![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
VOR/DME Approach Question | Chip Jones | Instrument Flight Rules | 47 | August 29th 04 05:03 AM |
F-18 Approach and touchdown speeds on runways? | Paul Michael Brown | Naval Aviation | 5 | August 25th 04 04:56 PM |
Canadian holding procedures | Derrick Early | Instrument Flight Rules | 24 | July 22nd 04 04:03 PM |
Approach speeds for ILS | C J Campbell | Instrument Flight Rules | 73 | March 2nd 04 11:20 PM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |