How do you Take Advantage of Speed Brakes on Approaches?

[MBDiagMan]

I am just now starting to try to work out the best way to use the speed brakes during approaches.

I seem to have my best luck using them to stabilize the airplane between the IAF and FAF getting below gear speed and to flap speed, then just before the FAF bring down the brakes and then bring down the gear.  
 

I would like to hear how you might be using the brakes, if it all, to improve your approaches.

[carusoam]

In the world of efficiency…

Using speed brakes dissipates a lot of useful energy…

How does a pilot plan his flight to avoid using speed brakes?

When does that become unavoidable?

• Slam dunk approaches…
• low gear and/or flap speeds…
• Flying in flaming dragon mode… (efficiency not a first priority)

Interesting question…

Best regards,

-a-

[N201MKTurbo]

I’ve never used mine on approach, but sometimes I pop them out as I touch down to make an early turn off.

[larryb]

At my field it is common for ATC to ask for best forward speed on approach to synchronize with the jets at an adjacent field. I can do 150 kt until 5 nm. Then I pop the brakes to get to gear speed. With the speed brakes I can do this while staying on the GS. Without the brakes I would have to level off to get to gear speed and therefore rise above the GS. If the approach does not involve a slam dunk or best speed then I won’t use them.

[Z W]

I prefer not to use them on an instrument approach once I'm past the initial approach fix.  I was taught that instrument approaches are best done stabilized with minimal configuration and power changes except at a pre-defined time, i.e the final approach fix, where the gear comes down and takeoff flaps are applied.  In my mind, adding another button to push for speed brakes, and a large configuration change, is not helpful during a typical approach.  Speed brakes add a lot of sink when applied, and similarly take it away when stowed, each of which is going to result in large dramatic changes in pitch, airspeed, and/or vertical speed.  Not what you want when you're trying to capture and hold a glideslope for a stabilized approach.

If ATC asks for best forward speed, you could do what Larryb says and carry a lot of speed until the final approach fix, then pop speed brakes, followed by gear and flaps.  I don't like being rushed and would likely say unable in a real IMC approach, but it's fun to do while practicing in clear air, or while on the visual.

The best use for speed brakes that I have found is in the cruise or en-route phase of the flight.  ATC holds you high and dumps you at 1000 FPM descent required to hit the runway?  Pop the brakes, pull the throttle, and point the nose down, and you can do it easily.  Not recommended with non-pilot passengers or anyone with a head cold.  Add gear at the top of your descent and 1500 FPM or more is possible.

I also use them during long descents in the yellow arc if you start hitting some bumps.  Pop the brakes and you're immediately back in the green airspeed range.  Good for passenger comfort and safety.  Also good when you're trying to duck under a cloud layer or drop through a hole in the clouds and stay visual.

I was practicing short field landings the other day and was thinking there is probably a use for speed brakes there.  They could be used if you end up high on final approach and are trying to land short.  Other aircraft use a slip in this situation, but those are not recommended in my K with flaps and while slow, so brakes could be a substitute.  Something I need to practice.

[midlifeflyer]

Only to slow down prior to the FAF when told to keep my speed up. Otherwise I just step down my airspeed to my target.

[PT20J]

I used to fly my 1978 M20J without speed brakes into San Jose with a line of jets stretching to LA chasing my tail. Pretty much was always requested to keep the speed up until the OM. I taught myself to manage the energy by flying coupled ILS approaches and just managing the configuration and power. After a bit of practice, it wasn't hard to do.

In my 1994 M20J with speed brakes, I find I rarely use them. They are reserved to salvage screwups --either mine or ATC's.

Skip

[kortopates]

Speed brakes are forbidden on approaches for me. I have to have really screwed up terribly bad if i need to pop them out on an approach. i have used them on occasion when it’s been the controller’s fault coming down from the upper teens and he couldn’t get me down despite my pestering for lower. But i’d be using the “unable” response if i couldn’t get down and slowed down to start a stabilized approach. Even in the enroute descent it’s got to be above freezing and VMC before i’ll pop them - other wise i’ll take some vectors so i can continue to fly the approach by my numbers - the way I always do.
that’s not to say i can’t keep my speed up to the FAF at a busy airport - i have numbers for that too.
Just got to stay well ahead of the plane!

The big problem with adding speed brakes to your approach tool kit is the day will come when you want use them in below freezing IMC.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[PJClark]

Use 'em when you need 'em.  Use good judgment.  Live.

[Boilermonkey]

Coming up on a Cub going slower than 90kts between RIPON and FISK.

[201er]

On 7/15/2021 at 10:12 PM, MBDiagMan said:

I am just now starting to try to work out the best way to use the speed brakes during approaches.

Speed brakes on an F??

[donkaye, MCFI]

On 7/16/2021 at 4:09 AM, Zane Williams said:

 

If ATC asks for best forward speed, you could do what Larryb says and carry a lot of speed until the final approach fix, then pop speed brakes, followed by gear and flaps.  I don't like being rushed and would likely say unable in a real IMC approach, but it's fun to do while practicing in clear air, or while on the visual.

At which time you will get the call, "Approach cancelled, Turn left 270° RV off the final approach course.  Expect 15 minute delay vectors for faster traffic."  Seriously.

[donkaye, MCFI]

Thank goodness "dive and drive" approaches are nearly a thing of the past if you have a modern WAAS GPS.  However, if you do have to make such an approach with multiple step downs, the best way to keep it stabilized without constant big power or other configuration changes in my opinion is to use the speed brakes for the descent portion.  You can easily get the 1000 ft/min I like for NP step down approaches, and then level off with minimum effort.  Of course, this can't be done in freezing conditions.  That configuration is part of my "flying by the numbers" for NP approaches without GP (assuming you have speed brakes).  There's no one "right way" of teaching approaches.  The method taught comes from the particular experience of the instructor.

[ilovecornfields]

I use speedbrakes on the landing rollout but otherwise rarely use them unless I’m trying to torment my child “Dad, you’re not going to descend dirty again, are you?!” I think he rolls his eyes too but I can’t see under the sunglasses.

I agree with @donkaye. You can certainly play the “unable” card as often as you want but they can also cancel your approach clearance. His home base, SJC, does an extraordinarily good job handling GA aircraft and the “big boys” but you have to play nice and be willing to help out. Otherwise, probably better to avoid some of the busier Class C airports.

[donkaye, MCFI]

19 minutes ago, ilovecornfields said:

His home base, SJC, does an extraordinarily good job handling GA aircraft and the “big boys” but you have to play nice and be willing to help out. Otherwise, probably better to avoid some of the busier Class C airports.

When I check in in IMC conditions, I always say on the initial call up that I can give them 170 knots on final.  Usually that suffices, and I am put in the que.  A couple of times I've been vectored, most likely due to wake turbulence issues with larger airplanes.

It is a great airport.  Oftentimes, I'll do extensive transition training landings there and they are unbelievably cooperative with me, moving airliners to the other runway to accommodate our landings.  If they are not able to do that, we'll play "switch runways back and forth".  Only a couple of times have they been unable to accommodate me.

I was surprised when calling in after my extensive time being away from the airport while my panel was being upgraded, I was met with a "Where have you been?" response.

[RobertGary1]

2 hours ago, donkaye said:

When I check in in IMC conditions, I always say on the initial call up that I can give them 170 knots on final.  Usually that suffices, and I am put in the que.  A couple of times I've been vectored, most likely due to wake turbulence issues with larger airplanes.

It is a great airport.  Oftentimes, I'll do extensive transition training landings there and they are unbelievably cooperative with me, moving airliners to the other runway to accommodate our landings.  If they are not able to do that, we'll play "switch runways back and forth".  Only a couple of times have they been unable to accommodate me.

I was surprised when calling in after my extensive time being away from the airport while my panel was being upgraded, I was met with a "Where have you been?" response.

I also fly into SJC somewhat regularly (at least pre covid). I usually tell them I can give them 140 knots and that seems to keep them happy. If you want 90 knots you'd probably hold for an hour. 

What is really fun is the 50% of the time its actually VFR. They'll usually have me do a 45 right to the end of the runway slotted between the airliners. I'll grab 500 feet of runway and turn off. I think if you sound like you know what you are doing they're more willing to squeeze you in.

-Robert

[RobertGary1]

19 hours ago, PT20J said:

I used to fly my 1978 M20J without speed brakes into San Jose with a line of jets stretching to LA chasing my tail. Pretty much was always requested to keep the speed up until the OM. I taught myself to manage the energy by flying coupled ILS approaches and just managing the configuration and power. After a bit of practice, it wasn't hard to do.

In my 1994 M20J with speed brakes, I find I rarely use them. They are reserved to salvage screwups --either mine or ATC's.

Skip

That is exactly what I do in my F. 140 knots down the ILS at SJC and you just have to slow down when you break out. Space shuttled sized runways help with that.

-Robert

[MBDiagMan]

5 hours ago, 201er said:

Speed brakes on an F??

Why not?  If it makes any difference, my F has all the J aerodynamics except for the wings.  Aerodynamically it is virtually a J.

[M20F-1968]

I was introduced to using speed brakes on approach by a knowledgeable high-time Mooney pilot, and in particular in crosswind conditions.  I have done it purposefully a few times and also found myself having done it unintentionally when I failed to pull the speed brakes back in during a long descent.  These landings have been some of my best.  Everything else remained the same except for the addition of the speed brakes.  The plane feels heavier, and you can carry more power thus having more control especially in a crosswind.  My instructor (a Mooney PPP instructor) suggested I not do this and over the years have gotten better at controlling the airplane without them so I have been using them less.  However, there are times when I have used them in order to carry more power in a crosswind landing.  My F will still climb on a go-around with full flaps and speed brakes, and the speed brakes are quickly stowed without loosing altitude like the flaps.  

Am I missing anything?

John Breda

[kortopates]

I was introduced to using speed brakes on approach by a knowledgeable high-time Mooney pilot, and in particular in crosswind conditions.  I have done it purposefully a few times and also found myself having done it unintentionally when I failed to pull the speed brakes back in during a long descent.  These landings have been some of my best.  Everything else remained the same except for the addition of the speed brakes.  The plane feels heavier, and you can carry more power thus having more control especially in a crosswind.  My instructor (a Mooney PPP instructor) suggested I not do this and over the years have gotten better at controlling the airplane without them so I have been using them less.  However, there are times when I have used them in order to carry more power in a crosswind landing.  My F will still climb on a go-around with full flaps and speed brakes, and the speed brakes are quickly stowed without loosing altitude like the flaps.  
Am I missing anything?
John Breda

If they were some of your best landings with Speed brakes then you’re caring excess speed into the flare. The added drag of the brakes helps dampen the float you’d have with excess speed but right on target speed will give a firm landing.
Same on the cross wind. Being cross controlled already adds a lot of drag, adding speed brakes is really going to increase your descent rate. But the cross controlled landing is very manageable with just a little more power to reduce the descent pitched for the same airspeed. A really strong x-wind you can increase airspeed enough to maintain the centerline and roll it on - but only if you have plenty of runway.
Another PPP instructor here.

Going back to the normal landing, make sure you’re adjusting Vref for you weight to 1.3 X Vso - you may be consistently using max gross Vref causing float from being several hundred pounds lighter and then speed brakes would be helping absorb all that float you would get without them.

every time i mistakenly land with the speed brakes out i am rudely giving my bird a firm landing because i didn’t realize/forgot to retract them and pulled the power prematurely for having them out. My absolute worst landings!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[M20F-1968]

5 hours ago, kortopates said:

If they were some of your best landings with Speed brakes then you’re caring excess speed into the flare. The added drag of the brakes helps dampen the float you’d have with excess speed but right on target speed will give a firm landing.
Same on the cross wind. Being cross controlled already adds a lot of drag, adding speed brakes is really going to increase your descent rate. But the cross controlled landing is very manageable with just a little more power to reduce the descent pitched for the same airspeed. A really strong x-wind you can increase airspeed enough to maintain the centerline and roll it on - but only if you have plenty of runway.
Another PPP instructor here.

Going back to the normal landing, make sure you’re adjusting Vref for you weight to 1.3 X Vso - you may be consistently using max gross Vref causing float from being several hundred pounds lighter and then speed brakes would be helping absorb all that float you would get without them.

every time i mistakenly land with the speed brakes out i am rudely giving my bird a firm landing because i didn’t realize/forgot to retract them and pulled the power prematurely for having them out. My absolute worst landings!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Perhaps I was not clear.  When I have used speed brakes it was a planned maneuver allowing me to carry more power from the final approach fix.  I do not convert the approach type and add the speed brakes after the final approach fix in an attempt to fix an unstable approach.  The whole approach is flown with the speed brakes and is stable from the FAF.  The approach with the speed brakes is flown in the same manner as without the speed brakes, at similar speeds but with more power.  I have only done this with significant crosswinds.  The increase power I am able to carry seems to allow me to hold the centerline more easily.

I may not be adjusting 1.3 X Vso for weight enough.  

Without speed brakes in a normal approach, I am not carrying excess power into the flare.  If I were I would be asking for a bounce.  

John Breda

[donkaye, MCFI]

3 hours ago, M20F-1968 said:

Perhaps I was not clear.  When I have used speed brakes it was a planned maneuver allowing me to carry more power from the final approach fix.  I do not convert the approach type and add the speed brakes after the final approach fix in an attempt to fix an unstable approach.  The whole approach is flown with the speed brakes and is stable from the FAF.  The approach with the speed brakes is flown in the same manner as without the speed brakes, at similar speeds but with more power.  I have only done this with significant crosswinds.  The increase power I am able to carry seems to allow me to hold the centerline more easily.

I may not be adjusting 1.3 X Vso for weight enough.  

Without speed brakes in a normal approach, I am not carrying excess power into the flare.  If I were I would be asking for a bounce.  

John Breda

John, I guess you have me confused.  I teach when on approach, Pitch for airspeed, Power for rate of descent. Speed brakes in strong winds are a recipe for problems.  As a test for a more stable approach, I once ran an approach in strong winds where there was a large ditch at the approach end of the runway.  Had I not retracted the speed brakes, even with the Bravo, there might not have been enough power to climb.  The excess power used with speed brakes extended is power not available to climb if necessary.   In a strong crosswind use less or no flaps, increase your speed for better rudder control and higher stall speed (you're done flying when on the ground at a higher speed) and fly the airplane onto the runway.  Once on the runway and slowing keep adding aileron into the wind to hold the runway.  When slowing and having added full aileron into the wind, if you can't hold the runway centerline, you're then in a position to immediately add power and go around.

Running a "Dive and Drive" instrument approach is different.  In this case you're using the speed brakes to increase the descent rate without increasing speed, then retracing them during the level portion, and then extending them immediately after touchdown for increased drag.

[kortopates]

Perhaps I was not clear.  When I have used speed brakes it was a planned maneuver allowing me to carry more power from the final approach fix.  I do not convert the approach type and add the speed brakes after the final approach fix in an attempt to fix an unstable approach.  The whole approach is flown with the speed brakes and is stable from the FAF.  The approach with the speed brakes is flown in the same manner as without the speed brakes, at similar speeds but with more power.  I have only done this with significant crosswinds.  The increase power I am able to carry seems to allow me to hold the centerline more easily.
I may not be adjusting 1.3 X Vso for weight enough.  
Without speed brakes in a normal approach, I am not carrying excess power into the flare.  If I were I would be asking for a bounce.  
John Breda

Thanks for clarifying. You’re right i wasn’t thinking about speed brakes used from the final approach fix.
But why would it help to maintain centerline i.e. laterally centered on the approach? All that is needed is to maintain the DTK by crabbing into the wind. Then when the visual segment is begun to land you can take the crab out and land as you prefer. For me that would be dropping appropriate wing into the wind and simultaneously kicking enough rudder to maintain centerline at normal approach speed. But depending on the cross wind keeping a bit of power into the flare. Pulling the power to idle before the flare will allow the nose to weather vane into the wind from the loss of prop thrust over the fuselage. And if i don’t have the required visibility I am ready to go missed since the airframe was clean all the way down.

With cross winds and cold air you won’t want to deploy speed brakes and find them sticking on the miss.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[M20F-1968]

On 7/18/2021 at 10:35 PM, kortopates said:

 But depending on the cross wind keeping a bit of power into the flare. 

My impression is that with the speedbrakes out, I can carry more power without gaining more speed.   More power compensates for loss of lift from the speed brakes being out,  and it all feels more stable.  I am not saying I do this all the time, but I have used it when there are significant crosswinds (>20 kts) and it seems to have worked out.  The plane will climb, albeit more slowing with the speed brakes out, but they can be quickly withdrawn (not so much in icing conditions as you point out) without loss of lift.  I think about this from time to time.  Has anyone done any formal testing of this sort of speedbrake use at the factory?

John Breda

 

[kortopates]

1 hour ago, M20F-1968 said:

My impression is that with the speedbrakes out, I can carry more power without gaining more speed.   More power compensates for loss of lift from the speed brakes being out,  and it all feels more stable.  I am not saying I do this all the time, but I have used it when there are significant crosswinds (>20 kts) and it seems to have worked out.  The plane will climb, albeit more slowing with the speed brakes out, but they can be quickly withdrawn (not so much in icing conditions as you point out) without loss of lift.  I think about this from time to time.  Has anyone done any formal testing of this sort of speedbrake use at the factory?

John Breda

I understand more power for speed brakes. But this would make more sense on the visual portion of the approach before the flare, but why does it matter inbound from the FAF? The plane doesn't feel the x-wind tracking on approach from FAF till breaking out or at minimums cause the nose is crabbed into the wind by whatever amount is necessary. Only after you commence the visual portion and at somepoint before or at the flare will you eliminate the crab and to land. If I understand you, one could extend brakes with power once the landing was assured - assuming that's your preferred x-wind landing technique. (I do know pilots that prefer to use speed brakes on normal landings)

Mooney's were certified without speed brakes so its my understanding the factory did no testing. Testing was done by Precise for their STC limitations covered in their AFMS - which does allow landing with them and all the way up to Vne.