Jump to content

Landing ifr question. Bravo


pkofman

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, EricJ said:

So, yeah, there are a lot of varied opinion about how to do things, and there's always somebody willing to tell you how you're doing it wrong.  ;)

Doesn't seem to matter much what the subject is, or even if the respondent has any experience. They will still criticize and tell you how wrong you are. 

For that matter, I fly my C with Takeoff Flaps down before FAF, and drop gear to begin the descent (at FAF or when glideslope is 1-1/2 dots high). Any other adjustments (power, yoke, rudder, flaps) are just to maintain IAS, descent rate / glideslope or to adjust visual descent on final. And no, my C will do rather differently than your M . . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, EricJ said:

When I did my MEI I flew with the school's check pilot the day before my check ride.   I don't recall the context, but I had the gear and approach flaps out and was a little low on a single-engine approach.   The check pilot made a point of letting me know that pulling the gear up is a totally fine thing to do in that situation if needed since it sheds a lot of drag and can help you make a field where you otherwise might not make it.

The next day during the check ride I got a waypoint off during my single-engine approach (with kind of unfamiliar equipment) and had gotten a little low when I finally figured it out.   I was having the dialogue with the DPE about what I was doing and I said I could pull the gear up to help, and was reaching for the gear handle and the DPE more or less freaked, and then we had the discussion about never, ever making such configuration changes on approach.   I told him I used to feel that way until the day before when the check pilot made a pretty good case for doing it.

It was an interesting debrief.   I still passed.   I think there were subsequent discussions with the check pilot, who is one of those grizzled 15k hour pilots who has flown everything.  I would have liked to have been there for that discussion.   ;) 

So, yeah, there are a lot of varied opinion about how to do things, and there's always somebody willing to tell you how you're doing it wrong.  ;)

I think you raise a great example of how opinions can vary in the situation you describe. I'l share from the onset that I liked your grizzled check pilots suggestion because I agree with the idea as just a good survival skills. But I also totally agree with the DPE that the stabilized approach is absolutely critical - when IMC!. So therein is the rub, if I am in low IMC condition I don't want to do anything to add to my work load to keep coming down the GP till I break out.  On the other hand, if I am still in VMC conditions and concerned about getting some altitude back, I see no harm in raising the gear to help get my altitude fixed if still VMC. Especially, if I can remain level till the next waypoint  where I could lower it to begin the final descent. But if I've gotten low while IMC frankly I should more likely be going missed if I am trying to fix it close in, going missed will allow me to both power up and clean up. 

In a nutshell I am all for putting priority on the stabilized descent while IMC. But I don't find an issue after breaking out at 200' with good visibility adding in flaps for landing in a light GA airplane slowing below 100 kts - unlike a heavy airliner with a lot of inertia going much faster. But as soon as visibility becomes poor with low minimums, its really no longer like a VFR landing and I'll want to keep the approach stabilized to the IFR touchdown point. 

That's why I think weather and visibility is everything and I assume the DPE was thinking purely in terms of being IMC to minimums and the checkpilot was thinking more in the terms of raising the gear could helpful when conditions allow. 

Edited by kortopates
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, kortopates said:

I think you raise a great example of how opinions can vary in the situation you describe. I'l share from the onset that I liked your grizzled check pilots suggestion because I agree with the idea as just a good survival skills. But I also totally agree with the DPE that the stabilized approach is absolutely critical - when IMC!. So therein is the rub, if I am in low IMC condition I don't want to do anything to add to my work load to keep coming down the GP till I break out.  On the other hand, if I am still in VMC conditions and concerned about getting some altitude back, I see no harm in raising the gear to help get my altitude fixed if still VMC. Especially, if I can remain level till the next waypoint  where I could lower it to begin the final descent. But if I've gotten low while IMC frankly I should more likely be going missed if I am trying to fix it close in, going missed will allow me to both power up and clean up. 

In a nutshell I am all for putting priority on the stabilized descent while IMC. But I don't find an issue after breaking out at 200' with good visibility adding in flaps for landing in a light GA airplane slowing below 100 kts - unlike a heavy airliner with a lot of inertia going much faster. But as soon as visibility becomes poor with low minimums, its really no longer like a VFR landing and I'll want to keep the approach stabilized to the IFR touchdown point. 

That's why I think weather and visibility is everything and I assume the DPE was thinking purely in terms of being IMC to minimums and the checkpilot was thinking more in the terms of raising the gear could helpful when conditions allow. 

In addition to all of your good points, I’d also mention that a 200’ approach will rarely exist on a runway less than 5,000 feet.  I believe the legal minimum length is something like 4,300 ft? While you should always try to hit the touchdown zone, this does provide an additional safety margin while adding full flaps after breaking out.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

+1 on everything @kortopates said regarding stabilized approaches.  The school where I got my IFR rating was adamant that I learn the MAP and RPM that would provide a stabilized flaps-up approach while in IMC conditions.  The rationale was that unless I fly for a living, and make multiple low IMC approaches every day, I need to reduce workload wherever possible in IMC to minimize the chances of a botched missed approach.  A stabilized 500 FPM no-flaps approach can be made at an airspeed that will allow you to add flaps after you break out, and then land at proper airspeed to avoid floating.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really interesting in that most  have commented  that gear and t.o flap only then  adjust if required with full flaps once runway is made or when breaking out. I bought Don Kayes videos when I transitioned to my Bravo . I know he has tons of Bravo time.. @donkaye... Thoughts on this  half flap/gear or full flap Constant Descent angle approach question. what is your normal procedure?.. I started by getting whipped on my instrument ride for introducing full flaps at the FAF... thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Davidv said:

In addition to all of your good points, I’d also mention that a 200’ approach will rarely exist on a runway less than 5,000 feet.  I believe the legal minimum length is something like 4,300 ft? While you should always try to hit the touchdown zone, this does provide an additional safety margin while adding full flaps after breaking out.

Very true, I don't know where to find a minimum runway length although it has to be dependent on approach category minimums. However the shortest ILS runway I am aware is MYF in my area with landing distance of 3400' - yet it only has minimums for approach category A & B aircraft. There is probably a precision approach somewhere  with Category A only minimums to a shorter runway. But slowing from 200' at 100 kts to landing speed of 70kts (light) with good visibility by the numbers is never a problem in a Mooney. (But in rare poor visibility, I won't try to do that and and follow the vasi down to the instrument landing zone).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/7/2020 at 4:51 PM, pkofman said:

Really interesting in that most  have commented  that gear and t.o flap only then  adjust if required with full flaps once runway is made or when breaking out. I bought Don Kayes videos when I transitioned to my Bravo . I know he has tons of Bravo time.. @donkaye... Thoughts on this  half flap/gear or full flap Constant Descent angle approach question. what is your normal procedure?.. I started by getting whipped on my instrument ride for introducing full flaps at the FAF... thoughts?

As the saying goes. "It all depends".  At my home airport, KSJC, a Class  C airport, ATC almost always says, "Keep your speed up".  In such instances I'll make a constant slope (the glide slope), variable airspeed approach.  With the Bravo that means 160 knots (for a reason) to 5 nm.  At that point the speed brakes go out with the slope remaining constant.  160 knots is chosen because the speed brakes will quickly knock off 20 knots at that speed.  At 140 knots the gear comes down.  Within a few seconds the plane is at 110 knots and slowing.  Approach flaps go in, slope remains constant.  If I don't break out at 200', I'm set up for the missed approach.  If I do break out, I will go to full flaps while maintaining the slope and touch down on the marker as the speed bleeds off at 75 knots.

For a more traditional approach, once on final, I'll set up for 105 knots.  At glide slope intercept the gear comes down.  Since I'm often on autopilot, I won't add any flaps until I break out, then will add full flaps while maintaining the slope and slowing to 75 knots.  If I don't break out (hasn't happened in real life, but has during practice in actual), I'm set up for the missed.

Regarding a check ride; ask around to find out what the Examiner wants, then practice doing it his way.  Afterwards, if your way disagrees with his method, do it the way it works best for the plane in which you probably have more time than the Examiner.

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kortopates said:

Very true, I don't know where to find a minimum runway length although it has to be dependent on approach category minimums. However the shortest ILS runway I am aware is MYF in my area with landing distance of 3400' - yet it only has minimums for approach category A & B aircraft. There is probably a precision approach somewhere  with Category A only minimums to a shorter runway. But slowing from 200' at 100 kts to landing speed of 70kts (light) with good visibility by the numbers is never a problem in a Mooney. (But in rare poor visibility, I won't try to do that and and follow the vasi down to the instrument landing zone).

I’m not sure if there was an update to this but the last AC I could find calls out 4,200 feet as the minimum for 200/250 (precision/non precision LPV).  3,200 Feet for high mins. Pages 68 and 69.

https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/150_5300_13_chg10.pdf

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, kortopates said:

I think you raise a great example of how opinions can vary in the situation you describe. I'l share from the onset that I liked your grizzled check pilots suggestion because I agree with the idea as just a good survival skills. But I also totally agree with the DPE that the stabilized approach is absolutely critical - when IMC!. So therein is the rub, if I am in low IMC condition I don't want to do anything to add to my work load to keep coming down the GP till I break out.  On the other hand, if I am still in VMC conditions and concerned about getting some altitude back, I see no harm in raising the gear to help get my altitude fixed if still VMC. Especially, if I can remain level till the next waypoint  where I could lower it to begin the final descent. But if I've gotten low while IMC frankly I should more likely be going missed if I am trying to fix it close in, going missed will allow me to both power up and clean up. 

In a nutshell I am all for putting priority on the stabilized descent while IMC. But I don't find an issue after breaking out at 200' with good visibility adding in flaps for landing in a light GA airplane slowing below 100 kts - unlike a heavy airliner with a lot of inertia going much faster. But as soon as visibility becomes poor with low minimums, its really no longer like a VFR landing and I'll want to keep the approach stabilized to the IFR touchdown point. 

That's why I think weather and visibility is everything and I assume the DPE was thinking purely in terms of being IMC to minimums and the checkpilot was thinking more in the terms of raising the gear could helpful when conditions allow. 

BTW, just to clarify, this was a single-engine instrument approach in a twin-engine airplane with insufficient excess thrust one on engine to make a missed approach reliably, so the general thought was that it's a committed approach and a missed approach is pretty much not an option in the tool box.   From this perspective the check pilot's advice made a lot of sense, do whatever you need to do to try to make the airport, and raising the gear cleans the airplane up without affecting the asymmetry of the single-engine situation like adding power does.   So I was a little less on-board with the DPE's pov, but on a check ride the DPE's pov will always win.  ;)   He was very fair in recognizing that I'd just been told the opposite thing the previous day, so it was mostly just a debrief item for discussion.    There were a number of things in my multi-engine training that turned out to be interesting learning opportunities like that.    I was happy with how it all worked out.

Edited by EricJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.