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

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

"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

"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

"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.

"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

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.

wrote
But, the single pilot guy in a light aircraft has a whole different set
of issues to deal with.

Yup. In fact, I've started to believe that what we (private operators
of IFR-capable airplanes) do is so different from what the airlines
do, that there is precious little for us to learn from the airline
procedures. They're so geared towards crew operations and equipment
that we don't have that they just don't translate well into a
single-pilot cockpit with typical GA equipment.

I learned multiengine flying from an airline captain, and he taught me
to fly as much like the airlines as possible. I suppose that wasn't a
bad thing, but I also wound up carrying a copilot around for many of
my early IFR flights, until I developed the proficiency AND altered my
procedures to where I could handle the workload single-pilot.

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.

I've done it a few times (my lowest to 2000 RVR). Frankly, it's a
cakewalk compared to a circling-only NDB approach at night to a poorly
lit runway in 2 miles vis. Then again, it may have been the
airline-quality training I got that made it a cakewalk...

Michael

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)

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