Precision/Non-precision Approaches.. Configuring in a single

Re: Precision/Non-precision Approaches.. Configuring in a si

In a C-172 I generally suggest 10 degrees of flaps and a stabalized approach. I don't want to go beyond 20 degrees of flaps because more flaps will put me out of the go around configuration. The reason to use 10 degrees is that this flap setting represents the biggest trim change needed when deploying flaps. By having 10 degrees of flaps in prior to the FAF it's easier for pilots to transition from the ILS to the PAPI without going off of either glide slope.
 
Re: Precision/Non-precision Approaches.. Configuring in a si

Nothing like a former regional FO and current weekend warrior to send quotes from the airplane flying handbook in regard to an airplane he's never been in. I love the Internet. And sorry but if someone throws a jug because shock cooling the can't tell the company that Merit on JC said it doesn't exist.
 
Re: Precision/Non-precision Approaches.. Configuring in a si

aloft said:
I know you're pretty married to your opinion, just saying that the FAA and the aviation safety community disagree with you.
Click to expand...

From what I have read about landing many of the big recips, the technique consists of constantly reducing power on final... doesn't exactly fit the jet stabilized approach definition. And therein is the problem. Many jet concepts filter down without really being applicable to smaller aircraft and recips.

For example, there isn't a 'spool-up' time on recips and there also isn't the immediate airflow over the wing that comes from a prop on jets. And small recips that I have flown slow quicker due to a number of factors and are capable of steeper descents which can be easily arrested. Do NOT try 3.7-4.0 deg slopes in a machine such as the 727 unless you have lots of room and energy to flare.

You can easily do a dive and drive in your -182 but it is not recommended in jets.

a relatively standard technique in jets is to equate distance to a glide path on the ILS. On the ILS, at a dot and half, add an additional flap (ie from 5deg to 10 on the Boeing). At 1 dot, gear down and go to 15deg flaps. At G/S intercept, go landing flaps and complete the checklist. This equates on a non-precision to the previously mentioned 3-2-1 miles from the FAF. 3 miles, a bit more flap. 2 miles drop the gear and at 1 mile configure for the descent. Here many differ with some waiting for landing flaps until they see the runway and others selecting landing flaps. The nice thing is that on many airplanes, the configuration changes cause a speed reduction and often there is no requirement for a power change.

So, one learns what is applicable for that aircraft. Before being wedded to a concept, it is useful to see if it is fluff or fact.

As for the 'aviation community' being of one opinion, I will have to write that one down. :)
 
Re: Precision/Non-precision Approaches.. Configuring in a si

Nihon_Ni said:
In a C-172 I generally suggest 10 degrees of flaps and a stabalized approach. I don't want to go beyond 20 degrees of flaps because more flaps will put me out of the go around configuration. The reason to use 10 degrees is that this flap setting represents the biggest trim change needed when deploying flaps. By having 10 degrees of flaps in prior to the FAF it's easier for pilots to transition from the ILS to the PAPI without going off of either glide slope.
Click to expand...


I just prefer not to use flaps, mainly because some of the older 172's can't have the 10* of flaps deployed above 85 knots, while the majority of them can. We have a mix of both at my school. I just don't like flying the airplane that slow on the approach.

I haven't found an ILS to a runway that was too short for me to land without flaps.

With that said, I don't think its wrong to fly it slower with flaps, I just prefer not to do it.
 
Re: Precision/Non-precision Approaches.. Configuring in a si

meritflyer said:
A myth? Maybe.

I've owned turbo charged planes and read a fair amount of data that suggest it's more of a theory.
Click to expand...

It's not. Amflight and Airnet both have a bunch of TIO-540's that got blown apart from shock cooling that'll prove that theory/
 
Re: Precision/Non-precision Approaches.. Configuring in a si

Oh and BTW, if THIS is the level that we've let out fundamental instrument flying skills degenerate to, where folks are advocating that:

-Shock cooling doesn't exist
-Unstabalized approaches are A-OK, especially for student instrument pilots
-Flying approaches quickly because it provides "more energy" (while negating that whole thing where it says that you should fly your approaches inside the FAF at your designated final approach speed, which is usually Vso x 1.3)

Well...we're kinda screwed guys.

But carry on.
 
Re: Precision/Non-precision Approaches.. Configuring in a si

jtrain609 said:
Oh and BTW, if THIS is the level that we've let out fundamental instrument flying skills degenerate to, where folks are advocating that:

-Shock cooling doesn't exist
-Unstabalized approaches are A-OK, especially for student instrument pilots
-Flying approaches quickly because it provides "more energy" (while negating that whole thing where it says that you should fly your approaches inside the FAF at your designated final approach speed, which is usually Vso x 1.3)

Well...we're kinda screwed guys.

But carry on.
Click to expand...

Where what says? Think for yourself, its better when everyone thinks for themselves.
 
Re: Precision/Non-precision Approaches.. Configuring in a si

Flying approaches inside the FAF at Vso(1.3)?

I've never heard such a thing as Vso(1.3) is used to determine approach category more so than actual approach speed. Also, approach speeds vary with weight.
 
Re: Precision/Non-precision Approaches.. Configuring in a si

I'll keep flying my aircraft according to the profiles I was trained on and in a manner I believe is safe, not from suggestions of an Internet forum.
 
Re: Precision/Non-precision Approaches.. Configuring in a si

meritflyer said:
Flying approaches inside the FAF at Vso(1.3)?

I've never heard such a thing as Vso(1.3) is used to determine approach category more so than actual approach speed. Also, approach speeds vary with weight.
Click to expand...

Sorry, too much math there I guess.

Vso x 1.3 is reference, ref + 5 is target at Express.

And yes, Vso varies with weight.
 
Re: Precision/Non-precision Approaches.. Configuring in a si

I haven't flown a GA single in a while, but I sort of agree with the flying fast. If your (only) engine dies, and you are tooling along at your "approach" speed with flaps and gear hanging out, there is no way you will ever make the runway if you are currently on the glideslope. Now, if you are blasting down the slow with all kinds of extra speed and not a lot of drag hanging out, well, you at least have a chance of making the runway if stuff goes bad.

The flip side of course is if you go too fast for too long you may go right off the end of the runway which really doesn't help either.
 
Re: Precision/Non-precision Approaches.. Configuring in a si

jtrain609 said:
Sorry, too much math there I guess.

Vso x 1.3 is reference, ref + 5 is target at Express.

And yes, Vso varies with weight.
Click to expand...

So ExpressJet is the standard by which all airplanes must adhere?
 
Re: Precision/Non-precision Approaches.. Configuring in a si

Ralgha said:
So ExpressJet is the standard by which all airplanes must adhear?
Click to expand...

AHHHHHH How do I calculate Vref in an Archer? Oh no, we're going to crash!!!!:panic::panic::panic::panic::panic::panic::panic::panic::sarcasm:
 
Re: Precision/Non-precision Approaches.. Configuring in a si

Dead!
 
Re: Precision/Non-precision Approaches.. Configuring in a si

BobDDuck said:
I haven't flown a GA single in a while, but I sort of agree with the flying fast. If your (only) engine dies, and you are tooling along at your "approach" speed with flaps and gear hanging out, there is no way you will ever make the runway if you are currently on the glideslope. Now, if you are blasting down the slow with all kinds of extra speed and not a lot of drag hanging out, well, you at least have a chance of making the runway if stuff goes bad.

The flip side of course is if you go too fast for too long you may go right off the end of the runway which really doesn't help either.
Click to expand...

The trouble with this is line of thinking is that you'd have to know exactly where you have enough energy to glide to the field (in the event of engine failure) so you can pull the throttle to idle at that point to avoid overshooting the runway. Of course, anytime prior to that point, you wouldn't be able to glide to the field even if you were at Vne because you wouldn't have enough energy (due to your low altitude). While being vectored to the FAF you are too low to glide to the runway in most airplanes. So the point where you could make it would be somewhere on the GS, and probably a lot closer to the field than the point most people would be comfortable transitioning from firewall speed to something slower. So in the event of an engine failure, even people who use the “speed is life” theory as a reason to speed down the GS still couldn't make the field.

I think it comes down to a risk assessment. What is more likely, that I will have an engine failure at a point on the approach where I am unable to glide to the field (and be forced to land elsewhere), or that by flying a non-stabilized approach I will prang the airplane? Knowing that my engine is very reliable (albeit somewhat less than 100% reliable) and that pilot error causes the majority of aircraft accidents, I opt to fly a stabilized approach near Vref, forfeiting the comfort of thinking that a higher speed gives me the ability to glide to the field (when it really doesn’t), and hope that I am prayed up in the event of a worst case scenario.
 
Re: Precision/Non-precision Approaches.. Configuring in a si

Nihon_Ni said:
The trouble with this is line of thinking is that you'd have to know exactly where you have enough energy to glide to the field (in the event of engine failure) so you can pull the throttle to idle at that point to avoid overshooting the runway. Of course, anytime prior to that point, you wouldn't be able to glide to the field even if you were at Vne because you wouldn't have enough energy (due to your low altitude). While being vectored to the FAF you are too low to glide to the runway in most airplanes. So the point where you could make it would be somewhere on the GS, and probably a lot closer to the field than the point most people would be comfortable transitioning from firewall speed to something slower. So in the event of an engine failure, even people who use the “speed is life” theory as a reason to speed down the GS still couldn't make the field.

I think it comes down to a risk assessment. What is more likely, that I will have an engine failure at a point on the approach where I am unable to glide to the field (and be forced to land elsewhere), or that by flying a non-stabilized approach I will prang the airplane? Knowing that my engine is very reliable (albeit somewhat less than 100% reliable) and that pilot error causes the majority of aircraft accidents, I opt to fly a stabilized approach near Vref, forfeiting the comfort of thinking that a higher speed gives me the ability to glide to the field (when it really doesn’t), and hope that I am prayed up in the event of a worst case scenario.
Click to expand...

Bob didn't advocate flying at redline, just a higher-than-ref speed. Most GA airplanes will be able to fly an approach at 90-100 knots and still land absolutely safely on the average runway served by an ILS. Don't bother trying to name exceptions because there are always exceptions. I've flown ILS approaches down to minimums at 90-100 knots in a turbo 182 RG and landed on the thousand foot markers at normal landing speed. It's simply not hard to slow the average GA plane down.
 
Re: Precision/Non-precision Approaches.. Configuring in a si

Nihon_Ni said:
The trouble with this is line of thinking is that you'd have to know exactly where you have enough energy to glide to the field (in the event of engine failure) so you can pull the throttle to idle at that point to avoid overshooting the runway.
Click to expand...

If you don't know that already...

funny-pictures-duck-falls-snow.jpg
 
Re: Precision/Non-precision Approaches.. Configuring in a si

Ralgha said:
Bob didn't advocate flying at redline, just a higher-than-ref speed.
Click to expand...

Exactly. A lot of it depends on what the weather is at the bottom. If it's really 200 overcast and less than a mile, sure, I am going to be more concerned about getting configured and stable farther out. However, if I know (or suspect) I'm going to pop out at 500 feet or something, I'll truck on down and configure once I get there. This is of course in a GA airplane and not in the jet. I routinely had students fly 110 knot approaches down the glide slope in the Seminole and 90 or so in the Cessna until they were inside 500 feet or so. The Cessna especially (and very much so on the older ones that have 45 degrees of flaps) can slow down to a nice landing speed in about 50 feet of glideslope.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top