Approach speeds for ILS

[C J Campbell]

We get foggy here at Tacoma Narrows this time of year (which is the reason I
post more on these groups in the winter than in the summer). One thing we
see a lot of is guys who fly the ILS too fast.

I have no problem with flying the ILS at 90 or 100 knots if the ceiling is
well above minimums, but it seems to me that if the ceiling is 200 feet
overcast you ought to be flying the approach slowly enough that you can land
at that speed. You don't need to configure for a short field landing, but
you are not going to slow from 90 knots to 60 in a Skyhawk in only 200 feet
of altitude, especially if you can't risk ballooning back up into the soup.

You just want to hold your breath when you hear somebody coming down the
ILS. You don't see him, but you hear the engine start to roar as he begins
his missed approach. Then he suddenly breaks through and tries to land
anyway. Sometimes they make it, probably touching down on the last half of
the runway, and sometimes they don't, having to make a go around back up
into the soup, only now the missed approach is all messed up, too.

Two lessons here:

1) If the field is really at minimums, you have 200 feet to slow down to
landing speed. That is not much time. Better you should be ready to land
before you break out.

2) If you decide to go missed, then go missed. Don't change your mind just
because you got a glimpse of the runway as you were flying overhead.

--
Christopher J. Campbell
World Famous Flight Instructor
Port Orchard, WA


If you go around beating the Bush, don't complain if you rile the animals.

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "C J Campbell" > said:
>I have no problem with flying the ILS at 90 or 100 knots if the ceiling is
>well above minimums, but it seems to me that if the ceiling is 200 feet
>overcast you ought to be flying the approach slowly enough that you can land
>at that speed. You don't need to configure for a short field landing, but
>you are not going to slow from 90 knots to 60 in a Skyhawk in only 200 feet
>of altitude, especially if you can't risk ballooning back up into the soup.

I regularly shoot approaches at 110 knots in the Archer or 120 knots in
the Dakota, and don't touch the throttle until the flare. Granted, I
haven't done it to minimums in actual, but I've done it under the hood,
and I don't gain any altitude. Sure you float down the runway, but if
you've got 8000 feet, you've got plenty of room for it. And ATC
appreciates a fast approach when they've got a 767 on your tail.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
I didn't need to sabotage anything. Not being around to say "No that
won't work" or "you can't do it that way" is more than enough damage.
(Ego problem? It's not a problem.) -- Graham Reed, on job endings

[plumbus bobbus]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...

> I have no problem with flying the ILS at 90 or 100 knots if the ceiling is
> well above minimums, but it seems to me that if the ceiling is 200 feet
> overcast you ought to be flying the approach slowly enough that you can
land
> at that speed. You don't need to configure for a short field landing, but
> you are not going to slow from 90 knots to 60 in a Skyhawk in only 200
feet
> of altitude, especially if you can't risk ballooning back up into the
soup.

I am not sure I understand. Slowing from 90 kts to landing from 200 feet
should not be a problem for a moderately skilled pilot on an average sized
ILS runway (4000 ft or more).

That is what one would expect from an instrument rated pilot, no?

[Bob Noel]

In article >, "C J Campbell"
> wrote:

> We get foggy here at Tacoma Narrows this time of year (which is the
> reason I
> post more on these groups in the winter than in the summer). One thing we
> see a lot of is guys who fly the ILS too fast.
>
> I have no problem with flying the ILS at 90 or 100 knots if the ceiling
> is
> well above minimums, but it seems to me that if the ceiling is 200 feet
> overcast you ought to be flying the approach slowly enough that you can
> land
> at that speed. You don't need to configure for a short field landing, but
> you are not going to slow from 90 knots to 60 in a Skyhawk in only 200
> feet
> of altitude, especially if you can't risk ballooning back up into the
> soup.

otoh - I can slow my cherokee 140 down from 90 knots at the middle
marker to a good landing speed at the GIP. I know I can do it
because that's the way I've done every single ILS approach and that
was the way I was taught from day one.

ymmv

--
Bob Noel

[C J Campbell]

"plumbus bobbus" > wrote in message
news:SylPb.109551$8H.237126@attbi_s03...
|
| "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
| ...
|
| > I have no problem with flying the ILS at 90 or 100 knots if the ceiling
is
| > well above minimums, but it seems to me that if the ceiling is 200 feet
| > overcast you ought to be flying the approach slowly enough that you can
| land
| > at that speed. You don't need to configure for a short field landing,
but
| > you are not going to slow from 90 knots to 60 in a Skyhawk in only 200
| feet
| > of altitude, especially if you can't risk ballooning back up into the
| soup.
|
| I am not sure I understand. Slowing from 90 kts to landing from 200 feet
| should not be a problem for a moderately skilled pilot on an average sized
| ILS runway (4000 ft or more).
|
| That is what one would expect from an instrument rated pilot, no?

You would expect that, but observation teaches otherwise. Reaction time
after breaking out of the clouds may be a factor. There is always a little
disorientation. The newer 172s are surprisingly slippery, especially if you
are not using any flaps. Add to that a pilot that may not be all that
current and I think you have trouble.

[John R Weiss]

"C J Campbell" > wrote...
>
> I have no problem with flying the ILS at 90 or 100 knots if the ceiling is
> well above minimums, but it seems to me that if the ceiling is 200 feet
> overcast you ought to be flying the approach slowly enough that you can land
> at that speed. You don't need to configure for a short field landing, but
> you are not going to slow from 90 knots to 60 in a Skyhawk in only 200 feet
> of altitude, especially if you can't risk ballooning back up into the soup.

I think you may need to practice your ILS approaches, especially the transition
to visual and landing. The transition to visual is very difficult -- probably
moreso than flying the needles.

Try flying ILS approaches in full VMC conditions -- not even a hood -- but with
a safety pilot or instructor aboard. Let the outside stuff distract you from
your instrument scan, and force yourself to look back inside. Practice the
transition to visual at 200', including the power reduction, decel, flaps (if
you use more to land than you use in the approach), and flare. It is NOT the
same as your normal VFR landing, and it DOES require specific practice.

When you get proficient, only then should you attempt to fly when the weather is
anywhere near minimums.


> Two lessons here:
>
> 1) If the field is really at minimums, you have 200 feet to slow down to
> landing speed. That is not much time. Better you should be ready to land
> before you break out.

Nope -- not unless you are flying a Cat III certified airplane.

You should be ready to transition to land AFTER you break out! A C172 at 90
knots is only descending at 400-500 FPM. At 200' AGL, you have 20-30 seconds
until touchdown, even if you don't flare at all! You can do a lot of
decelerating, reconfiguring, and flaring in 20 seconds. Since the only
reconfiguring you should have to do, if any, is final flaps, you have plenty of
time!


> 2) If you decide to go missed, then go missed. Don't change your mind just
> because you got a glimpse of the runway as you were flying overhead.

That is good advice.

[C J Campbell]

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...

| you've got 8000 feet, you've got plenty of room for it. And ATC
| appreciates a fast approach when they've got a 767 on your tail.
|
|

Not many 767s at TIW! Seriously, I have no problem with accommodating ATC
when it can be done safely, but neither am I going to do their job for them
when they screw up.

It is always fun to watch somebody who landed too fast and too long then try
to turn off at the first exit just because the tower asked him to,
especially when it was probably the tower that asked him to keep his speed
up when he was on final. They come whipping around there, side loading the
gear and nearly careening off into the infield, tires smoking and
screeching. But what the heck, it's only a rental.

[Roy Smith]

"John R Weiss" > wrote:
> You can do a lot of decelerating, reconfiguring, and flaring in 20
> seconds. Since the only reconfiguring you should have to do, if any,
> is final flaps, you have plenty of time!

Pulling the power back to idle might be nice too :-)

[plumbus bobbus]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...

> | I am not sure I understand. Slowing from 90 kts to landing from 200 feet
> | should not be a problem for a moderately skilled pilot on an average
sized
> | ILS runway (4000 ft or more).
> |
> | That is what one would expect from an instrument rated pilot, no?
>
> You would expect that, but observation teaches otherwise. Reaction time

Point taken.

[Ben Jackson]

In article >,
C J Campbell > wrote:
>I have no problem with flying the ILS at 90 or 100 knots if the ceiling is
>well above minimums, but it seems to me that if the ceiling is 200 feet
>overcast you ought to be flying the approach slowly enough

You really want people flying differently in tough weather conditions?
You're better off flying what you practiced. If you can't fly a 100kt
ILS and land after breaking out at 200' you should either practice that
or fly all of your approaches at 90kt.

If you pull power and put in 10 degrees of flaps (haven't the last 30
years or so worth of 172 allowed the first 10 degrees at like 110kts?)
you'll be down to full flap speed in a matter of seconds and after that
you can drop like a brick if you want.

--
Ben Jackson
>
http://www.ben.com/

[C J Campbell]

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
news:mYlPb.109959$xy6.321478@attbi_s02...
| >
| > 1) If the field is really at minimums, you have 200 feet to slow down to
| > landing speed. That is not much time. Better you should be ready to land
| > before you break out.
|
| Nope -- not unless you are flying a Cat III certified airplane.
|
| You should be ready to transition to land AFTER you break out! A C172 at
90
| knots is only descending at 400-500 FPM. At 200' AGL, you have 20-30
seconds
| until touchdown, even if you don't flare at all! You can do a lot of
| decelerating, reconfiguring, and flaring in 20 seconds. Since the only
| reconfiguring you should have to do, if any, is final flaps, you have
plenty of
| time!

Well, one would think so, and I don't have any problem with it, but I sure
see a lot of pilots that just can't seem to handle it. But I am a CFII who
flies and demonstrates these approaches constantly. I think my point is that
pilots who do not fly as frequently should consider a different 'approach,'
so to speak.

AARP encourages older drivers to take things a little slower -- to drive
within their skill level. Perhaps rusty pilots should do the same.

[Richard Kaplan]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...

> you are not going to slow from 90 knots to 60 in a Skyhawk in only 200
feet
> of altitude, especially if you can't risk ballooning back up into the
soup.

What speed do you use to fly the ILS if asked to "keep your speed up"?

ILS runways are usually 5,000 feet or longer. You could dissipate speed
over the runway.

I suspect if you cross the runway threshold right on the glideslope at 90
knots in a Skyhawk with a 5,000 foot runway, there is no way you could
overrun the runway if you tried.

--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Hilton]

C J Campbell wrote:
>
> Paul Tomblin wrote:
>
> | you've got 8000 feet, you've got plenty of room for it. And ATC
> | appreciates a fast approach when they've got a 767 on your tail.
> |
> |
>
> Not many 767s at TIW! Seriously, I have no problem with accommodating ATC
> when it can be done safely, but neither am I going to do their job for
them
> when they screw up.

Not always the case. Here at SJC when ATC asks: "Say best forward speed?"
they're saying "Look Hilton, we've got a bunch of 737s, 757s, 777s, a few
DC-10s etc coming down the approach. You gimme 120, I can get you in within
5 minutes. You gimme 90, maintain VFR, hold where you are, expect your
clearance sometime in the future."

Hilton

[john smith]

Any thoughts as to why Approach Plates do not list the time for an
approach speed of 75 KIAS?

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 18:20:43 -0800, "C J Campbell"
> wrote:

>I have no problem with flying the ILS at 90 or 100 knots if the ceiling is
>well above minimums, but it seems to me that if the ceiling is 200 feet
>overcast you ought to be flying the approach slowly enough that you can land
>at that speed. You don't need to configure for a short field landing, but
>you are not going to slow from 90 knots to 60 in a Skyhawk in only 200 feet
>of altitude, especially if you can't risk ballooning back up into the soup.

I would respectfully disagree, although I haven't flown a Skyhawk in years.
However, my Mooney is also an a/c known for being "slippery" with a Vso of
49 kts, a bit faster than the Skyhawk. However, for an approach to
minimums, especially at an airport with "heavy iron", I would view my
limiting speed to be the gear down speed of 105 Kts. (And if I had a newer
Mooney, it would be even faster).

I think an instrument rated pilot should have had the necessary training so
that he can fly the approach at the higher speeds desireable to blend in
with faster traffic -- and not have to worry about "balloning back up into
the soup". Also, most ILS's are into runways of at least 4,000' lengths,
so you don't need to be at 1.2 Vso coming over the threshold (although it
is nice to touch down in the touchdown zone).

Don't forget, at a DA of 200' you will still be about 1/2 mile from the
runway. Given that it's a 4,000' or longer runway, you should be able to
touchdown in the first 1/2 and not run off the far end.

In my Mooney, I have no particular problem with, after reaching a DA of
200' and making the decision to land, lowering the additional two notches
of flaps and slowing speed by the runway threshold (60-65 KIAS -- the
slower speed if there is an operational advantage).

I will say, however, that with a DA of 100', I do not drop the last two
notches of flaps, and I will use about 4,000' of runway if I am using a 105
kt approach speed. But at airports where that may occur, that distance is
usually less than 60% of the total runway length -- again, plenty of room.

So I think that instrument rated pilots who, after all, are legal to fly
into any airport, should have the training and experience to deal with the
faster approach speeds. It really is not that difficult once one starts to
practice.

My most difficult approach, in terms of speed control, came with a request
from PWM approach to "maintain present speed until the (outer) marker". At
the time, my speed was 125 Kts; I was under the hood; and there was an FAA
examiner in the right seat. My gear down speed is 105 kts, flaps 109 kts,
and this approach was being done to a 100' DA with a landing planned. So
it was a matter of coming down, slowing down, and reconfiguring on the way
down. (And yes, I discussed with the examiner the fact that I had not done
something like this before; that I wanted to see how it would work out; and
that if it were the first time doing this procedure in real IMC, my
response would have been "unable").

So I think these instrument pilots should be trained and practiced in
faster approaches.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Bill Zaleski]

Ron's thoughts are very realistic and deal with real world scenearios.
All of my instrument students get the experience of flying 140 KT ILS
speeds in my skyhawk at the later points of their training. Of
course, I don't advocate that kind of speed for everyday use, but it
is absolutely no problem getting it stopped on a 5000' runway. There
are only a few ILS's on shorter runways.


On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 23:53:59 -0500, Ron Rosenfeld
> wrote:

>On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 18:20:43 -0800, "C J Campbell"
> wrote:
>
>>I have no problem with flying the ILS at 90 or 100 knots if the ceiling is
>>well above minimums, but it seems to me that if the ceiling is 200 feet
>>overcast you ought to be flying the approach slowly enough that you can land
>>at that speed. You don't need to configure for a short field landing, but
>>you are not going to slow from 90 knots to 60 in a Skyhawk in only 200 feet
>>of altitude, especially if you can't risk ballooning back up into the soup.
>
>I would respectfully disagree, although I haven't flown a Skyhawk in years.
>However, my Mooney is also an a/c known for being "slippery" with a Vso of
>49 kts, a bit faster than the Skyhawk. However, for an approach to
>minimums, especially at an airport with "heavy iron", I would view my
>limiting speed to be the gear down speed of 105 Kts. (And if I had a newer
>Mooney, it would be even faster).
>
>I think an instrument rated pilot should have had the necessary training so
>that he can fly the approach at the higher speeds desireable to blend in
>with faster traffic -- and not have to worry about "balloning back up into
>the soup". Also, most ILS's are into runways of at least 4,000' lengths,
>so you don't need to be at 1.2 Vso coming over the threshold (although it
>is nice to touch down in the touchdown zone).
>
>Don't forget, at a DA of 200' you will still be about 1/2 mile from the
>runway. Given that it's a 4,000' or longer runway, you should be able to
>touchdown in the first 1/2 and not run off the far end.
>
>In my Mooney, I have no particular problem with, after reaching a DA of
>200' and making the decision to land, lowering the additional two notches
>of flaps and slowing speed by the runway threshold (60-65 KIAS -- the
>slower speed if there is an operational advantage).
>
>I will say, however, that with a DA of 100', I do not drop the last two
>notches of flaps, and I will use about 4,000' of runway if I am using a 105
>kt approach speed. But at airports where that may occur, that distance is
>usually less than 60% of the total runway length -- again, plenty of room.
>
>So I think that instrument rated pilots who, after all, are legal to fly
>into any airport, should have the training and experience to deal with the
>faster approach speeds. It really is not that difficult once one starts to
>practice.
>
>My most difficult approach, in terms of speed control, came with a request
>from PWM approach to "maintain present speed until the (outer) marker". At
>the time, my speed was 125 Kts; I was under the hood; and there was an FAA
>examiner in the right seat. My gear down speed is 105 kts, flaps 109 kts,
>and this approach was being done to a 100' DA with a landing planned. So
>it was a matter of coming down, slowing down, and reconfiguring on the way
>down. (And yes, I discussed with the examiner the fact that I had not done
>something like this before; that I wanted to see how it would work out; and
>that if it were the first time doing this procedure in real IMC, my
>response would have been "unable").
>
>So I think these instrument pilots should be trained and practiced in
>faster approaches.
>
>
>Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[John H. Kay]

>I think an instrument rated pilot should have had the necessary training so
>that he can fly the approach at the higher speeds desireable to blend in
>with faster traffic -- and not have to worry about "balloning back up into
>the soup". Also, most ILS's are into runways of at least 4,000' lengths,
>so you don't need to be at 1.2 Vso coming over the threshold (although it
>is nice to touch down in the touchdown zone).

I agree. My American instruction was usually to fly the glide slope
with one notch of flaps at about 90kts (PA28), and then do whatever was
necessary to land the plane. In the UK, one instructor made me fly the
ILS 10 kts faster and with no flaps (easier to perform a missed if you
don't have to clean up), and land more often than not flapless - which
we have all been trained to do, and is rarely a problem on the usual
4000'+ runway.
--
John H. Kay

[Andrew Sarangan]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message >...
> "Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> | you've got 8000 feet, you've got plenty of room for it. And ATC
> | appreciates a fast approach when they've got a 767 on your tail.
> |
> |
>
> Not many 767s at TIW! Seriously, I have no problem with accommodating ATC
> when it can be done safely, but neither am I going to do their job for them
> when they screw up.
>
> It is always fun to watch somebody who landed too fast and too long then try
> to turn off at the first exit just because the tower asked him to,
> especially when it was probably the tower that asked him to keep his speed
> up when he was on final. They come whipping around there, side loading the
> gear and nearly careening off into the infield, tires smoking and
> screeching. But what the heck, it's only a rental.

Like CJ mentioned, a fast approach speed makes it somewhat difficult
to transition to the landing phase. However, I believe that the
benefits outweigh the disadvantages.

- ATC likes it if you fly the approach faster

- Reduces the exposure time in icing conditions. At this time of year,
we can often climb above the clouds and remain there until the
approach phase. A fast approach will minimize ice accretion during
approach.

- A faster approach speed makes it possible to adjust for altitude
excursions by using elevator alone and without compromising too much
airspeed. At slower airspeeds you will have to make power adjustments.
For example, at 90 knots you will lose about 9 knots in order to climb
100 ft. At 60 knots you will lose 18 knots to climb 100 ft.


Finally, 90 kts to 60 kts in a draggy airplane like a skyhawk is not a
big problem. You can do that by pulling power to idle and not even use
any flaps. However, in a slippery airplane like a Mooney that may be a
problem. But such airplanes tend to have high approach speeds anyway,
so slowing down much below 90 may not be an option.

[Gary Drescher]

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
om...
> Like CJ mentioned, a fast approach speed makes it somewhat difficult
> to transition to the landing phase. However, I believe that the
> benefits outweigh the disadvantages.
>
> - ATC likes it if you fly the approach faster
>
> - Reduces the exposure time in icing conditions. At this time of year,
> we can often climb above the clouds and remain there until the
> approach phase. A fast approach will minimize ice accretion during
> approach.
>
> - A faster approach speed makes it possible to adjust for altitude
> excursions by using elevator alone and without compromising too much
> airspeed. At slower airspeeds you will have to make power adjustments.
> For example, at 90 knots you will lose about 9 knots in order to climb
> 100 ft. At 60 knots you will lose 18 knots to climb 100 ft.

Another advantage of a faster approach speed is that it lets you glide
further in the event of engine failure. (You'd still want to slow down to
best glide speed, but you'd gain more altitude in the process.) Since you
have no choice about altitude during an ILS approach, adding kinetic energy
is the only way to increase your glide range.

--Gary

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, said:
>Any thoughts as to why Approach Plates do not list the time for an
>approach speed of 75 KIAS?

Because it's hard to land when you've got a Dash 8 embedded in your
backside?

--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
.... industry giant Microsoft Corporation... a company that has become
successful without resorting to software testing...
-- Unknown, rec.humor.funny

[Peter R.]

C J Campbell ) wrote:

> I have no problem with flying the ILS at 90 or 100 knots if the ceiling is
> well above minimums, but it seems to me that if the ceiling is 200 feet
> overcast you ought to be flying the approach slowly enough that you can land
> at that speed.

A slow ILS approach speed won't cut it when landing at Boston's Logan.
Granted I have only landed there four times in a C172S, but three of the
times we were IMC to just above DH. In every case ATC wanted us very fast
due to the long line of airliners behind us.

I do not think I am a skilled pilot yet, but I am able to slow the C172
down quickly enough to simulate braking pretty hard in an automobile; power
to idle, raise nose slightly, one notch of flaps, at 85 dump remaining
flaps. Knowing that the runway is over 10,000 feet certainly adds comfort
when flying the fast approach.


--
Peter












----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Rick Durden]

CJ

I've got to respectfully disagree with you.

I teach my instrument students to fly approaches at 100 KIAS for most
single-engine bug-smashers because it's a lot easier to stay on course
when going faster, the cross wind has less effect, you don't hold up
traffic as much and, for any ILS equipped runway, you've got far more
runway available than you need, even if you up the speed to 120 KIAS.

On the other hand, having looked at too many accidents where the
pilots broke out at 200-300 feet up and started making changes to the
airplane configuration right then, including reducing power, and wound
up sticking the airplane into the approach lights (often in rain at
night where the refraction through the rain on the windshield caused
them to think they were high, despite having glideslope info on the
panel) I also empahsize that the pilot should not change ANYTHING
until crossing the runway threshold. The power setting, configuration
and speed were working just fine to stay on glide slope all the way
down, why change anything just because you are transitioning to
visual. In fact, that's the worst possible time to pull the power or
add flaps or what have you, as, if the wx is really crappy, you may
very well fly into a bit of scud that is below 200 feet and have to
make a go around...it's best to still have that energey so you can
zoom climb away from the ground. Plus, at 200 feet AGL, you aren't to
the runway, yet. So, leave everything as it is and take some time to
look around...you've got lots of time, you are only descending at
roughly 500-600 fpm at 100 KIAS, you aren't to the runway yet, so let
yourself figure out what's going on while keeping power and speed the
same for a while. If you leave well enough alone, you cross the
threshold at slightly over 50 feet AGL. Then, smoothly close the
throttle, roll in some nose up trip to hold your altitude right there,
above ground effect, when the airplane decelerates into the white arc,
select full flaps, trim as needed, then when it decelerates to normal
speed for final, descend, flare and land. Yes, you'll use about 3,000
feet of runway. Big deal. That's not the risky part of the ILS. The
risky part is crashing short of the runway, if the accident reports
are to be believed.

All the best,
Rick

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message >...
> We get foggy here at Tacoma Narrows this time of year (which is the reason I
> post more on these groups in the winter than in the summer). One thing we
> see a lot of is guys who fly the ILS too fast.
>
> I have no problem with flying the ILS at 90 or 100 knots if the ceiling is
> well above minimums, but it seems to me that if the ceiling is 200 feet
> overcast you ought to be flying the approach slowly enough that you can land
> at that speed. You don't need to configure for a short field landing, but
> you are not going to slow from 90 knots to 60 in a Skyhawk in only 200 feet
> of altitude, especially if you can't risk ballooning back up into the soup.
>
> You just want to hold your breath when you hear somebody coming down the
> ILS. You don't see him, but you hear the engine start to roar as he begins
> his missed approach. Then he suddenly breaks through and tries to land
> anyway. Sometimes they make it, probably touching down on the last half of
> the runway, and sometimes they don't, having to make a go around back up
> into the soup, only now the missed approach is all messed up, too.
>
> Two lessons here:
>
> 1) If the field is really at minimums, you have 200 feet to slow down to
> landing speed. That is not much time. Better you should be ready to land
> before you break out.
>
> 2) If you decide to go missed, then go missed. Don't change your mind just
> because you got a glimpse of the runway as you were flying overhead.

[Ron Natalie]

"Peter R." > wrote in message news:MPG.1a785834a2862bf5989961@text-
> I do not think I am a skilled pilot yet, but I am able to slow the C172
> down quickly enough to simulate braking pretty hard in an automobile; power
> to idle, raise nose slightly, one notch of flaps, at 85 dump remaining
> flaps. Knowing that the runway is over 10,000 feet certainly adds comfort
> when flying the fast approach.

Same problem with Dulles. Not only is there 11,000+ fee of runway, but
even if you plant 500 feet passed fixed distance marker, you've still got 3000
feet before the first taxiway you can turn off on.

[Roy Smith]

In article <eMvPb.97683$5V2.322914@attbi_s53>,
"Gary Drescher" > wrote:
> Since you have no choice about altitude during an ILS approach,
> adding kinetic energy is the only way to increase your glide range.

That's not really true. You can't go below the GS, but nothing says you
can't fly the entire approach above the GS. There's nothing illegal or
inherently unsafe about flying the ILS 1 or 2 dots high. You wouldn't
want to do it in a jet, but in a spam can it's perfectly reasonable.

[Peter R.]

Nomen Nescio ]) wrote:

> From: Peter R. >
>
> >A slow ILS approach speed won't cut it when landing at Boston's Logan.
> >Granted I have only landed there four times in a C172S, but three of the
> >times we were IMC to just above DH. In every case ATC wanted us very fast
> >due to the long line of airliners behind us.
>
> The Bonanza will make that easy.
> Did you make the decision about going in on it, yet?

Still talking with the owner on how best to structure the partnership.
There are quite a few tax implications that we are working on with our
accountants. In fact, he is with his accountant today to come up with his
strategy.

Assuming this owner does not throw out some unreasonable number to buy in,
I am probably going to make the move. It really is a nice aircraft and I
look forward to the challenge of advancing to a high-performance, complex
aircraft.

--
Peter












----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Ron Natalie]

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message ...
> In article <eMvPb.97683$5V2.322914@attbi_s53>,
> "Gary Drescher" > wrote:
> > Since you have no choice about altitude during an ILS approach,
> > adding kinetic energy is the only way to increase your glide range.
>
> That's not really true. You can't go below the GS, but nothing says you
> can't fly the entire approach above the GS.

You're allowed to descend below the GS as part of your normal excursions
(the FAR's call them bracketing maneuvers) to track the glide slope.

[Gary Drescher]

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article <eMvPb.97683$5V2.322914@attbi_s53>,
> "Gary Drescher" > wrote:
> > Since you have no choice about altitude during an ILS approach,
> > adding kinetic energy is the only way to increase your glide range.
>
> That's not really true. You can't go below the GS, but nothing says you
> can't fly the entire approach above the GS. There's nothing illegal or
> inherently unsafe about flying the ILS 1 or 2 dots high. You wouldn't
> want to do it in a jet, but in a spam can it's perfectly reasonable.

Point taken--I should have said little choice, not no choice. Still, the
added speed helpfully extends the glide range.

--Gary

[Michael]

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote
> What speed do you use to fly the ILS if asked to "keep your speed up"?

These are different situations. If you're asked to keep your speed
up, it's generally because you're landing at an air carrier airport.
That means only minimal tailwinds (if any) and very long runways. You
can float and float and float and land 5000+ ft down the runway and
it's still fine. Being able to fly an ILS fast is an important skill,
but it's not the ONLY important skill.

> ILS runways are usually 5,000 feet or longer. You could dissipate speed
> over the runway.

It's true that ILS runways with a total length of less than 5000 ft
are pretty rare - at least I've never seen one. However, the ILS and
(typically available) visual glideslope aid will not put you on the
numbers. Having an available landing distance of less than 5000 ft is
actually pretty common. Unfortunately, this typically happens at
airports served by only one ILS. If the weather is low enough to need
an ILS, it may require a tailwind landing. At such a place you will
not be asked to keep your speed up (unless the controller really
screwed up). On the other hand, if you're a bit fast on the ILS and a
bit slow to retard the throttle, you do risk overrunning the runway.

This brings us to another interesting problem. When visibilities are
less than a mile, especially at night, the visual cues available are
not really sufficient for precise control of the airplane. The visual
segment must be flown with at least some reference to instruments.
This is not something that is normally taught, and it's not really
something you can effectively practice in blue sky conditions. I
suspect that most of the pilots having trouble slowing down would have
done fine in good VMC flying under the hood.

I personally like to take an advanced instrument student to an airport
served by only one ILS when that approach is downwind, preferably in
low vis, at night, or both. This quickly reveals any lingering
technique issues, and lets us work them out in an environment that
won't cover them up. Once he can handle landing out of an ILS at
night with a 10 kt tailwind, he can pretty much handle any straight in
visual segment.

> I suspect if you cross the runway threshold right on the glideslope at 90
> knots in a Skyhawk with a 5,000 foot runway, there is no way you could
> overrun the runway if you tried.

I suspect you're right - as long as there is really 5000 ft of landing
distance available and no significant tailwind. However, lately I'm
seeing a lot of people flying the ILS at 100+ kts in Cherokees and
Skyhawks. I find this fascinating since it's faster than I fly the
ILS in my twin, unless I am specifically instructed to keep my speed
up.

Michael

[Jeff]

As soon as I intercept the glideslope I like to get my planed configured to
land, gear down, start putting in flaps, slow down, I use 90 kts when its for
real, but I sometimes use some stupid speeds when its under the hood and I am
going around (one time I had a tail wind on an ILS under the hood and and I did
it with gear up and no flaps, had 140 kts indicated and and like 170 kts GS.
that was a pretty quick approach)
but I choose to use 90 kts because I can slow down to 70 to land from that speed
real quick and also if I need to do a missed, I have just enough speed to be
able to take off again. I have a turbo charged engine so I have to apply power
slowly.
Even at places like long beach, ca where its very busy I use 90. they have never
asked for more when its IFR, they do when its VFR, but not IFR. So far.

C J Campbell wrote:

> We get foggy here at Tacoma Narrows this time of year (which is the reason I
> post more on these groups in the winter than in the summer). One thing we
> see a lot of is guys who fly the ILS too fast.
>
> I have no problem with flying the ILS at 90 or 100 knots if the ceiling is
> well above minimums, but it seems to me that if the ceiling is 200 feet
> overcast you ought to be flying the approach slowly enough that you can land
> at that speed. You don't need to configure for a short field landing, but
> you are not going to slow from 90 knots to 60 in a Skyhawk in only 200 feet
> of altitude, especially if you can't risk ballooning back up into the soup.
>
> You just want to hold your breath when you hear somebody coming down the
> ILS. You don't see him, but you hear the engine start to roar as he begins
> his missed approach. Then he suddenly breaks through and tries to land
> anyway. Sometimes they make it, probably touching down on the last half of
> the runway, and sometimes they don't, having to make a go around back up
> into the soup, only now the missed approach is all messed up, too.
>
> Two lessons here:
>
> 1) If the field is really at minimums, you have 200 feet to slow down to
> landing speed. That is not much time. Better you should be ready to land
> before you break out.
>
> 2) If you decide to go missed, then go missed. Don't change your mind just
> because you got a glimpse of the runway as you were flying overhead.
>
> --
> Christopher J. Campbell
> World Famous Flight Instructor
> Port Orchard, WA
>
> If you go around beating the Bush, don't complain if you rile the animals.

[Jeff]

chino california (CNO) the ILS on 26R is 4858 ft.
my wife took pictures all the way down the glideslope a few months ago, there
was no clouds that day, just some ground fog.
http://www.turboarrow3.com/newplane/chino/index.html



Michael wrote:

> "Richard Kaplan" > wrote
> > What speed do you use to fly the ILS if asked to "keep your speed up"?
>
> These are different situations. If you're asked to keep your speed
> up, it's generally because you're landing at an air carrier airport.
> That means only minimal tailwinds (if any) and very long runways. You
> can float and float and float and land 5000+ ft down the runway and
> it's still fine. Being able to fly an ILS fast is an important skill,
> but it's not the ONLY important skill.
>
> > ILS runways are usually 5,000 feet or longer. You could dissipate speed
> > over the runway.
>
> It's true that ILS runways with a total length of less than 5000 ft
> are pretty rare - at least I've never seen one. However, the ILS and
> (typically available) visual glideslope aid will not put you on the
> numbers. Having an available landing distance of less than 5000 ft is
> actually pretty common. Unfortunately, this typically happens at
> airports served by only one ILS. If the weather is low enough to need
> an ILS, it may require a tailwind landing. At such a place you will
> not be asked to keep your speed up (unless the controller really
> screwed up). On the other hand, if you're a bit fast on the ILS and a
> bit slow to retard the throttle, you do risk overrunning the runway.
>
> This brings us to another interesting problem. When visibilities are
> less than a mile, especially at night, the visual cues available are
> not really sufficient for precise control of the airplane. The visual
> segment must be flown with at least some reference to instruments.
> This is not something that is normally taught, and it's not really
> something you can effectively practice in blue sky conditions. I
> suspect that most of the pilots having trouble slowing down would have
> done fine in good VMC flying under the hood.
>
> I personally like to take an advanced instrument student to an airport
> served by only one ILS when that approach is downwind, preferably in
> low vis, at night, or both. This quickly reveals any lingering
> technique issues, and lets us work them out in an environment that
> won't cover them up. Once he can handle landing out of an ILS at
> night with a 10 kt tailwind, he can pretty much handle any straight in
> visual segment.
>
> > I suspect if you cross the runway threshold right on the glideslope at 90
> > knots in a Skyhawk with a 5,000 foot runway, there is no way you could
> > overrun the runway if you tried.
>
> I suspect you're right - as long as there is really 5000 ft of landing
> distance available and no significant tailwind. However, lately I'm
> seeing a lot of people flying the ILS at 100+ kts in Cherokees and
> Skyhawks. I find this fascinating since it's faster than I fly the
> ILS in my twin, unless I am specifically instructed to keep my speed
> up.
>
> Michael

[David Brooks]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
> > In article <eMvPb.97683$5V2.322914@attbi_s53>,
> > "Gary Drescher" > wrote:
> > > Since you have no choice about altitude during an ILS approach,
> > > adding kinetic energy is the only way to increase your glide range.
> >
> > That's not really true. You can't go below the GS, but nothing says you
> > can't fly the entire approach above the GS.
>
> You're allowed to descend below the GS as part of your normal excursions
> (the FAR's call them bracketing maneuvers) to track the glide slope.

PTS allows a three quarter scale deflection, so I hope that is legal, even
if it is not comfortable.

I think the responses to Chris's post are "it depends". At nearby Paine,
with an 8 mile final over water and a long runway, I'm not dawdling. It's
normal there for trainees at least to cross the threshhold with no flaps and
take your time to bleed speed. I agree it is a good idea to know how to slow
down without gaining altitude.

-- David Brooks

[John R Weiss]

"Roy Smith" > wrote...
>> Since the only reconfiguring you should have to do, if any,
>> is final flaps, you have plenty of time!
>
> Pulling the power back to idle might be nice too :-)

I consider that part of the 'stick and throttle' part of flying that is done
constantly, not "reconfiguring," which is done a couple times per flight.
Besides, some airplanes don't take well to idle at 200' (including my current
744)... ;-)

[John R Weiss]

"C J Campbell" wrote...
>
> Well, one would think so, and I don't have any problem with it, but I sure
> see a lot of pilots that just can't seem to handle it. But I am a CFII who
> flies and demonstrates these approaches constantly. I think my point is that
> pilots who do not fly as frequently should consider a different 'approach,'
> so to speak.

Again, I disagree.

Pilots who don't fly as frequently should use the time they DO get to practice
their skills, lest they be lost. An instrument rated pilot should NOT go out
and fly when the weather is near minimums, just to avoid going non-current! He
should, instead, get out and practice those approaches -- including the
transitions -- every couple weeks. If he can't do that, some instrument time
with his favorite CFII should precede any attempt to go out in the real weather,
and that CFII should ensure he CAN handle it before signing off any currency
check.

Flying an ILS at 60 knots instead of 90 puts the airplane much closer to stall,
giving much less margin of error if the pilot gets distracted or fixated. The
transition to visual is part of EVERY (Cat III excluded) actual approach that
results in a landing, so that transition should be practiced as much as flying
the needles.

[Paul Hamilton]

I think 90 knots is too slow, unless you have to deal with a tailwind.
The approach is easier to fly at 110 or so, and you get a better
transition to the miss at these speeds. Control response is much more
positive.

My Cutlass RG was based at DCA for 8 years. I normally flew at 120 -
140 knots. All you have to do is chop the power at the middle marker
and fly both the glideslope and the VASI. Your airspeed will decay
quickly. That 200 feet of altitude is nearly a nautical mile
horizontally. Starting at 120 knots and decelerating, that's about 30
seconds. If you are on the glideslope, you won't balloon anywhere.

Good advice on the miss. If you hit DH and there is nothing to see,
pitch to Vy, add power, and get the gear.

Paul

[Snowbird]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message >...
> We get foggy here at Tacoma Narrows this time of year (which is the reason I
> post more on these groups in the winter than in the summer). One thing we
> see a lot of is guys who fly the ILS too fast.

> I have no problem with flying the ILS at 90 or 100 knots if the ceiling is
> well above minimums, but it seems to me that if the ceiling is 200 feet
> overcast you ought to be flying the approach slowly enough that you can land
> at that speed. You don't need to configure for a short field landing, but
> you are not going to slow from 90 knots to 60 in a Skyhawk in only 200 feet
> of altitude, especially if you can't risk ballooning back up into the soup.

CJ,

I don't understand this post at all. It seems to me that 90 kts
to DH is standard way most people are taught to fly an ILS. I
have a plane that's a bit faster and a bit slippery (and less
effective flaps) than a Skyhawk, and I have no trouble throttling
back at DH and landing. True, I'm not landing and turning off
in 1000 ft, but then, most of the ILS I've met are to 5000+ ft
runways.

Ballooning back into the soup shouldn't be an issue. I don't
understand where your "slow from 90 to 60 in 200 ft of altitude"
concern arises. We regularly practice flying the ILS at full
cruise -- 130-140 kts -- right down to DH. If I throttle back
at DH, I have no idea at what point I slow to landing speed. I
simply level off just above the runway and wait until the airplane
decides to land. If I wind up a foot off the runway at 90 kts it's
not a problem.

It seems to me that people should train how they're going to fly
and fly how they're going to train. If they haven't trained enough
to fly an ILS to DH at 90 kts and land comfortably, I don't think
the solution is to have them adopt a different procedure. I think
the solution is for them to train more -- and if they're going to
do the necessary training to practice the 60 kt ILS thing, why not
have them do the necessary training to fly a 90 kt ILS or even a
120 kt ILS?

> 1) If the field is really at minimums, you have 200 feet to slow down to
> landing speed. That is not much time. Better you should be ready to land
> before you break out.

I don't understand this at all. Why do I only have 200 ft to slow
down to landing speed? I have 200 ft of descent left -- but usually
1/2 mile from the runway threshold and 2000 ft to land in in the TDZ
(assuming 4000+ ft runway). So it seems to me that I have something
like 4,500 ft to slow down to landing speed.

> 2) If you decide to go missed, then go missed. Don't change your mind just
> because you got a glimpse of the runway as you were flying overhead.

With this, assuming no malfunctions or fuel criticality, I agree.

Cheers,
Sydney

[EDR]

In article >, Paul
Hamilton > wrote:

> All you have to do is chop the power at the middle marker
> and fly both the glideslope and the VASI.

That's fine if you have a middle marker. Not all ILS's do.

[Paul Sengupta]

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
news:OSzPb.98715$5V2.327271@attbi_s53...
> "Roy Smith" > wrote...

> > Pulling the power back to idle might be nice too :-)
>
> Besides, some airplanes don't take well to idle at 200' (including my
current
> 744)... ;-)

If you brought it in 50% faster than normal, it might well do...

Paul

[Snowbird]

Ron Rosenfeld > wrote in message >...

> I think an instrument rated pilot should have had the necessary training so
> that he can fly the approach at the higher speeds desireable to blend in
> with faster traffic -- and not have to worry about "balloning back up into
> the soup". <...>
> So I think that instrument rated pilots who, after all, are legal to fly
> into any airport, should have the training and experience to deal with the
> faster approach speeds. It really is not that difficult once one starts to
> practice.

I think this is eminantly practical advice.

I don't think of 90 kts as a "faster approach speed". It seems
very common, at a larger airport, to be asked something like "keep
your speed up -- say best forward speed?" If the answer is "N12345
can maintain 120 kts" it's presumably a heck of a lot easier for
ATC to work you in between a bunch of jets than if your answer
is "N12345 needs 60 kts (or even 90 kts) at the marker".

My CFI would say "either train until you can do it or don't
fly IMC".

Cheers,
Sydney

[Snowbird]

Bill Zaleski > wrote in message >...
> Ron's thoughts are very realistic and deal with real world scenearios.
> All of my instrument students get the experience of flying 140 KT ILS
> speeds in my skyhawk at the later points of their training.

Bill,

Just curious, how do you fly 140 kt ILS in a Skyhawk? Or do you
have a controllable prop?

Cheers,
Sydney

[John R Weiss]

"Paul Sengupta" > wrote...
>
> > Besides, some airplanes don't take well to idle at 200' (including my
> current 744)... ;-)
>
> If you brought it in 50% faster than normal, it might well do...

Can only do a missed approach in that situation -- goes against the "stabilized
approach" rule... :-)

[Paul Sengupta]

French Bulldog? This is my idea of a French Bulldog:
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=191673

:-)

Paul

"Jeff" > wrote in message
...
> http://www.turboarrow3.com/newplane/chino/index.html

[David Brooks]

"Snowbird" > wrote in message
m...
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
>...
> > We get foggy here at Tacoma Narrows this time of year (which is the
reason I
> > post more on these groups in the winter than in the summer). One thing
we
> > see a lot of is guys who fly the ILS too fast.
>
> > I have no problem with flying the ILS at 90 or 100 knots if the ceiling
is
> > well above minimums, but it seems to me that if the ceiling is 200 feet
> > overcast you ought to be flying the approach slowly enough that you can
land
> > at that speed. You don't need to configure for a short field landing,
but
> > you are not going to slow from 90 knots to 60 in a Skyhawk in only 200
feet
> > of altitude, especially if you can't risk ballooning back up into the
soup.
>
> CJ,
>
> I don't understand this post at all. It seems to me that 90 kts
> to DH is standard way most people are taught to fly an ILS.

To be fair to CJ, I think his observation is mostly about the poor skills of
pilots he watches at TIW. People here are talking about their own personal
habits, and everyone knows this is an advanced and skilled group of pilots
who won't go all wobbly on breakout.

-- David Brooks

[Roy Smith]

In article <OSzPb.98715$5V2.327271@attbi_s53>,
"John R Weiss" > wrote:

> "Roy Smith" > wrote...
> >> Since the only reconfiguring you should have to do, if any,
> >> is final flaps, you have plenty of time!
> >
> > Pulling the power back to idle might be nice too :-)
>
> I consider that part of the 'stick and throttle' part of flying that is done
> constantly, not "reconfiguring," which is done a couple times per flight.

I s'pose. But you really shouldn't be playing with the throttle
constantly either. Somewhere along the line I picked up adding "DFWTP"
to my ILS checklist. DFWTP at GS intercept, GUMPS at DH. It stands for
"Don't F*** With The Power".

[Dave S]

While it IS poor form to come blazing down the ILS to 200 ft minimums in
a skyhawk at 100 kts, wouldnt you agree that most runways that are
capable of ILS landings are more than long enough to sustain the float
and bleedoff of airspeed, and eventual safe landing?

And.. if you do screw the pooch and manage to baloon 200 ft back up...
well.. thats what go-arounds/missed approaches are for.

But.. you are right, too fast is too fast.. and Instrument work is about
PRECISION..

Dave

C J Campbell wrote:
> We get foggy here at Tacoma Narrows this time of year (which is the reason I
> post more on these groups in the winter than in the summer). One thing we
> see a lot of is guys who fly the ILS too fast.
>
> I have no problem with flying the ILS at 90 or 100 knots if the ceiling is
> well above minimums, but it seems to me that if the ceiling is 200 feet
> overcast you ought to be flying the approach slowly enough that you can land
> at that speed. You don't need to configure for a short field landing, but
> you are not going to slow from 90 knots to 60 in a Skyhawk in only 200 feet
> of altitude, especially if you can't risk ballooning back up into the soup.
>
> You just want to hold your breath when you hear somebody coming down the
> ILS. You don't see him, but you hear the engine start to roar as he begins
> his missed approach. Then he suddenly breaks through and tries to land
> anyway. Sometimes they make it, probably touching down on the last half of
> the runway, and sometimes they don't, having to make a go around back up
> into the soup, only now the missed approach is all messed up, too.
>
> Two lessons here:
>
> 1) If the field is really at minimums, you have 200 feet to slow down to
> landing speed. That is not much time. Better you should be ready to land
> before you break out.
>
> 2) If you decide to go missed, then go missed. Don't change your mind just
> because you got a glimpse of the runway as you were flying overhead.
>

[Peter R.]

Dave S wrote:

> While it IS poor form to come blazing down the ILS to 200 ft minimums in
> a skyhawk at 100 kts,

Huh? Who says?

--
Peter










----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Snowbird]

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message >...
> ILS runways are usually 5,000 feet or longer. You could dissipate speed
> over the runway.

> I suspect if you cross the runway threshold right on the glideslope at 90
> knots in a Skyhawk with a 5,000 foot runway, there is no way you could
> overrun the runway if you tried.

I don't know about a Skyhawk, but FWIW, our former home airport
used to have only 1 ILS, to Rwy 8 which meant if low wx combined with
wind, one might be landing with a tailwind (prevailing winds from
west in these parts). As a training exercise, one time I kept my
speed up to 90 kts over the threshold. I didn't run off the runway,
but I was durn close to my "go around!" point before my plane
decided to quit flying and settle down. I definately landed on
the last 3rd of a 6,500 ft runway. Dunno what the tailwind was --
nothing too startling (10-12 kts?)

Unfortunately, since many training ILS are done to a missed
approach, landing from an ILS isn't something at which some
instrument pilots get a lot of practice.

Cheers,
Sydney

[Bill Zaleski]

180 H.P engine @ about 2500 RPM fixed pitch prop


On 21 Jan 2004 12:15:25 -0800, (Snowbird)
wrote:

>Bill Zaleski > wrote in message >...
>> Ron's thoughts are very realistic and deal with real world scenearios.
>> All of my instrument students get the experience of flying 140 KT ILS
>> speeds in my skyhawk at the later points of their training.
>
>Bill,
>
>Just curious, how do you fly 140 kt ILS in a Skyhawk? Or do you
>have a controllable prop?
>
>Cheers,
>Sydney

[Snowbird]

Dave S > wrote in message . net>...
> While it IS poor form to come blazing down the ILS to 200 ft minimums in
> a skyhawk at 100 kts

It is? Gosh, what's "good form"?

Sydney

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
(Snowbird) wrote:
> I don't know about a Skyhawk, but FWIW, our former home airport
> used to have only 1 ILS, to Rwy 8 which meant if low wx combined with
> wind, one might be landing with a tailwind (prevailing winds from
> west in these parts). As a training exercise, one time I kept my
> speed up to 90 kts over the threshold. I didn't run off the runway,
> but I was durn close to my "go around!" point before my plane
> decided to quit flying and settle down. I definately landed on
> the last 3rd of a 6,500 ft runway. Dunno what the tailwind was --
> nothing too startling (10-12 kts?)

As you discovered, a 10-12 knot tailwind is indeed pretty startling.
Most people don't realize just how much effect a relatively small
tailwind has.

I happen to have a Beech S35 POH handy here. For some mumble
combination of weight, temperature, and altitude, the distance over a 50
foot obstacle goes up from 900 to 1400 feet with a 10 kt tailwind. The
graph doesn't go beyond a 10 kt tailwind; I can only assume Beech
figured nobody would want to try a landing with any more :-)

By eye, it looks like the tailwind guide line goes up at about 2-3 times
the slope of the headwind guide line (there's nothing about the shape or
slope of those curves which is model specific).

For linear (de-)acceleration, the distance used goes up by the square of
the ground speed. You normally cross the threshold at maybe 70 kts in a
typical spam can. Crank that up to 90 at the end of an ILS, and you're
using 65% more runway. Add a 10 kt tailwind, and you're using 105% more.

The chart doesn't say anything about how much to increase the distance
by on a wet runway. Or because (as others have pointed out), it's night
and your visual cues suck so your landing isn't as good as it could be.

[Richard Kaplan]

"Michael" > wrote in message
om...

> I suspect you're right - as long as there is really 5000 ft of landing
> distance available and no significant tailwind. However, lately I'm

I would say an overrun cannot happen in a 172 on ILS into the wind or with
calm winds as long as the power is cut at decision height. If the airspeed
is high as discussed in this thread and the airplane is on the glideslope,
then the airplane should be within gliding distance of the runway at
decision height.

As far as flying an ILS with a tailwind, I agree that could cause an
overrun. I would also suggest that landing out of an ILS in actual IMC
conditions with a tailwind is an exercise which should be attempted only by
an experienced, advanced IFR pilot and/or with an experienced CFII on-board.
In particular, a pilot who is uncomfortable flying a high-airspeed ILS with
a headwind certainly should not attempt a tailwind ILS.


--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Richard Kaplan]

"Snowbird" > wrote in message
om...

> the last 3rd of a 6,500 ft runway. Dunno what the tailwind was --
> nothing too startling (10-12 kts?)


That is a very significant tailwind for landing; it would not surprise me if
a 10 knot tailwind doubled your landing roll vs. a 10 knot headwind or if
the total landing distance increased between 50% and 100%.


--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[mrwallace]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> > Two lessons here:
>
> 1) If the field is really at minimums, you have 200 feet to slow down to
> landing speed. That is not much time. Better you should be ready to land
> before you break out.
>
> 2) If you decide to go missed, then go missed. Don't change your mind just
> because you got a glimpse of the runway as you were flying overhead.
>
> --
> Christopher J. Campbell
> World Famous Flight Instructor
> Port Orchard, WA
> I like to fly the ILS at or near the suggested climb speed in the 210 that
comes out to be around 110kts using 10deg.flaps and gear down. Reasons are
that in the case of a go around the transition from approach attitude to
climb attitude is less of a change and the accelerations induced are
minimal,. If anyone here has gone missed in the soup from minimal airspeed
to a steep climb under hard acceleration I would suspect the effect to be
disorienting at the least. Anything I can do to reduce unnecessary
accelerations and maneuevers in IFR conditions seems to be a good thing.
Slowing down from MDA shoulden't be a problem since most airports with ILS
are usually long enough, full flaps, throttle back, and allow the plane to
land. Sometimes there is a tendency on breaking out to try and force the
plane down. I would be more concerned with speed control on a circling
approach to minimums on a dark night with a crosswind.
R.Wallace
>
> If you go around beating the Bush, don't complain if you rile the animals.
>
>
>

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 21:56:10 -0500, Roy Smith > wrote:

> The
>graph doesn't go beyond a 10 kt tailwind; I can only assume Beech
>figured nobody would want to try a landing with any more :-)

I believe that at air carrier airports (and, from personal experience, at
BOS) ATC may continue using a runway with up to a ten knot tailwind.

My first tailwind landing ever was done out of an ILS at BOS with about a
ten knot quartering tailwind. But they have long runways (and I needed to
be at the far end anyway to get to the GA ramp).


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Dave Butler]

Snowbird wrote:

> Unfortunately, since many training ILS are done to a missed
> approach, landing from an ILS isn't something at which some
> instrument pilots get a lot of practice.

That's why I do all my training approaches to a TGL. Which of course, means I
don't get a lot of practice at missed approaches. I guess I ought to mix it up a
little.

Dave
Remove SHIRT to reply directly.

[Snowbird]

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message >...
> "Snowbird" > wrote in message
> om...
> > the last 3rd of a 6,500 ft runway. Dunno what the tailwind was --
> > nothing too startling (10-12 kts?)

> That is a very significant tailwind for landing; it would not surprise me if
> a 10 knot tailwind doubled your landing roll vs. a 10 knot headwind or if
> the total landing distance increased between 50% and 100%.

Hi Richard,

As far as I could tell, it didn't do a thing to my landing roll.
What it affected, drastically, was the distance it took my plane
to slow to landing speed and consent to stop flying.

I'm very glad I had a CFI who had me try this. Experience is
worth 1000 words. After doing so, I can easily see how an overrun
accident (or loss of control if someone tried to force the plane to
land) could occur on a long, ILS-served runway.

One size definately does not fit all situations for ILS procedures.
I don't think it's a great idea to fly ILS routinely at 60 kts --
as someone pointed out, the margin over stall is much lower and
the configuration changes needed for correction much larger than
at 90 kts. OTOH, a practice of never retarding the throttle
until over the threshold (as I believe Rick Durden suggested)
would IMHO definately be a bad idea on a shorter runway (say
5000-6000 ft) w/ a tailwind.

And my advice to instrument students is: make sure you actually
land out of a good number of ILS in a number of different
circumstances,
preferably ILS in IMC or at night. For that matter, make sure you
land out of a variety of approaches.

Cheers,
Sydney

[Michael]

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote
> I would say an overrun cannot happen in a 172 on ILS into the wind or with
> calm winds as long as the power is cut at decision height. If the airspeed
> is high as discussed in this thread and the airplane is on the glideslope,
> then the airplane should be within gliding distance of the runway at
> decision height.

Yes, that's true. However, I consider an immediate power cut at
decision height to be poor procedure. The normal ILS is flown on a 3
degree glideslope. However, the power-off glide in anything
approaching landing configuration (meaning gear down if retractable
and at least some flaps) will be 7-10 degrees. So a power cut at DH
means a significant pitch change at low altitude. Since most of the
fleet has tractor props and conventional tails, the power cut will
also cause a significant out of trim condition - nose down. In good
vis and with a Skyhawk-class airplane, it's not a big problem. Try
that trick in your C-210 or my PA-30 in less than a mile vis, and
unless you've practiced it extensively and recently, the landing is
goint to be very, very ugly - possibly ugly enough for maintenance
bills. People have been known to drive the gear right through the
wings doing this.

Since my IFR students are either flying high performance singles or
twins or expect to move into them, I just can't see teaching the
procedure you seem to be advocating. I instead teach a gradual power
reduction with retrim, such that the pitch attitude never really
changes and the airspeed bleeds off gradually. Yes, it eats more
runway and on short runway may require a speed reduction on the ILS,
but it seems like a beter tradeoff. Personally, I slow to about
95-100 mph (not kts) on the ILS at about 300 ft, which seems like the
best compromise between retaining the option for a single engine
missed approach and allowing a landing with a tailwind on a short ILS
runway. In a single engine plane, I see no reason not to slow down
further out. I know that an ILS can be flown in a Bonanza at 90 mph
in turbulence - I've seen an instrument student do it.

> As far as flying an ILS with a tailwind, I agree that could cause an
> overrun. I would also suggest that landing out of an ILS in actual IMC
> conditions with a tailwind is an exercise which should be attempted only by
> an experienced, advanced IFR pilot and/or with an experienced CFII on-board.

Well, I like to give my student the necessary tools to handle it. Of
course since I don't instruct renters and don't deal with FBO's,
finishing in the minimum allowable 40 hours is not my highest priority
- nor theirs.

> In particular, a pilot who is uncomfortable flying a high-airspeed ILS with
> a headwind certainly should not attempt a tailwind ILS.

Now that I can agree with. A high speed ILS is certainly something I
consider important. It's just that a high speed ILS and a tailwind
landing on a short runway simply don't mix.

Michael

[Roy Smith]

(Snowbird) wrote:
> As far as I could tell, it didn't do a thing to my landing roll.

You may not have noticed the increase, but physics is physics. Most
spam cans touch down at about 50 kts, which means a 10 kt tailwind
increases your touchdown ground speed by 20%. Basic physics says that
will increase your ground roll by 44% for the same amount of braking
effort.

Everybody should try some downwind landings, if only to see just how bad
an idea they are. The problem is how. I don't like doing them at
uncontrolled fields, because you're going against traffic. The best way
is to find a towered airport at a time when there's nobody else around
and ask for the downwind runway.

[Dave S]

Umm perhaps an approach speed of 1.3 Vs or whatever is called for in the
POH for approach to land?

Awww hell.. you got a point.. If you are comin down the ILS you probably
have Southwest right on your tail trying to give you a Boeing enema and
Approach is hollering at you to keep your speed up..

Would it be poor form to come down at the top of the green arc and just
not use flaps then?

Dave.

Snowbird wrote:
> Dave S > wrote in message . net>...
>
>>While it IS poor form to come blazing down the ILS to 200 ft minimums in
>>a skyhawk at 100 kts
>
>
> It is? Gosh, what's "good form"?
>
> Sydney

[Snowbird]

"David Brooks" > wrote in message >...

> To be fair to CJ, I think his observation is mostly about the poor skills of
> pilots he watches at TIW.

I understand that, David. But I still don't understand his
post. I don't understand why he says there are only 200 ft
to slow from 90 to 60 kts, and I think if skills are wobbly
(mine certainly can become so PDQ) the answer isn't to switch
to flying at 60 kts, it's to practice more. Because I think
flying an ILS at 60 kts or slowing to 60 kts before decision
height introduces its own set of issues and would require
specific practice for proficiency.

Cheers,
Sydney

[Capt.Doug]

>"C J Campbell"wrote in message > I have no problem with
>flying the ILS at 90 or 100 knots if the ceiling is well above
>minimums, but it seems to me that if the ceiling is 200 feet
> overcast you ought to be flying the approach slowly enough
>that you can land at that speed. You don't need to configure for
>a short field landing, but you are not going to slow from 90
>knots to 60 in a Skyhawk in only 200 feet of altitude, especially
>if you can't risk ballooning back up into the soup.

My charts do not list a time for the final approach segment for 60 knots.
What time do you use if the glideslope craps out?

D. (smart-aleck response from someone who does 180 over the outer marker).

[Gary Drescher]

"Capt.Doug" > wrote in message
...
> My charts do not list a time for the final approach segment for 60 knots.
> What time do you use if the glideslope craps out?

Twice the time listed for 120 knots.

--Gary

[Tom Sixkiller]

>"C J Campbell"wrote in message > I have no problem with
>flying the ILS at 90 or 100 knots if the ceiling is well above
>minimums, but it seems to me that if the ceiling is 200 feet
> overcast you ought to be flying the approach slowly enough
>that you can land at that speed. You don't need to configure for
>a short field landing, but you are not going to slow from 90
>knots to 60 in a Skyhawk in only 200 feet of altitude, especially
>if you can't risk ballooning back up into the soup.


If you have to go around, wouldn't you want speed built up ahead of time?

[Thomas Borchert]

C,

As Bob and others have said: you don't need to start the slow down at
breakout. Why not start slowing down at the middle marker - and land
long? The combination of the two makes fast approaches absolutely
possible.

I believe John Deakin has a column on this at Avweb. I know he likes to
fly 150 knots approaches in his Bo - he likes to hear "Bonanza xxx,
slow down, you're gaining on the 737 in front of you" <g>.
--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Mick Ruthven]

>GUMPS at DH

You don't mean a GUMPs check at decision height, do you? I want everything
checked well before decision height so there's nothing to do at decision
height except either land or go missed.

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article <OSzPb.98715$5V2.327271@attbi_s53>,
> "John R Weiss" > wrote:
>
> I s'pose. But you really shouldn't be playing with the throttle
> constantly either. Somewhere along the line I picked up adding "DFWTP"
> to my ILS checklist. DFWTP at GS intercept, GUMPS at DH. It stands for
> "Don't F*** With The Power".

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
"Mick Ruthven" > wrote:

> >GUMPS at DH
>
> You don't mean a GUMPs check at decision height, do you? I want everything
> checked well before decision height so there's nothing to do at decision
> height except either land or go missed.
>
> "Roy Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article <OSzPb.98715$5V2.327271@attbi_s53>,
> > "John R Weiss" > wrote:
> >
> > I s'pose. But you really shouldn't be playing with the throttle
> > constantly either. Somewhere along the line I picked up adding "DFWTP"
> > to my ILS checklist. DFWTP at GS intercept, GUMPS at DH. It stands for
> > "Don't F*** With The Power".
>
>

Well, OK, maybe not at DH per-se, but it certainly gets done just before
I land. That doesn't mean it wasn't all set up correctly before, but
the habit of doing GUMPS on short final isn't a bad habit.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article <OSzPb.98715$5V2.327271@attbi_s53>,
> "John R Weiss" > wrote:
>
> > "Roy Smith" > wrote...
> > >> Since the only reconfiguring you should have to do, if any,
> > >> is final flaps, you have plenty of time!
> > >
> > > Pulling the power back to idle might be nice too :-)
> >
> > I consider that part of the 'stick and throttle' part of flying that is
done
> > constantly, not "reconfiguring," which is done a couple times per
flight.
>
> I s'pose.

Autothrottle does all that in Weiss' airplane and he slept through it. :)

[Ray Andraka]

Hmm, I was taught to use the throttle to stay on glideslope, not the elevator.
I find using the throttle results in more controllability.

Roy Smith wrote:

> I s'pose. But you really shouldn't be playing with the throttle
> constantly either. Somewhere along the line I picked up adding "DFWTP"
> to my ILS checklist. DFWTP at GS intercept, GUMPS at DH. It stands for
> "Don't F*** With The Power".

--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759

[Peter Duniho]

"Ray Andraka" > wrote in message
...
> Hmm, I was taught to use the throttle to stay on glideslope, not the
elevator.
> I find using the throttle results in more controllability.

A little late to the thread, aren't you? That was over a month ago.
Anyway...

Your comment points to a classic debate, of course. Likely that no person
on one side will be convinced to change their methods. However, suffice to
say there are plenty of us that find that elevator is a more responsive and
useful way to adjust glideslope during an instrument approach. You're above
L/Dmax (so pitch changes do "what you expect"), and the result of a pitch
change is somewhat more uniform from airplane to airplane (power changes can
produce radically different results from airplane to airplane, depending on
drag, weight, and type of powerplant).

Either throttle or pitch can be used for the same purpose, with
approximately the same effect.

All that said, IMHO if you're going to say something like "I find using the
throttle results in more controllability", you ought to define what
"controllability" means. Making glideslope changes with pitch instead
certainly doesn't cause the airplane to go out of control, so it's not
really clear what difference you're talking about.

Pete

[Roger Tracy]

It's certainly a matter of perception and everyone thinks about
it differently. My feeling is it's a combination of both. I start
with slight pitch changes and adjust the throttle accordingly.
If you're timing your ILS approaches you'd want to maintain
a constant speed.




"Ray Andraka" > wrote in message
...
> Hmm, I was taught to use the throttle to stay on glideslope, not the
elevator.
> I find using the throttle results in more controllability.
>
> Roy Smith wrote:
>
> > I s'pose. But you really shouldn't be playing with the throttle
> > constantly either. Somewhere along the line I picked up adding "DFWTP"
> > to my ILS checklist. DFWTP at GS intercept, GUMPS at DH. It stands for
> > "Don't F*** With The Power".
>
> --
> --Ray Andraka, P.E.
> President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
> 401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
> email
> http://www.andraka.com
>
> "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
> temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
> -Benjamin Franklin, 1759
>
>

[Ray Andraka]

I used to do it with elevator, till an instructor on one of the refresher
courses I took showed me how much better power worked for my airplane (a
cherokee six). I can keep the needle centered much better with small changes in
power than I can with the elevator. SO what I mean by controllability, is the
ability to keep the needle pegged.

Peter Duniho wrote:--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759

[Ray Andraka]

Using the throttle will keep the speed constant. Using pitch will change the
airspeed, albiet only slightly for the small pitch changes associated with
flying an approach. Likewise, I use only throttle on a non-precision approach
because it keeps the airspeed constant (plus I know how much MP reduction is
required for a specific descent rate)

Roger Tracy wrote:

> It's certainly a matter of perception and everyone thinks about
> it differently. My feeling is it's a combination of both. I start
> with slight pitch changes and adjust the throttle accordingly.
> If you're timing your ILS approaches you'd want to maintain
> a constant speed.
>
> "Ray Andraka" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Hmm, I was taught to use the throttle to stay on glideslope, not the
> elevator.
> > I find using the throttle results in more controllability.
> >
> > Roy Smith wrote:
> >
> > > I s'pose. But you really shouldn't be playing with the throttle
> > > constantly either. Somewhere along the line I picked up adding "DFWTP"
> > > to my ILS checklist. DFWTP at GS intercept, GUMPS at DH. It stands for
> > > "Don't F*** With The Power".
> >
> > --
> > --Ray Andraka, P.E.
> > President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
> > 401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
> > email
> > http://www.andraka.com
> >
> > "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
> > temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
> > -Benjamin Franklin, 1759
> >
> >

--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Peter Duniho wrote:
> "Ray Andraka" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Hmm, I was taught to use the throttle to stay on glideslope, not the
>
> elevator.
>
>>I find using the throttle results in more controllability.
>
>
> A little late to the thread, aren't you? That was over a month ago.
> Anyway...
>
> Your comment points to a classic debate, of course. Likely that no person
> on one side will be convinced to change their methods. However, suffice to
> say there are plenty of us that find that elevator is a more responsive and
> useful way to adjust glideslope during an instrument approach. You're above
> L/Dmax (so pitch changes do "what you expect"), and the result of a pitch
> change is somewhat more uniform from airplane to airplane (power changes can
> produce radically different results from airplane to airplane, depending on
> drag, weight, and type of powerplant).

Yes, but you typically also want to maintain a given airspeed while on
the approach. Using small throttle adjustments allows you to track the
glide path while maintaining a uniform airspeed. Using the elevator
won't do that. I always trim to the desired approach speed and then
make small throttle adjustments to track the GS ... of course, if you
have dramatic wind shear, then you may need large throttle and elevator
inputs.


> Either throttle or pitch can be used for the same purpose, with
> approximately the same effect.
>
> All that said, IMHO if you're going to say something like "I find using the
> throttle results in more controllability", you ought to define what
> "controllability" means. Making glideslope changes with pitch instead
> certainly doesn't cause the airplane to go out of control, so it's not
> really clear what difference you're talking about.

It does allow you to keep better control of the airspeed.


Matt