Approach speeds for ILS

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 he

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.

"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?

"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.

"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.

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

"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.

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

"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.

"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

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.