IFR approaches

[Cyril Gibb]

2 hours ago, David Medders said:

This is, of course, a stabilized approach. This type of instruction is the reason for my comment regarding continuous slowing from FAF to touchdown.

David, I didn't want to start a fight. I just wanted to say that each of us chooses how we fly an approach.  I will point out, however, that the FAA, Transport Canada, IATA, IFAPA, ICAO, Airbus and many many more organisations include a constant airspeed and throttle setting as part of the definition of a stabilised approach.

That's good enough for me. 

Do what you wish, but note that I do what I do because I consider it to be safe, not because of inadequate training, piloting skill or lack of awareness of alternative technique.

P.S. If you perform an approach your way during a checkride in Canada, you fail.

[midlifeflyer]

1 hour ago, Cyril Gibb said:

David, I didn't want to start a fight. I just wanted to say that each of us chooses how we fly an approach.  I will point out, however, that the FAA, Transport Canada, IATA, IFAPA, ICAO, Airbus and many many more organisations include a constant airspeed and throttle setting as part of the definition of a stabilised approach.

That's good enough for me. 

Do what you wish, but note that I do what I do because I consider it to be safe, not because of inadequate training, piloting skill or lack of awareness of alternative technique.

P.S. If you perform an approach your way during a checkride in Canada, you fail.

I'm sorry, but Ihave not seen that in any of the FAA materials I've looked at. The FAA definitions vary a bit depending on the type of aircraft, but all of them stress a target airspeed and descent angle with only minor variations.

Here's the definition from the Airplane Flying Handbook Glossary:

             STABILIZED APPROACH - A landing approach in which the pilot establishes and maintains a constant angle glidepath towards a predetermined point on the landing runway. It is based on the pilot’s judgment of certain visual cues, and depends on the maintenance of a constant final descent airspeed and configuration.

The Instrument Procedure Handbook in discussing descents on instrument approaches says:

            "This process is simplified by maintaining a constant approach speed, descent rate, vertical flight path, and configuration during the final stages of an approach. This is referred to as the stabilized approach concept."

I'm not aware of one that calls for a constant throttle setting. That would be a bit scary since in shear conditions, changes in power, sometimes substantial, are necessary to maintain the stabilized glidepath and airspeed in the stabilized configuration.

I'm personally a big fan of not having to do anything between the FAF and breaking out. But there are exceptions. The "keep your speed up" mixing in with traffic mentioned numerous time is one. One effective way to handle that is to do a decelerating approach. Don't get the wrong picture of what that looks like.  It does not involve big changes all of a sudden, which would definitely harm stability, but very small ones over time.

 

 

[David Medders]

1 hour ago, Cyril Gibb said:

David, I didn't want to start a fight. I just wanted to say that each of us chooses how we fly an approach.  I will point out, however, that the FAA, Transport Canada, IATA, IFAPA, ICAO, Airbus and many many more organisations include a constant airspeed and throttle setting as part of the definition of a stabilised approach.

That's good enough for me. 

Do what you wish, but note that I do what I do because I consider it to be safe, not because of inadequate training, piloting skill or lack of awareness of alternative technique.

P.S. If you perform an approach your way during a checkride in Canada, you fail.

 

Cyril,

Funny, I was agreeing with your position -- until now.

I have participated in many Falcon (50/50EX/900B/900EX) and Hawker (700/800A/800XP) checkrides under FAA, EASA, DGAC, and Transport Canada standards. All of my clients passed and all of them flew airspeed reductions from FAF to touchdown. Constant airspeed and configuration from FAF to touchdown IS a stabilized approach, but it IS NOT the defined standard of FAA, EASA, DGAC, Transport Canada, Airbus, Hawker Beechcraft, or Dassault. Stabilized approach criteria vary with weather conditions and type of approach.

This is exactly the urban legend I was addressing when I made my initial post.

Fly your approaches because you are comfortable with your technique, not because of an urban legend standard.

Cheers,

David

 

[Cyril Gibb]

5 minutes ago, midlifeflyer said:

I'm sorry, but Ihave not seen that in any of the FAA materials I've looked at. The FAA definitions vary a bit depending on the type of aircraft, but all of them stress a target airspeed and descent angle with only minor variations.

Here's the definition from the Airplane Flying Handbook Glossary:

             STABILIZED APPROACH - A landing approach in which the pilot establishes and maintains a constant angle glidepath towards a predetermined point on the landing runway. It is based on the pilot’s judgment of certain visual cues, and depends on the maintenance of a constant final descent airspeed and configuration.

The Instrument Procedure Handbook in discussing descents on instrument approaches says:

            "This process is simplified by maintaining a constant approach speed, descent rate, vertical flight path, and configuration during the final stages of an approach. This is referred to as the stabilized approach concept."

I'm not aware of one that calls for a constant throttle setting. That would be a bit scary since in shear conditions, changes in power, sometimes substantial, are necessary to maintain the stabilized glidepath and airspeed in the stabilized configuration.

I'm personally a big fan of not having to do anything between the FAF and breaking out. But there are exceptions. The "keep your speed up" mixing in with traffic mentioned numerous time is one. One effective way to handle that is to do a decelerating approach. Don't get the wrong picture of what that looks like.  It does not involve big changes all of a sudden, which would definitely harm stability, but very small ones over time.

 

 

Agreed, as I mentioned in my previous append, changing headwind component may require minor power changes to maintain speed or glideslope. As indicated in this: https://www.faa.gov/news/safety_briefing/2016/media/SE_Topic_16-11.pdf

But nowhere have I seen a definition of stabilised including "continuous slowing from FAF to touchdown".  That was the point.  Also agree with the "keep the speed up" exception if and only if there is a comfortable ceiling.  If I'm coming in expecting a 200 foot ceiling and a half mile, I will say "unable" and focus on my own approach.

[David Medders]

29 minutes ago, Cyril Gibb said:

But nowhere have I seen a definition of stabilised including "continuous slowing from FAF to touchdown".  That was the point. 

1

Cyril,

Here is the Transport Canada standard from the instrument rating flight test guide:

       On the correct final approach flight path:

• Aircraft must be in the proper landing configuration appropriate for wind and runway conditions;
• Only small heading and pitch changes required;
• Speed within +20/-0 knots. of the reference speed;
• Maximum sink rate of 1,000 feet per minute;
• Appropriate power settings applied;
• Briefings and checklists complete;
• ILS or LPV Approach – within ½ scale laterally and within ½ scale of the glideslope or glide path angle;
• LNAV/VNAV Approach - within ½ scale laterally and within ½ scale of the glide path angle;
• During IMC – Stable by 1,000 feet AGL;
• During VMC – Stable by 500 feet AGL;
• Visual Approach – Wings level at 500 feet AGL;
• Circling Approach – Wings level at 300 feet AGL

It does not require constant airspeed FAF to touchdown. It does not prohibit continuous speed reductions from FAF to touchdown. In fact, continuous slowing from FAF to touchdown is easily achievable within this standard.

 

David

 

 

[Cyril Gibb]

5 minutes ago, David Medders said:

• Speed within +20/-0 knots. of the reference speed;

O.K. David, now I understand.  I thought you meant a much much much greater speed reduction than 20kts to the threshold.

[jlunseth]

@Bob-S50. That's too much to quote, and I am definitely not trying to pick an argument, but LPV and ILS's are not the same.  I didn't say LPV because you are correct, there is no time table for LPVs.  But there is one for ILS approaches.  Technically, if you reach the point where you are using time on an ILS, probably you are not flying the ILS anymore you are flying the Localizer approach, but that is what it it there for, the Localizer approach I mean.  In case you lose the glideslope for some reason on the way down, or find out that it never locked to start with.  I have had that happen twice, both times in IMC.  Once in heavy IMC.  It is good discipline to fly an ILS as thought that will happen, and I always do.  Yes, if the ILS glideslope is working right you will fly to DH.  I don't remember flying an ILS that does not have a time table.  GPS approaches yes, but ILS's no.  Hence the reason to hit a speed at the FAF and maintain it.I pick 90 because it is in the table and I don't have to extrapolate or do any mental math while I am flying an approach.

[David Medders]

1 hour ago, Cyril Gibb said:

O.K. David, now I understand.  I thought you meant a much much much greater speed reduction than 20kts to the threshold.

No worries, Cyril. I should have been more clear. 

The discussion was good for me -- made me review standards of the various regulatory bodies, haven't done that in a while.

Cheers,

David

 

[75_M20F]

FWIW... The company I fly for allows +10/-0 on the ref speed during a stabilized approach, fully configured, engines spooled on glidepath and course by 1,000 AGL when IMC. No flap changes below 1,000 feet VMC or IMC.

 

 

Edited March 6, 2017 by Mooney_Mike

[midlifeflyer]

5 hours ago, Cyril Gibb said:

Agreed, as I mentioned in my previous append, changing headwind component may require minor power changes to maintain speed or glideslope. As indicated in this: https://www.faa.gov/news/safety_briefing/2016/media/SE_Topic_16-11.pdf

But nowhere have I seen a definition of stabilised including "continuous slowing from FAF to touchdown".  That was the point.  Also agree with the "keep the speed up" exception if and only if there is a comfortable ceiling.  If I'm coming in expecting a 200 foot ceiling and a half mile, I will say "unable" and focus on my own approach.

Sounds good to me

[teg916]

On 3/4/2017 at 6:09 PM, carusoam said:

Teg,

Are you familiar with MAPA?

They have an interesting training that is Mooney specific.  Done about four times per year around the country...  

you get to sit in on interesting Mooney presentations with other interesting Mooney pilots.  Part of the training includes flying your plane on various types of approaches with a Mooney specific CFII.

The fun part is that you get to select how challenging the approaches need to be.  Sitting at lunch while other pilots describe what is challenging to them.  Some will be doing radar approaches, others doing partial panel exercises, and some just getting a better feel for a plane that is new to them...

the MAPA hand-out has a section for each model of Mooney.  A Really cool document...

Best regards,

-a-

I hadn't heard of them.  I am new to Mooneys.  I will have to check them out.

[carusoam]

Somebody recently posted where and when the next MAPA PPP training is.

Look for Mitch and KSMX as the location.  There is a fly-in being schedule to not cross over the PPP schedule...

Mitch is still up on another thread if you want to catch up with him...

Best regards,

-a-

 

[MooneyMitch]

Huh? What?  Uh, sorry, I was falling asleep  

Yes, search mapasafety.com for their Mooney specific training course nearest you.

One Mapa PPP coming to the left coast April 7-9, here at Santa Maria, CA (SMX).

[midlifeflyer]

4 hours ago, teg916 said:

I hadn't heard of them.  I am new to Mooneys.  I will have to check them out.

Whether owner, renter, or club member, once you get past the very common Cessna and Piper trainers, it is a good idea to join a type club, at least at the beginning. Most offer type-specific training opportunities. But even if you don't take advantage of those, the information available from these organizations tends to be very valuable for the transitioning pilot.