldn't have made it part of the PTS.

Maintains a stabilized approach and recommended​

airspeed, or in its absence, not more than 1.3 Vs0,​

​

​

​

​

+10/-5 knots, with wind gust factor applied.
​

​

 

[EdFred]

It seems like you are saying pilots should only fly to the PTS and not learn anything beyond it. Is that what you are saying?

 

[poadeleted20]

It seems like you are saying pilots should only fly to the PTS and not learn anything beyond it. Is that what you are saying?

No, it is not.

 

[EdFred]

No, it is not.

From your quote about seeing someone coming in fast and that pilot needing remedial training, it gave that impression.

There's been a number of times I've been asked to do a Montgomery Scott impression without issue. If the pilot is capable, it doesn't mean they need remedial training. In fact, it probably means the opposite.