TIPS FOR NOT BUSTING STEP DOWN ALTITUDES ?

[201er]

14 hours ago, Ragsf15e said:

I also teach folks the simple math to get the descent gradient when it’s not published.  Say a vdp on a non precision approach or multiple stepdowns such as this.  Some people like the math more than the charts.  I’m sure you guys knew these, just thought I’d chime in in case  someone likes the math.  A little practice and you can quickly do it in your head.

alt (in 100s) / nm = degrees

So 4000’/6nm = 40 / 6 = ~6.5 degrees 

usually 90kts gs (1.5nm/min) or 120kts gs (2nm/min), so

6.5 degrees x 1.5 nm/min = ~1000ft/min

for creating your own 3 degree vdp if none is published:

alt (in 100s) / 3 = VDP distance from runway

so 900’ MDA gives 900’ / 3 = 3nm

 

Too much work while flying

Either fly the glideslope or just dive and drive!

[Ragsf15e]

17 minutes ago, 201er said:

Too much work while flying

Either fly the glideslope or just dive and drive!

I agree mostly.  Some people just like the math though.  There are two times I do use it though… if there’s no VDP published on a non precision approach, it’s good to know where a normal descent would begin.  Second, when cruising, descent planning can be tough sometimes. Especially in a jet in the flight levels. You really can’t get down steeper than 3 degrees, and that’s probably 100nm or more from your destination.  In the Mooney it’s a little easier to eyeball it and/or fix it if you’re off a little.

[AIREMATT]

On 6/29/2022 at 10:35 PM, Ragsf15e said:

Typically I’ll find people misprioritizing secondary tasks (comm, checklist, etc) or being behind.  So what’s my recommendation? Make sure all your pre-approach checklists and approach brief are done before the IAF or before base in a radar pattern.  You will have to do your before landing checklist before the FAF but that’s it. I usually shoot for 1nm prior so I’m configured and stable starting the descent, but there are other techniques.  That checklist must be memorized and done expeditiously, but then checked (gear!).

Done right, you should have the approach plate on your lap, easy to read and be concentrating only on flying until the before landing check.  I do say each altitude leaving and the next one during my concentration.  Yes, there may be one or two radio calls in there and a switch to tower, but again, tower freq should already be already accessible/entered in a radio before you hit the IAF.  Practice comm so you do it second nature because your number 1 focus needs to be on flying.  If you’re leveling off and you ignore them for a few seconds, fine.

This is the key. 
Get your tasks prioritized and finished ahead of time so you can focus on flying from the IAF to FAF to MAP. Task management sounds like what you’d need to work on. Stay ahead of the plane and the processes. Brief and know the approach so you aren’t constantly having to look at the approach plate or having to set radios and GPS last minute. That will minimize the distractions that cause altitude deviations.

If you are having trouble with task management after COVID, maybe talk to your CFI about a helping you organize your tasks and checklists to stay ahead of the plane and prioritize what to do before during and after each phase of your flight.

[kortopates]

23 hours ago, Ragsf15e said:

I also teach folks the simple math to get the descent gradient when it’s not published.  Say a vdp on a non precision approach or multiple stepdowns such as this.  Some people like the math more than the charts.  I’m sure you guys knew these, just thought I’d chime in in case  someone likes the math.  A little practice and you can quickly do it in your head.

alt (in 100s) / nm = degrees

So 4000’/6nm = 40 / 6 = ~6.5 degrees 

usually 90kts gs (1.5nm/min) or 120kts gs (2nm/min), so

6.5 degrees x 1.5 nm/min = ~1000ft/min

for creating your own 3 degree vdp if none is published:

alt (in 100s) / 3 = VDP distance from runway

so 900’ MDA gives 900’ / 3 = 3nm

 

I really like that your teaching a method for a continuous descent - this is far better than the un-stabile dive and drive method. . But does any panel these days not at least have ETE to the next waypoint with at least a non-waas GPS? I've only had one instrument instrument with only LOC and DME that the math is really necessary - which was just like I originally learned pre-gps days - but I'd like to think those days are over. At least with just ETE we know the required descent and time remaining to set the a very close approximate descent rate to meet the altitude restriction.

[Ragsf15e]

4 hours ago, kortopates said:

I really like that your teaching a method for a continuous descent - this is far better than the un-stabile dive and drive method. . But does any panel these days not at least have ETE to the next waypoint with at least a non-waas GPS? I've only had one instrument instrument with only LOC and DME that the math is really necessary - which was just like I originally learned pre-gps days - but I'd like to think those days are over. At least with just ETE we know the required descent and time remaining to set the a very close approximate descent rate to meet the altitude restriction.

No “ete” when you’re planning/chair flying before shooting the approach.  I like to have people figure out the required descent before they actually fly it.  There are some approaches around that require a pretty healthy descent if you are going to get to the MDA at/before the VDP.

[DCarlton]

On 6/30/2022 at 11:29 AM, midlifeflyer said:

Back to Basics. IFR 101 - staying ahead of the airplane. That means always asking, "what's coming up next?" and having the  answer. ("What are the two most important things in aviation?" "The next two!")

Most if not all of us were exposed to the 5Ts during training. I'm not a fan of mnemonics but this is one of the few that's actually worth something. Not as a mantra to recite as we cross a fix - by then it's too late. For what it represents - a self briefing about the essentials about what comes next. 

Choose whatever method you want you want. A bunch of "Ts", self-talk, pen and paper. But create a SOP for what comes next. Here's a simple RNAV T. I'm flying  an old school GPS setup with an HSI that doesn't auto slew. I've just entered the GUSES OZOPE leg. I am at 3100 tracking 100°. I don't need any more brainpower for that. What I do need it for is, "when I get to OZOPE I will turn right 148°, turn my course indicator and heading bug to 148°, and descend to 2200'."  Say it again when closer. And just do it when prompted.

It's amazing how much brainpower it saves for other things.

 

The IAF is fairly low on this plate, but I'm curious where most folks would drop their gear?  Thanks.

[Ragsf15e]

39 minutes ago, DCarlton said:

The IAF is fairly low on this plate, but I'm curious where most folks would drop their gear?  Thanks.

There’s gonna be several techniques for that.  My personal one is 1nm prior to the FAF.  That gives me time to finish the before landing checklist, trim, and be on speed (90kts, t/o flaps for me) before the faf.  I also like to come into the FAF level, but there’s a lot of people who will like being on the glide slope into the FAF.  If you do that, you’ll need to start slowing earlier because it’s real hard to slow down clean while descending on GS.  

[midlifeflyer]

3 hours ago, DCarlton said:

The IAF is fairly low on this plate, but I'm curious where most folks would drop their gear?  Thanks.

"Most?" Although there are a number of techniques which work well, I'd guess "most" will use the "gear down to go down" mantra, dropping the gear around glidepath intercept or crossing the FAF on an approach without vertical guidance. 

To me the single most important thing is consistency in what you choose but "gear down/ go down"" has the advantages of (1) history - it has been widely taught in piston retracts of all types for decades and (probably the reason for #1) (2) it is small workload at  ahigh workload time. In most single engine retracts, if you are stabilized in level flight on your selected approach speed and power setting before intercept/FAF, putting down the gear and doing nothing else will give you a 3° glideslope at the same airspeed. 

 

[Ragsf15e]

7 minutes ago, midlifeflyer said:

"Most?" Although there are a number of techniques which work well, I'd guess "most" will use the "gear down to go down" mantra, dropping the gear around glidepath intercept or crossing the FAF on an approach without vertical guidance. 

To me the single most important thing is consistency in what you choose but "gear down/ go down"" has the advantages of (1) history - it has been widely taught in piston retracts of all types for decades and (probably the reason for #1) (2) it is small workload at  ahigh workload time. In most single engine retracts, if you are stabilized in level flight on your selected approach speed and power setting before intercept/FAF, putting down the gear and doing nothing else will give you a 3° glideslope at the same airspeed. 

 

Yeah there’s gonna be a lot of techniques for that.  Mine comes from my USAF training and my belief that ensuring the gear is down and confirmed should happen before the final descent so that I can solely focus on flying during the last critical stage.  You’re correct though that dropping the gear from level flight generally gives close to GS descent.  I’m just not a fan.  

[midlifeflyer]

8 minutes ago, Ragsf15e said:

Yeah there’s gonna be a lot of techniques for that.  Mine comes from my USAF training and my belief that ensuring the gear is down and confirmed should happen before the final descent so that I can solely focus on flying during the last critical stage.  You’re correct though that dropping the gear from level flight generally gives close to GS descent.  I’m just not a fan.  

Gary Reeves is teaching a similar method - getting the gear down as part of the level off before the FAS. for the same reason. That means a simple power reduction when crossing the FAF or intercepting.  I've tried it and it works well.

I'm not tempted to use it because 

11 minutes ago, Ragsf15e said:

To me the single most important thing is consistency in what you choose

The closest I've come to a gear up landing was when I saw a technique I liked and tried to change my SOP to match.  On my second (VFR) flight using the "new" one I received a wake up call from my gear warning. Since I teach hearing the gear warning is always a bad thing (unless for some reason you are doing it intentionally) it shocked me. 

[skykrawler]

Regarding the OP.  This is a fundamental IFR skill.   Go fly step down type approaches with knowledgeable safety pilot who will punch you in the arm real hard when you go below the step downs.   Also, if employing a continuous descent you must still verify you above MDA for each waypoint.

[DCarlton]

5 hours ago, skykrawler said:

Regarding the OP.  This is a fundamental IFR skill.   Go fly step down type approaches with knowledgeable safety pilot who will punch you in the arm real hard when you go below the step downs.   Also, if employing a continuous descent you must still verify you above MDA for each waypoint.

We've been using the slap you up side the head with the chart technique.  Yes it's fundamental but I've noticed on MS, that whatever issue or question you have on the table, there will be many different opinions and solutions offered.  There's always more to learn and more to improve on.  I focused more on continuous descent yesterday searching for an optimum airspeed, descent rate, and flap setting.  I added a hundred feet margin for each step down MDA.  It seemed to work out well.  I like the suggestions of gear down to go down too; that's what I've always done and I can only think of one time in years and years when the gear warning horn came on before I lowered the gear.  And that was one time too many in my book.  

[DCarlton]

21 hours ago, midlifeflyer said:

Gary Reeves is teaching a similar method - getting the gear down as part of the level off before the FAS. for the same reason. That means a simple power reduction when crossing the FAF or intercepting.  I've tried it and it works well.

I'm not tempted to use it because 

The closest I've come to a gear up landing was when I saw a technique I liked and tried to change my SOP to match.  On my second (VFR) flight using the "new" one I received a wake up call from my gear warning. Since I teach hearing the gear warning is always a bad thing (unless for some reason you are doing it intentionally) it shocked me. 

Those VEP airspeed safety switches can stick too and not work without you knowing (leaving your gear warning INOP).  I discovered mine INOP at my last annual.  We had to remove it, clean it, lube it, exercise it and reinstall it.  Works fine now.  

[Ragsf15e]

1 hour ago, DCarlton said:

We've been using the slap you up side the head with the chart technique.  Yes it's fundamental but I've noticed on MS, that whatever issue or question you have on the table, there will be many different opinions and solutions offered.  There's always more to learn and more to improve on.  I focused more on continuous descent yesterday searching for an optimum airspeed, descent rate, and flap setting.  I added a hundred feet margin for each step down MDA.  It seemed to work out well.  I like the suggestions of gear down to go down too; that's what I've always done and I can only think of one time in years and years when the gear warning horn came on before I lowered the gear.  And that was one time too many in my book.  

What you’re doing to improve is good.  Just be careful with finding an “optimum airspeed, descent rate, flap setting” because the descent rate will change based on the approach design.  Usually the biggest difference will be in the portion between the IAF & FAF, but sometimes non precision approaches require healthy descent after the FAF to reach mins in time to make a normal landing.  There isn’t always one “optimum” continuous descent for all approaches.

[M20F]

This thread is a perfect example of how pilots like to over engineer common sense on the internet…..

[Ragsf15e]

6 minutes ago, M20F said:

This thread is a perfect example of how pilots like to over engineer common sense on the internet…..

Possibly your right, and there’s always some room and some need for “flexibility” or adjusting on the fly.  However, if I’m flying around in very low weather using nothing but my instruments, I’d rather have over engineered it (ahead of time) than under engineered it.  Especially for people with less experience recognizing and adjusting on the fly.

[skykrawler]

It seems to be simply a matter of improving the skill of leveling off and capturing altitude.   Practice the level off and 'retrim' of the airplane (power/pitch) - must end up without a down drift and should occur with the least amount of mental effort so as to not interfere with lateral tracking part of the task.

[midlifeflyer]

13 minutes ago, skykrawler said:

It seems to be simply a matter of improving the skill of leveling off and capturing altitude.   Practice the level off and 'retrim' of the airplane (power/pitch) - must end up without a down drift and should occur with the least amount of mental effort so as to not interfere with lateral tracking part of the task.

That's absolutely the solution. The discussion is more about the building blocks to get there. That, in turn, is a combination of awareness of the next step in time to plan what is needed, selecting the appropriate method, and then executing it.  

The practice you recommend, coupled with knowledge of the pitch/power/configuration numbers that will accomplish it is definitely part of the mix.

Selecting the appropriate method is the part most of the discussion seems to be about about. What works can be wildly different from person to person (the very best instructors will help you find the one that works best for you). I personally hate cockpit math. I don't  retain numbers well, so even simple mental calculations are difficult for me. The best I can do is look at a plate, roughly estimate the feet to descend between points divided by 3 and compare that to the distance between them to give me a general idea whether a 3 degree glidepath will get me there. But even that  tells me whether I need to "dive," descend casually, or not bother descending at all.

[DCarlton]

18 hours ago, M20F said:

This thread is a perfect example of how pilots like to over engineer common sense on the internet…..

This reminds me of folks that want to learn to play a musical instrument, but don't want to learn any music theory or any scales or modes.  They just want to play other peoples music.  It's possible and you'll be OK but it's unlikely you'll be as good of a musician without the theory.  And what happens if the pilot IS an engineer.  I've been flying for 37 years; some times with gaps and some times just flying enough to keep the hobby alive.  I'm retired now, and have time to dig into subjects and projects to a level that never was possible before; I have time to focus on quality even if it seems like overkill.  I enjoy this type of detailed discussion and the sharing of different perspectives and procedures.  We can learn from it but we don't have to apply the theory to the point where we can no longer make good music.  

[M20F]

4 minutes ago, DCarlton said:

This reminds me of folks that want to learn to play a musical instrument, but don't want to learn any music theory or any scales or modes.  

That would describe just about every popular band for the last 50yrs.  I can play a mean Dickie Betts and beyond every good boy does fine couldn’t tell you anything about musical theory.  

I am all about continual learning, tips of the trade, etc.  Midlifeflyer gives the best input here though.  If you don’t feel comfortable flying a certain phase of flight, get professional instruction and know your personal limits.  Anyone working out math on the back of a chart to do an approach though or having to really think their way through it probably is somebody who shouldn’t be flying that approach.  
 
In the end one man’s opinion which is no more or less valid than yours.  I just find these type of threads an exercise in people trying to look smarter then needed or they probably are.  Peace. 

[DCarlton]

6 minutes ago, M20F said:

That would describe just about every popular band for the last 50yrs.  I can play a mean Dickie Betts and beyond every good boy does fine couldn’t tell you anything about musical theory.  

I am all about continual learning, tips of the trade, etc.  Midlifeflyer gives the best input here though.  If you don’t feel comfortable flying a certain phase of flight, get professional instruction and know your personal limits.  Anyone working out math on the back of a chart to do an approach though or having to really think their way through it probably is somebody who shouldn’t be flying that approach.  
 
In the end one man’s opinion which is no more or less valid than yours.  I just find these type of threads an exercise in people trying to look smarter then needed or they probably are.  Peace. 

Understand.  It comes over like that some times.  I think part of it is in the sound bite world of a forum.  I've been working on a Dickie Betts artist study; I play guitar.  I think he used a hexatonic scale.  Play one and it instantly sounds like him.  Agree with your second paragraph.  And yes, too much theory and the fun is gone.  

[DCarlton]

10 minutes ago, M20F said:

That would describe just about every popular band for the last 50yrs.  I can play a mean Dickie Betts and beyond every good boy does fine couldn’t tell you anything about musical theory.  

I am all about continual learning, tips of the trade, etc.  Midlifeflyer gives the best input here though.  If you don’t feel comfortable flying a certain phase of flight, get professional instruction and know your personal limits.  Anyone working out math on the back of a chart to do an approach though or having to really think their way through it probably is somebody who shouldn’t be flying that approach.  
 
In the end one man’s opinion which is no more or less valid than yours.  I just find these type of threads an exercise in people trying to look smarter then needed or they probably are.  Peace. 

BTW, did you know Brad Whitford from Aerosmith went to the Berklee College of Music?  What about Steve Vai and Joe Satriani? 

[M20F]

1 hour ago, DCarlton said:

BTW, did you know Brad Whitford from Aerosmith went to the Berklee College of Music?  What about Steve Vai and Joe Satriani? 

Randy Rhodes.  There are exceptions to every rule :-)

[Ragsf15e]

2 hours ago, M20F said:

That would describe just about every popular band for the last 50yrs.  I can play a mean Dickie Betts and beyond every good boy does fine couldn’t tell you anything about musical theory.  

I am all about continual learning, tips of the trade, etc.  Midlifeflyer gives the best input here though.  If you don’t feel comfortable flying a certain phase of flight, get professional instruction and know your personal limits.  Anyone working out math on the back of a chart to do an approach though or having to really think their way through it probably is somebody who shouldn’t be flying that approach.  
 
In the end one man’s opinion which is no more or less valid than yours.  I just find these type of threads an exercise in people trying to look smarter then needed or they probably are.  Peace. 

Sure we’d all like to be able to fly an approach cold / airborne, but it’s a good way to learn how to do that by figuring out exactly how it should look in the airplane and chair flying it before.  I doubt experienced airline pilots do it, but USAF students do.  It’s a learning step.  If you don’t need to do it, don’t.  Nothing wrong with that, but for some people it’s a good way to learn.

[M20F]

55 minutes ago, Ragsf15e said:

Sure we’d all like to be able to fly an approach cold / airborne, but it’s a good way to learn how to do that by figuring out exactly how it should look in the airplane and chair flying it before.  I doubt experienced airline pilots do it, but USAF students do.  It’s a learning step.  If you don’t need to do it, don’t.  Nothing wrong with that, but for some people it’s a good way to learn.

I believe my paragraph 2 covers that.  I would also add the USAF drastically accelerates the training and has other variables (i.e. getting shot at while flying Mach 2 in a jet).  Totally different skill sets, capabilities of instructors, and a hugely different performance envelope. 
 
When I was a new instrument pilot I always made a habit out of flying the approach in MS Flightsim a couple times.  Chair flying as you cite is a good substitute as well and often used by acrobatic pilots in GA. 

I stand by my opinion (and it is an opinion) that if you are doing calculus to fly a step down approach you probably shouldn’t be flying one.  To be a competent IFR pilot one needs to be able to in an emergency shoot any approach with potential equipment failures.  It certainly takes time and some practice to get to that point, but math equations on charts and some other other nonsense on this thread in my opinion have nothing to do with it.