Winds on approach

Dave S wrote:
Tim wrote:


What you advocate makes no sense to me. What is the rationale?



Preventing accidents from shifting gears in a high stress, relatively
risky portion of the flight.

If you are flying an ILS, you should brief the ILS and fly what you
brief. Your choices should be one of two: Land or go missed. Trying to
make the most of a bad situation usually results in a worse situation.


If its a bad idea for a professional, 2 person ATP rated or eligible
crew, flying into places they are used to going on a daily basis, why is
it a good idea for a single pilot op?

As for bad weather getting worse, with diminishing fuel reserves.. does
anybody remember something about enough fuel to make your destination,
plus filed alternate, plus 45 more minutes. I dont think it was a
suggestion. And something about weather minimums at alternates?

If you are getting in this kind of a pinch, might want a refresher on
flight planning and rule requirements.

Dave


Actually, if you are in the kind of pinch where you can;t start a timer
at the appropriate time and transition to a localizer approach from an
ILS you might want a refresher. Obviously we have different views on
this. I do not see a transition from a GS to Localizer as risky. There
is only one difference - that is how one gets to the DH/MDA. - either
on a GS or descending at some rate after a certain point. I can;t agree
that that is risky.

Dave S wrote:


SNIP
As for bad weather getting worse, with diminishing fuel reserves.. does
anybody remember something about enough fuel to make your destination,
plus filed alternate, plus 45 more minutes. I dont think it was a
suggestion. And something about weather minimums at alternates?


So what if you are already at your alternate with low fuel and this
happens? Or what if winds are not as forecast, or what if you had to
hold at/before the primary airport? Perhaps there was a fuel problem in
flight? If the GS goes out and you haven't seen the runway already -
what makes you think going for a second try will make the approach
better? This is a sure way of wasting fuel so that I get into a risky
situation. Again, if you can't handle it then fine, but don;t tell
others it is risky and please don't suggest I need refresher on
regulations or flight planning.


If you are getting in this kind of a pinch, might want a refresher on
flight planning and rule requirements.

Dave

In article . net,
Dave S wrote:

What you advocate makes no sense to me. What is the rationale?

Preventing accidents from shifting gears in a high stress, relatively
risky portion of the flight.

How many accidents have been caused by transitioning from an ILS
to a LOC?


If you are flying an ILS, you should brief the ILS and fly what you
brief. Your choices should be one of two: Land or go missed. Trying to
make the most of a bad situation usually results in a worse situation.

Train as you fly, fly as you train. If you've always trained this way, and
you include the one extra step (if above MDA, then fly continue to MDA)
you are still in the Land or Go Missed mode.

Also, if the weather is above LOC minimums, then this isn't a particularly
high stress approach.


If its a bad idea for a professional, 2 person ATP rated or eligible
crew, flying into places they are used to going on a daily basis, why is
it a good idea for a single pilot op?

The small aircraft generally flies slower than an airliner. The pilot has
a lot more time to react and think on the 90 knot approach than the
160 knot approach.

--
Bob Noel
(gave up looking for a particular sig the lawyer will hate)

Jose wrote:

As long as you are above the minima, and past any stepdown fixes, you're
ok. (This is one reason localizer minima are higher.) And being down
early gives you a better chance to break out to visual, and maybe fly
around the one cloud that would otherwise be in the way.

I agree. Don't change the power settings. The descent on a
non-precision approach for step downs is fairly rapid in all
circumstances. A headwind is usually less of a problem.
A tailwind may mean that you don't get to the MDA or stepdown
altitude in time.

The bigger is adjusting your times for things like the
distance from passing a fix before starting the PT and
the times flown in the PT's. With a tail wind you
can end up doing the PT uncomfortably close in if you
don't extend the time. Then add to that you are
being pushed down the final course rapidly, things
might happen too fast.

Admittedly the moving map is a big crutch not just
because it gives you the distances but it also gives
you the ground speed read out which lets you pick
the times more easily.

"kevmor" wrote in message
ups.com...
I'm not sure how I would've known the right power setting,
unless I used what I normally do, and accept the lower ground speed,
then adjust my descent for the ILS to a much lower fpm descent?

That's what I'd do. The key is that you're doing the things you do in the
right places, not at any specific speed. So as long as the places and
altitudes that you turn and/or descend correspond to what it says on the
approach plate, that's just peachy - it'll stop you banging into mountains
and whatnot. Yes, you'll end up with a lower rate of descent in order to
keep the glideslope needle centred, but that's perfectly normal.
Additionally, the POH says that you should approach at such-and-such a
speed, so do so - the wing doesn't care how fast the sky is moving over the
ground, only how fast it's moving over the aerofoil.

If you want to keep the power up for a bit longer than normal just so you
don't grow old waiting for the glideslope to come down to meet you, then
that's up to you. But by the time you're established on your approach, you
ought to be at your proper approach airspeed - once established it's a
non-trivial task to adjust your speed markedly, then fix the rate of descent
to compensate for all that thrust you just took off, all the while ensuring
you're still on the glideslope.

Assuming you're into a headwind, the groundspeed is largely irrelevant -
except that you'll wear the tyres out a little bit less than usual, and
you'll have further to taxi once you've landed, as the landing roll will be
shorter than usual.

D.

"paul kgyy" wrote in message
ps.com...
Consistency is valuable when you're still getting the hang of IFR
approaches. However, once past the initial phase, you need to
practice approaches at different speeds because eventually you will
need to move the airplane along with traffic behind you. Also, I find
that in windy conditions, a faster approach is easier to control so
often add an inch of MP to my customary power setting.

When it's gusty, yes - you'd always add a squirt of power above the normal
approach speed just to cater for Sod's law which states that you'll get a
lull half a second before you flare, and the concrete will happen rather
more noticeably than you hoped.

I'd attach a caveat concerning the aircraft behind you, though. Yes, it's
good to be nice to him/her if it's convenient and safe to do so, but
remember that (a) you're primarily responsibility for the safety of your
aircraft, not the convenience of his/hers; and (b) the manufacturer of your
aircraft wrote the POH, not the ATC guy or the bloke behind you :-)

D.

"M" wrote in message oups.com...


This is particularly important if it's windy and bumpy. If you fly
that approach at cruise power to keep the groundspeed at 90 knots
you're likely above your Va, which can overstress the airframe.

A touch of hyperbole, maybe?
Va is the G-safe speed for *abrupt full deflection* of any control.
Most of my ILS approaches thankfully don't require that. :-)

Let's see, Tim...you do carry IFR reserves, right? So you should have enough
for the approach plus what it takes to get to an alternate plus 45 minutes?
Where does the risk of fuel come in?

Bob Gardner

"Tim" wrote in message
...
Is that FAA or air carrier rule?

That does not mean it is a bad thing.
It seems to me that abandoning an approach with the risk of fuel and worse
weather is worse.

Bob Moore wrote:
Bob Gardner wrote


Conventional wisdom (as I see it) is to execute a miss if you lose the
glideslope, go around, prepare and brief the localizer approach, then
do it. Changing horses in midstream is not wise policy, especially in
the clouds and close to the ground. YMMV, but I'll never teach or
advocate the switch.


Nor do Part 121 Aircarriers permit their aircrews to change-over.

Bob Moore

On 03/30/07 09:31, Bob Gardner wrote:
Let's see, Tim...you do carry IFR reserves, right? So you should have enough
for the approach plus what it takes to get to an alternate plus 45 minutes?
Where does the risk of fuel come in?

To imagine that low fuel will never be a consideration is simply ridiculous.
How about when you get to your alternate, and can't get in due to weather,
and you're forced to go to another airport? How about unexpected holding?
How about a fuel leak (as someone else pointed out)?

Are you really saying that a pilot need not consider the possibility?
That would be very bad advice, in my opinion.


Bob Gardner


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

Bob Gardner wrote:
Let's see, Tim...you do carry IFR reserves, right? So you should have enough
for the approach plus what it takes to get to an alternate plus 45 minutes?
Where does the risk of fuel come in?

Bob Gardner


Well, Bob, let's see here. Maybe I can come up with a possible scenario
for low fuel situation...

Winds not as forecast
holds and delays
I already went missed once and now at my alternate
I am sure you can think of others, but those are quite likely -
especially in conditions where instrument approach procedures are
necessary.

Now, are you still going to claim that the only time low fuel is an
issue is when the pilot did not plan correctly? That is absurd.

My point was that going missed, getting another approach clearance,
eating into the reserves is a bad idea when you are already established
on the approach.

tim

"Tim" wrote in message
...

Is that FAA or air carrier rule?

That does not mean it is a bad thing.
It seems to me that abandoning an approach with the risk of fuel and worse
weather is worse.

Bob Moore wrote:

Bob Gardner wrote



Conventional wisdom (as I see it) is to execute a miss if you lose the
glideslope, go around, prepare and brief the localizer approach, then
do it. Changing horses in midstream is not wise policy, especially in
the clouds and close to the ground. YMMV, but I'll never teach or
advocate the switch.


Nor do Part 121 Aircarriers permit their aircrews to change-over.

Bob Moore