Approach speeds for ILS

"Paul Sengupta" wrote...

Besides, some airplanes don't take well to idle at 200' (including my
current 744)... ;-)

If you brought it in 50% faster than normal, it might well do...

Can only do a missed approach in that situation -- goes against the "stabilized
approach" rule... :-)

French Bulldog? This is my idea of a French Bulldog:
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=191673

:-)

Paul

"Jeff" wrote in message
...
http://www.turboarrow3.com/newplane/chino/index.html

"Snowbird" wrote in message
m...
"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
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.

CJ,

I don't understand this post at all. It seems to me that 90 kts
to DH is standard way most people are taught to fly an ILS.

To be fair to CJ, I think his observation is mostly about the poor skills of
pilots he watches at TIW. People here are talking about their own personal
habits, and everyone knows this is an advanced and skilled group of pilots
who won't go all wobbly on breakout.

-- David Brooks

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. 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".

While it IS poor form to come blazing down the ILS to 200 ft minimums in
a skyhawk at 100 kts, wouldnt you agree that most runways that are
capable of ILS landings are more than long enough to sustain the float
and bleedoff of airspeed, and eventual safe landing?

And.. if you do screw the pooch and manage to baloon 200 ft back up...
well.. thats what go-arounds/missed approaches are for.

But.. you are right, too fast is too fast.. and Instrument work is about
PRECISION..

Dave

C J Campbell wrote:
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.

Dave S wrote:

While it IS poor form to come blazing down the ILS to 200 ft minimums in
a skyhawk at 100 kts,

Huh? Who says?

--
Peter










----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Richard Kaplan" wrote in message ws.com...
ILS runways are usually 5,000 feet or longer. You could dissipate speed
over the runway.

I suspect if you cross the runway threshold right on the glideslope at 90
knots in a Skyhawk with a 5,000 foot runway, there is no way you could
overrun the runway if you tried.

I don't know about a Skyhawk, but FWIW, our former home airport
used to have only 1 ILS, to Rwy 8 which meant if low wx combined with
wind, one might be landing with a tailwind (prevailing winds from
west in these parts). As a training exercise, one time I kept my
speed up to 90 kts over the threshold. I didn't run off the runway,
but I was durn close to my "go around!" point before my plane
decided to quit flying and settle down. I definately landed on
the last 3rd of a 6,500 ft runway. Dunno what the tailwind was --
nothing too startling (10-12 kts?)

Unfortunately, since many training ILS are done to a missed
approach, landing from an ILS isn't something at which some
instrument pilots get a lot of practice.

Cheers,
Sydney

180 H.P engine @ about 2500 RPM fixed pitch prop


On 21 Jan 2004 12:15:25 -0800, (Snowbird)
wrote:

Bill Zaleski wrote in message . ..
Ron's thoughts are very realistic and deal with real world scenearios.
All of my instrument students get the experience of flying 140 KT ILS
speeds in my skyhawk at the later points of their training.

Bill,

Just curious, how do you fly 140 kt ILS in a Skyhawk? Or do you
have a controllable prop?

Cheers,
Sydney

Dave S wrote in message hlink.net...
While it IS poor form to come blazing down the ILS to 200 ft minimums in
a skyhawk at 100 kts

It is? Gosh, what's "good form"?

Sydney

In article ,
(Snowbird) wrote:
I don't know about a Skyhawk, but FWIW, our former home airport
used to have only 1 ILS, to Rwy 8 which meant if low wx combined with
wind, one might be landing with a tailwind (prevailing winds from
west in these parts). As a training exercise, one time I kept my
speed up to 90 kts over the threshold. I didn't run off the runway,
but I was durn close to my "go around!" point before my plane
decided to quit flying and settle down. I definately landed on
the last 3rd of a 6,500 ft runway. Dunno what the tailwind was --
nothing too startling (10-12 kts?)

As you discovered, a 10-12 knot tailwind is indeed pretty startling.
Most people don't realize just how much effect a relatively small
tailwind has.

I happen to have a Beech S35 POH handy here. For some mumble
combination of weight, temperature, and altitude, the distance over a 50
foot obstacle goes up from 900 to 1400 feet with a 10 kt tailwind. The
graph doesn't go beyond a 10 kt tailwind; I can only assume Beech
figured nobody would want to try a landing with any more :-)

By eye, it looks like the tailwind guide line goes up at about 2-3 times
the slope of the headwind guide line (there's nothing about the shape or
slope of those curves which is model specific).

For linear (de-)acceleration, the distance used goes up by the square of
the ground speed. You normally cross the threshold at maybe 70 kts in a
typical spam can. Crank that up to 90 at the end of an ILS, and you're
using 65% more runway. Add a 10 kt tailwind, and you're using 105% more.

The chart doesn't say anything about how much to increase the distance
by on a wet runway. Or because (as others have pointed out), it's night
and your visual cues suck so your landing isn't as good as it could be.