Approach Timing

On 9/7/04 4:02 PM, Brien K. Meehan wrote the following:

Mitty wrote:

Doesn't seem like the MAP is that important.


On an instrument approach, it's the most important thing in the world.


So what if you are a bit
early or late when you decide you can't see where you're going?


You'd better study this a bit, because if you manage to get through
your IFR checkride without busting it a bit, this attitude may soon
make you dead a bit.


I don't want to turn this into a flame war, but I'll take the bait he

How (calculator, flight computer, mentally, etc.) and how precisely,
during an approach, do you calculate your time to the MAP based on your
ground speed crossing the FAF? Finally, to you, what is an acceptable
"bit?"

My checkride went fine, thanks.

Mitty wrote:
How (calculator, flight computer, mentally, etc.) and how precisely,
during an approach, do you calculate your time to the MAP based on your
ground speed crossing the FAF? Finally, to you, what is an acceptable
"bit?"

A perfectly reasonable question. Lacking any better instrumentation
(DME, or GPS), here's what I do:

1) Estimate the surface wind based on the best information you've got
(which usually means ATIS or AWOS).

2) Add some random fudge factor to account for the fact that the winds
at 500 - 2000 AGL (where you're going to be flying the approach) will
tend to be a bit stronger than on the surface.

3) If it's not a direct head or tail wind, take a WAG at the
head/tailwind component.

4) Add this to the indicated airspeed you plan on flying the approach at
(at the speeds and altitudes you usually use for approaches, IAS is
close enough to TAS that you shouldn't worry about the difference).

5) You now have a reasonable estimate of your groundspeed. If you're
trying to refine this estimate to anything closer than the nearest 10
kts, you're fooling yourself.

6) Now, look at the FAF-to-MAP timing table and do a rough interpolation
between the listed entries.

If you spend more than about 30 seconds on the whole process, you're
working too hard. Without a reliable way to measure GS, the best you
can do is a reasonable guess, so don't knock yourself out trying to do
anything fancier.

With a handheld GPS, you're be insane not to take advantage of the
information it gives you. If the MAP itself is not in the database, set
it navigating to the ARP, or the FAF, or the last stepdown fix, or
whatever makes the most sense for that approach. Start your watch to be
legal, but use your GPS to be safe.

On 9/7/04 6:21 PM, Roy Smith wrote the following:

Mitty wrote:

How (calculator, flight computer, mentally, etc.) and how precisely,
during an approach, do you calculate your time to the MAP based on your
ground speed crossing the FAF? Finally, to you, what is an acceptable
"bit?"


A perfectly reasonable question. Lacking any better instrumentation
(DME, or GPS), here's what I do:

1) Estimate the surface wind based on the best information you've got
(which usually means ATIS or AWOS).

2) Add some random fudge factor to account for the fact that the winds
at 500 - 2000 AGL (where you're going to be flying the approach) will
tend to be a bit stronger than on the surface.

3) If it's not a direct head or tail wind, take a WAG at the
head/tailwind component.

4) Add this to the indicated airspeed you plan on flying the approach at
(at the speeds and altitudes you usually use for approaches, IAS is
close enough to TAS that you shouldn't worry about the difference).

5) You now have a reasonable estimate of your groundspeed. If you're
trying to refine this estimate to anything closer than the nearest 10
kts, you're fooling yourself.

6) Now, look at the FAF-to-MAP timing table and do a rough interpolation
between the listed entries.

If you spend more than about 30 seconds on the whole process, you're
working too hard. Without a reliable way to measure GS, the best you
can do is a reasonable guess, so don't knock yourself out trying to do
anything fancier.


OK, that's basically what I do too and the consequent errors are what I
meant by the "a bit" comment that led to Meehan's smart-ass shot. "A
bit" is maybe a 10-15% error on the time sans. I have no interest in
studying the TERPS design rules but I gotta believe that they leave us
plenty safe with that size error.

With a handheld GPS, you're be insane not to take advantage of the
information it gives you. If the MAP itself is not in the database, set
it navigating to the ARP, or the FAF, or the last stepdown fix, or
whatever makes the most sense for that approach. Start your watch to be
legal, but use your GPS to be safe.

No argument. But the original poster's idea sounded like head-down
during an approach managing airspeed as it gets updated on a GPS -- that
idea still scares me. I'm not smart enough to fly an approach while
trying to do that, too. & I think it's unnecessary.

Mitty wrote:
No argument. But the original poster's idea sounded like head-down
during an approach managing airspeed as it gets updated on a GPS -- that
idea still scares me.

And it should. Fly whatever airspeed you're used to flying
non-precision approaches at (90 KIAS is typical for common trainer
types). The instrument to watch for managing airspeed is the ASI. Your
groundspeed is whatever it works out to be.

Mitty wrote
OK, that's basically what I do too and the consequent errors are what I
meant by the "a bit" comment that led to Meehan's smart-ass shot. "A
bit" is maybe a 10-15% error on the time sans. I have no interest in
studying the TERPS design rules but I gotta believe that they leave us
plenty safe with that size error.

Don't bet on it. Study the rules.

I used to believe that just because you flew a VOR approach to well
within instrument PTS standards, using a VOR that had easily passed,
and would easily pass again, a VOR check, that I could be assured of
not slamming into an obstruction if I was still 200 ft above the MDA.
WRONG.

Michael