A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Instrument Flight Rules
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Approach speeds for ILS



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 21st 04, 03:20 AM
C J Campbell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.



  #2  
Old January 21st 04, 03:30 AM
Paul Tomblin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
  #3  
Old January 21st 04, 03:34 AM
plumbus bobbus
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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?


  #4  
Old January 21st 04, 03:40 AM
Bob Noel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , "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.


otoh - I can slow my cherokee 140 down from 90 knots at the middle
marker to a good landing speed at the GIP. I know I can do it
because that's the way I've done every single ILS approach and that
was the way I was taught from day one.

ymmv

--
Bob Noel
  #5  
Old January 21st 04, 03:43 AM
C J Campbell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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.


  #6  
Old January 21st 04, 04:01 AM
John R Weiss
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"C J Campbell" wrote...

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 think you may need to practice your ILS approaches, especially the transition
to visual and landing. The transition to visual is very difficult -- probably
moreso than flying the needles.

Try flying ILS approaches in full VMC conditions -- not even a hood -- but with
a safety pilot or instructor aboard. Let the outside stuff distract you from
your instrument scan, and force yourself to look back inside. Practice the
transition to visual at 200', including the power reduction, decel, flaps (if
you use more to land than you use in the approach), and flare. It is NOT the
same as your normal VFR landing, and it DOES require specific practice.

When you get proficient, only then should you attempt to fly when the weather is
anywhere near minimums.


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.


Nope -- not unless you are flying a Cat III certified airplane.

You should be ready to transition to land AFTER you break out! A C172 at 90
knots is only descending at 400-500 FPM. At 200' AGL, you have 20-30 seconds
until touchdown, even if you don't flare at all! You can do a lot of
decelerating, reconfiguring, and flaring in 20 seconds. Since the only
reconfiguring you should have to do, if any, is final flaps, you have plenty of
time!


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.


That is good advice.

  #7  
Old January 21st 04, 04:01 AM
C J Campbell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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.


  #8  
Old January 21st 04, 04:09 AM
Roy Smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"John R Weiss" wrote:
You can do a lot of decelerating, reconfiguring, and flaring in 20
seconds. 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 :-)
  #9  
Old January 21st 04, 04:09 AM
plumbus bobbus
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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.


  #10  
Old January 21st 04, 04:18 AM
Ben Jackson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
C J Campbell wrote:
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


You really want people flying differently in tough weather conditions?
You're better off flying what you practiced. If you can't fly a 100kt
ILS and land after breaking out at 200' you should either practice that
or fly all of your approaches at 90kt.

If you pull power and put in 10 degrees of flaps (haven't the last 30
years or so worth of 172 allowed the first 10 degrees at like 110kts?)
you'll be down to full flap speed in a matter of seconds and after that
you can drop like a brick if you want.

--
Ben Jackson

http://www.ben.com/
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
LSA Approach speeds Ace Pilot Home Built 0 February 3rd 04 06:38 PM
How much protection on approach? Michael Instrument Flight Rules 20 January 15th 04 06:58 PM
Completing the Non-precision approach as a Visual Approach John Clonts Instrument Flight Rules 45 November 20th 03 06:20 AM
Which of these approaches is loggable? Paul Tomblin Instrument Flight Rules 26 August 16th 03 05:22 PM
IR checkride story! Guy Elden Jr. Instrument Flight Rules 16 August 1st 03 09:03 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:26 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.