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
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"John R Weiss" wrote in message news:%tvlc.22953$I%1.1648156@attbi_s51... "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 I agree about recommending it to a novice John, but in a well trained cockpit, the transfer is not difficult. We did it both ways in the B-52 and B-1B and it worked out if you knew who you were flying with and had confidence in him (her). In those aircraft, there was nothing lower than a DH of 200' authorized. I imagine you go much lower than that in the 74. JB |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"Jim Baker" wrote...
Unless the PF is disoriented, transferring control to the PNF at the last second may be even a riskier proposition. I agree about recommending it to a novice John, but in a well trained cockpit, the transfer is not difficult. We did it both ways in the B-52 and B-1B and it worked out if you knew who you were flying with and had confidence in him (her). In those aircraft, there was nothing lower than a DH of 200' authorized. I imagine you go much lower than that in the 74. The "well trained cockpit" is the key here. If you fly as a dedicated crew all the time, you can work out those things. For pilots who switch partners virtually every leg, it's a much bigger problem. I remember back in my Navy instructor days that we'd have to do all the landings in the TA-4 during students' back-seat instrument flights. After a while, I'd come to expect almost ANYTHING in the way of trim when I took it at minimums (usually severe VMC in the front, though). The fact that I was the Instrument Stan guy who "touched" virtually every student with problems made it even more interesting... I got used to regular crews (B/Ns) in the A-6, but landing from the right seat was not an approved procedure (though occasionally practiced on big runways as a 'combat contingency'). Cat I minima still include 200' DH in the 744. Any Cat II or III landing is Autoland. After a 12- or 14-hour overnight flight from LAX to Seoul, though, I'm usually tempted to let Otto land if I don't see the runway at 400'. Our FHB gives us that latitude (brief the options on final), and it's much preferable to a last-second change of control -- which is used almost exclusively as a Captain's last-resort option when an FO is about to ham-hand it. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"John R Weiss" wrote in
news:%tvlc.22953$I%1.1648156@attbi_s51: 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. The ops specs leave it up to the captain. I usually fly with one of 2 FOs, but sometimes with a new guy. My preference is to have the FO fly the approach, and I will take the controls at breakout if necessary, after monitoring the approach. I've had a bad experience or two with the PF looking up, trying to get a visual reference, and not being properly oriented right away. We can cut the published visibility in half, down to 1/4 mile, and Part 91 says you can continue to 100' above the TDZE if you have the approach lights in sight. I've done that several times, and always got the runway lights at about 110'. IMO, that's too low to try to switch to visual, so it's safer to transfer the controls, especially if it has been briefed and practiced. A proper approach briefing, including transfer of controls, is critical. That's my preference, but your cockpit, your decision. -- Regards, Stan |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
That's my preference, but your cockpit, your decision. It's been the air carrier "standard" since the mid-1980s to do monitored approaches below a certain combination of reported ceiling and visibility, and to encourage use of automatics whenever possible. But, the single pilot guy in a light aircraft has a whole different set of issues to deal with. Nonetheless, a first rate autopilot with good ILS coupling and vertical speed for IAPs other than ILS can end up making it work good, provided the pilot is really proficient at the use of the auto-pilot, knows what to monitor, and knows when to disconnect once the visual cues are sufficient. One size doesn't fit all. Then again, only the most current and proficient pilot should be flying an approach to RVR 2400, or so, where often no "break out" ever occurs. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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) |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
"bush flying" in the suburbs? | [email protected] | Home Built | 85 | December 28th 04 11:04 PM |
RAH'er has forced landing | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 33 | December 24th 04 12:58 PM |
Logging approaches | Ron Garrison | Instrument Flight Rules | 109 | March 2nd 04 05:54 PM |
Cessna Steel Landing Gears, J-3 Seat Sling For Auction | Bill Berle | Home Built | 0 | February 19th 04 06:51 PM |
Off topic - Landing of a B-17 | Ghost | Home Built | 2 | October 28th 03 04:35 PM |