transitioning from instruments to visual landing on final

I'm about 14 hours into my IFR training with 11 of those on the sim.
I had to go to LAS for work (non-aviation) for 3 weeks. I came back
and was dying to go flying. Well I expected the worst. I hadn't
flown a plane in nearly 2 months since I was working on the IFR stuff.
First time flying approaches in a plane. At night. I expectedt to be
near dead afterwards. According to my CFII, I would have been close
to the PTS standards. yea, it put a big smile on my face.

The biggest problem I had was going from the IFR part to the
visual on short final. The night time might have had something
to do with it but regardles I had a hard time adjusting. I presume
this is somewhat normal. Any words of wisdom?

Gerald

Gerald Sylvester wrote in
ink.net:

The biggest problem I had was going from the IFR part to
the visual on short final. The night time might have had
something to do with it but regardles I had a hard time
adjusting. I presume this is somewhat normal. Any words
of wisdom?

About all I can say is be careful. This is a tough area. I'm
lucky enough to fly a dual-pilot aircraft, and my usual policy
is that the PF does the landing if we break out on the ILS at or
above 400'AGL, but the PNF, who is looking outside, does the
landing if we break out lower. It's just too difficult to make
the transition at lower altitudes, which can be as low as 100'.
Practice it a lot, with a safety pilot if possible. Proficiency
comes with practice, and instrument flying takes lots of
proficiency to be done safely.

--
Regards,

Stan

On Mon, 03 May 2004 05:22:04 GMT, Gerald Sylvester
wrote:

I'm about 14 hours into my IFR training with 11 of those on the sim.
I had to go to LAS for work (non-aviation) for 3 weeks. I came back
and was dying to go flying. Well I expected the worst. I hadn't
flown a plane in nearly 2 months since I was working on the IFR stuff.
First time flying approaches in a plane. At night. I expectedt to be
near dead afterwards. According to my CFII, I would have been close
to the PTS standards. yea, it put a big smile on my face.

The biggest problem I had was going from the IFR part to the
visual on short final. The night time might have had something
to do with it but regardles I had a hard time adjusting. I presume
this is somewhat normal. Any words of wisdom?

Gerald




It is common. The "words of wisdom" are "practice, practice, practice"
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

Gerald Sylvester wrote
The biggest problem I had was going from the IFR part to the
visual on short final.

I'm glad you recognize where the big issue is on the approach. See,
when you do them at night, especially if the visibility is less than
perfect, this becomes obvious. Keep doing them at night - doing it in
the daylight with good vis is no challenge, but doesn't prepare you to
shoot that ILS to less than a mile vis either.

The night time might have had something
to do with it but regardles I had a hard time adjusting. I presume
this is somewhat normal. Any words of wisdom?

Yes, it's very normal. It's also not easy.

I suggest that even when you go visual at DH, you keep the instruments
in the scan. Learn to divide attention between visual and instrument
references. On an approach in very low vis (remember, as an
instrument rated pilot you might legally land with as little as 1800
RVR - less than half mile vis at ground level) you really should not
be fully off instruments until you flare.

If a VASI is available, use it.

Make your power reductions gradually, and don't forget to retrim as
you do. Realize that you don't get less busy when you acquire visual
references, you get MORE busy.

Practice. It will get better.

Michael

This is a weak spot for CFII's. Most will have students shoot approaches
down to MDA or DH and then go around, with no emphasis on transitioning to
VFR and landing. Their reasoning is that they can't take the time to taxi
back when they might be able to squeeze in just one more approach. Not good
real-world training. I have found ATC to be very accomodating, if you tell
them well in advance what you want to do.

Bob Gardner

"Gerald Sylvester" wrote in message
ink.net...
I'm about 14 hours into my IFR training with 11 of those on the sim.
I had to go to LAS for work (non-aviation) for 3 weeks. I came back
and was dying to go flying. Well I expected the worst. I hadn't
flown a plane in nearly 2 months since I was working on the IFR stuff.
First time flying approaches in a plane. At night. I expectedt to be
near dead afterwards. According to my CFII, I would have been close
to the PTS standards. yea, it put a big smile on my face.

The biggest problem I had was going from the IFR part to the
visual on short final. The night time might have had something
to do with it but regardles I had a hard time adjusting. I presume
this is somewhat normal. Any words of wisdom?

Gerald

(Michael) wrote:
I'm glad you recognize where the big issue is on the approach. See,
when you do them at night, especially if the visibility is less than
perfect, this becomes obvious.

Night is good practice, if only because there are so many ground lights
to confuse you. For example, on the ILS-16 at HPN, if you're a little
left of the localizer and correcting back to the right when you look up
at maybe a mile or two out, you'll see yourself perfectly lined up with
a line of white lights. The only problem is, it's not the approach
lights, it's I-684. The illusion that it's a runway is really hard to
fight if you've never seen it before.

You really need to stay on instruments until you're absolutely sure
you've identified the runway visually.

"Gerald Sylvester" wrote...

The biggest problem I had was going from the IFR part to the
visual on short final. The night time might have had something
to do with it but regardles I had a hard time adjusting. I presume
this is somewhat normal. Any words of wisdom?

The instrument-to-visual transition is indeed the hardest part of the
process for many/most people. Several things help:

On an ILS, be set up perfectly as soon as possible. When you first see
the runway, DO NOTHING -- the airplane will continue to fly the LOC and G/S!

After you see the runway, go back to the instruments. Avoid the urge to
"go visual" as soon as you can.

Take only peeks at the runway until you are over the threshold. Stay on
the instruments. Even when you "break out" at minimums, stay on the
instruments, except for those peeks. At 200' AGL, you still have 15-20
seconds of flying to do, and the flare takes less than the last 5 of those.

On a non-precision approach, plan a rate of descent to get yourself at
MDA at the VDP. If no VDP is on the approach plate, construct one using DME
or timing. If you "break out" approaching the MDA, DO NOTHING until you
have oriented yourself with the runway. Then make the easy heading
corrections to establish lineup (if on a VOR or ADF approach; should be
unnecessary on a LOC) while the airplane continues at the normal rate of
descent. At 400' AGL, you still have 30-40 seconds of flying to do; there
is seldom a rush to do anything RIGHT NOW.


Did I mention -- stay primarily on the instruments until over the threshold.
:-)

"Stan Gosnell" me@work wrote...

I'm
lucky enough to fly a dual-pilot aircraft, and my usual policy
is that the PF does the landing if we break out on the ILS at or
above 400'AGL, but the PNF, who is looking outside, does the
landing if we break out lower. It's just too difficult to make
the transition at lower altitudes, which can be as low as 100'.

Dunno about that one...

Unless the PF is disoriented, transferring control to the PNF at the last
second may be even a riskier proposition. The PF has been actively flying
and has the current feel of the controls. He has unconsciously set the bias
in the trim that suits his techniques, which may be different from the
PNF's. The PF also has established his instrument scan, which he can
maintain until the flare or go-around; he will have been peeking out the
window regardless of his discipline, and will have no worse a situational
awareness than the PNF at first ground contact.

Of course, if your OpSpecs dictate that technique and it is practiced often,
it may work out for you. I wouldn't recommend it to a novice, though.

John Weiss
ATP, 747-400 F/O

Gerald Sylvester wrote:
I'm about 14 hours into my IFR training with 11 of those on the sim.
I had to go to LAS for work (non-aviation) for 3 weeks. I came back
and was dying to go flying. Well I expected the worst. I hadn't
flown a plane in nearly 2 months since I was working on the IFR stuff.
First time flying approaches in a plane. At night. I expectedt to be
near dead afterwards. According to my CFII, I would have been close
to the PTS standards. yea, it put a big smile on my face.

The biggest problem I had was going from the IFR part to the
visual on short final. The night time might have had something
to do with it but regardles I had a hard time adjusting. I presume
this is somewhat normal. Any words of wisdom?

Gerald

I was lucky and never found this to be a problem. I took most of my
training at night due to work obligations, but in retrospect this was
probably good as it makes flying in the daytime so much nicer! The only
problem I had in transitioning was when I didn't take the time to form a
mental image of what I would see. For example, let's say you are
crabbing 10 degrees to the right on final. If you mentally expect to
look 10 degrees left of the nose for the runway, then it all makes more
sense when you look out the window. One time I was on a real approach
into, I think, Lynchburg, VA, and I was holding something like 20
degrees of crab due to very strong wind. When I first broke out, I was
slightly disoriented as the runway wasn't where I expected it to be, but
I pretty quickly caught on to what was what. I now try to always think
through where the runway will be when I look up from the hood (or break
out of a real overcast) and I find the transition very painless.


Matt

Gerald Sylvester wrote:

The biggest problem I had was going from the IFR part to the
visual on short final. The night time might have had something
to do with it but regardles I had a hard time adjusting. I presume
this is somewhat normal. Any words of wisdom?

I wouldn't call this wisdom -- I got my rating only nine months ago -- but
for me, the important thing is not to muddle around. When you're IFR, you
want to be either on instruments (full scan) or visual (looking outside and
cross-checking instruments), but never halfway in-between.

The hood or foggles do a lousy job of showing what IFR flying is really
like. In real life, it's often a matter of flicking in and out of cloud
tops or cloud bottoms, alternating between IMC and VMC every few minutes or
even every few seconds. To pull that off, you have to imagine a virtual
switch in your brain between instrument flying and visual flying and flick
it back and forth as conditions change -- even say it out loud to yourself
if it helps.

Landing is just a special case of that problem. I find it useful to decide
in advance when I'm going to start looking for the runway (assuming the
weather is low enough for a full IAP rather than a visual approach). Until
I hit that time or altitude, I'm only on instruments; at the moment when I
hit my preselected point, I look up for the runway.

If I can see the runway clearly, I throw the virtual switch in my head to
"visual" and finish the landing; if not, I plan to stay on "instruments"
until the DH or MAP and then go missed (so far, I have not had to do a
missed approach -- my rule is never to start out unless my destination is
forecasting at least standard alternate minima).

Staring out the windshield saying "I can sort-of see the runway, but I still
need to sort-of follow the ILS and sort-of use the gyros to keep the plane
level" is probably not a good flying mode -- your "instruments/visual"
switch is stuck in the middle.

I hope that you enjoy your IFR training as much as I enjoyed mine last year
-- it can be frustrating sometimes, but it can also be a lot of fun, and it
made an enormous difference in the usefulness of my plane.


All the best, and good luck,


David