Approach speeds for ILS

"David Brooks" wrote in message ...

To be fair to CJ, I think his observation is mostly about the poor skills of
pilots he watches at TIW.

I understand that, David. But I still don't understand his
post. I don't understand why he says there are only 200 ft
to slow from 90 to 60 kts, and I think if skills are wobbly
(mine certainly can become so PDQ) the answer isn't to switch
to flying at 60 kts, it's to practice more. Because I think
flying an ILS at 60 kts or slowing to 60 kts before decision
height introduces its own set of issues and would require
specific practice for proficiency.

Cheers,
Sydney

"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.

My charts do not list a time for the final approach segment for 60 knots.
What time do you use if the glideslope craps out?

D. (smart-aleck response from someone who does 180 over the outer marker).

"Capt.Doug" wrote in message
...
My charts do not list a time for the final approach segment for 60 knots.
What time do you use if the glideslope craps out?

Twice the time listed for 120 knots.

--Gary

"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.


If you have to go around, wouldn't you want speed built up ahead of time?

C,

As Bob and others have said: you don't need to start the slow down at
breakout. Why not start slowing down at the middle marker - and land
long? The combination of the two makes fast approaches absolutely
possible.

I believe John Deakin has a column on this at Avweb. I know he likes to
fly 150 knots approaches in his Bo - he likes to hear "Bonanza xxx,
slow down, you're gaining on the 737 in front of you" g.
--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

GUMPS at DH

You don't mean a GUMPs check at decision height, do you? I want everything
checked well before decision height so there's nothing to do at decision
height except either land or go missed.

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...
In article OSzPb.98715$5V2.327271@attbi_s53,
"John R Weiss" wrote:

I s'pose. But you really shouldn't be playing with the throttle
constantly either. Somewhere along the line I picked up adding "DFWTP"
to my ILS checklist. DFWTP at GS intercept, GUMPS at DH. It stands for
"Don't F*** With The Power".

In article ,
"Mick Ruthven" wrote:

GUMPS at DH

You don't mean a GUMPs check at decision height, do you? I want everything
checked well before decision height so there's nothing to do at decision
height except either land or go missed.

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...
In article OSzPb.98715$5V2.327271@attbi_s53,
"John R Weiss" wrote:

I s'pose. But you really shouldn't be playing with the throttle
constantly either. Somewhere along the line I picked up adding "DFWTP"
to my ILS checklist. DFWTP at GS intercept, GUMPS at DH. It stands for
"Don't F*** With The Power".



Well, OK, maybe not at DH per-se, but it certainly gets done just before
I land. That doesn't mean it wasn't all set up correctly before, but
the habit of doing GUMPS on short final isn't a bad habit.

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...
In article OSzPb.98715$5V2.327271@attbi_s53,
"John R Weiss" wrote:

"Roy Smith" wrote...
Since the only reconfiguring you should have to do, if any,
is final flaps, you have plenty of time!

Pulling the power back to idle might be nice too :-)

I consider that part of the 'stick and throttle' part of flying that is
done
constantly, not "reconfiguring," which is done a couple times per
flight.

I s'pose.

Autothrottle does all that in Weiss' airplane and he slept through it.

Hmm, I was taught to use the throttle to stay on glideslope, not the elevator.
I find using the throttle results in more controllability.

Roy Smith wrote:

I s'pose. But you really shouldn't be playing with the throttle
constantly either. Somewhere along the line I picked up adding "DFWTP"
to my ILS checklist. DFWTP at GS intercept, GUMPS at DH. It stands for
"Don't F*** With The Power".

--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759

"Ray Andraka" wrote in message
...
Hmm, I was taught to use the throttle to stay on glideslope, not the
elevator.
I find using the throttle results in more controllability.

A little late to the thread, aren't you? That was over a month ago.
Anyway...

Your comment points to a classic debate, of course. Likely that no person
on one side will be convinced to change their methods. However, suffice to
say there are plenty of us that find that elevator is a more responsive and
useful way to adjust glideslope during an instrument approach. You're above
L/Dmax (so pitch changes do "what you expect"), and the result of a pitch
change is somewhat more uniform from airplane to airplane (power changes can
produce radically different results from airplane to airplane, depending on
drag, weight, and type of powerplant).

Either throttle or pitch can be used for the same purpose, with
approximately the same effect.

All that said, IMHO if you're going to say something like "I find using the
throttle results in more controllability", you ought to define what
"controllability" means. Making glideslope changes with pitch instead
certainly doesn't cause the airplane to go out of control, so it's not
really clear what difference you're talking about.

Pete