Adding flaps during the descent

SkyHog said:
Wait, I'm confused....

I've never seen a C172 that couldn't deploy flaps above 110knots, not 85 knots...
Click to expand...
The earliest models have a limit for any flaps at all of 100 mph/87 knots. In those, I recommend flying the final segment at 85 knots so you can use flaps to land (a real good idea on many of the shorter strips which have instrument approaches). Later models allowed 10 degrees at 110 KIAS and the rest below 85 knots; I've found most folks do best in IR training with 90 KIAS and 10 degrees.

I've also found that folks who try to land 172's with no flaps at all out of 90-knot or faster instrument approaches tend to float and balloon on the landing. Use of flaps on the approach and landing makes the landing more like what they've been doing routinely, and they make much better landings (the Law of Exercise applies).
 
Well, I'm not instrument rated, but in my many years of on and off training, here's how I always was taught (through multiple CFIIs):

At the FAF, drop the first notch of flaps and fly the speed required to keep that notch in. Upon breaking out, dirty up the plane and land normally.

I never really had a problem dumping the rest of the flaps in the amount of time left (from DH, it was usually around 30 seconds).

IIRC, which I probably should, and can't believe I don't remember 100%, we also dropped gear on the complex planes at the FAF.
 
Ron Levy said:
I thought we were talking about the final approach segment, not inside the MAP.
I've seen way too many folks try to get slowed and configured at that point go high and long. If it's an ILS runway and you're in a 172, long isn't usually a problem, but ballooning up can put you right back in the goo, and I've seen folks go 100 feet high doing that. For a 172, if you have 10 flaps and a good speed all the way down, the addition of full flaps doesn't make nearly the pitch moment change that going 0-to-full does, and is much more easily controllable.

Remember, when doing IR training (and I do a lot of it), we're usually not dealing with 1000-hour aces. Rather, we're dealing with low-time PP's who have only a minimal mastery of the aircraft going in, and don't need to have things more complicated than necessary while they're trying to master new skills. Note that their VFR training has probably involved slowing and configuring on downwind and base, and adding full flaps turning final at about 400 feet. Having them try to go from 90 KIAS clean to landing speed (with or without flaps) at 200 feet is generally beyond their skill level, and only complicates and slows their IR training.
Click to expand...


Yeah, I wasn't clear about when to "get crazy." In IMC, yeah, make 1 or 2 changes (flaps/gear/RPM/MP) and fly it that way until you break out.

Plus, when you have a bush pilot as your primary instructor, things get done a little differently. We did quite a bit of outside the box training for my private once the PTS was satisfied (and I had to be able to do them to 1/2 the standard before he signed me off), so doing that when I started instrument training it wasn't a big deal for me.
 
I'd like to make clear that my comments are directed towards initial IR training. Pilots with a lot of total time and instrument experience may well find more efficient ways of flying instrument approaches. However, when you're trying to get a relatively inexperienced PP-ASEL (say, less than 500 hours) through an IR course in a cost- and time-effective manner, it's important to simplify the process. Peter Dogan's "Instrument Flight Training Manual" is the bible on getting folks through instrument flight training quickly and successfully, and Chapter 3 covers the issue of configurations and configuration changes in detail. I suggest this book for any CFI-IA's out there -- it will help your trainees get through IR training and the IR practical test with a minimum of fuss and flight time. Then, after they get the rating and some actual IFR experience on their own, they can think about getting fancier with their procedures.

BTW, most examiners compliment my trainees on slowing down and configuring early in the approach, and I've never had one say anything negative about the practice.
 
Last edited:
azure said:
There are two, OZW and PHN. But my instructor wants me to train in busy environments so I'll be ready to go in anywhere.
Click to expand...
With the problem you're having, it would seem logical to learn in steps. First get the approach down and then you can learn the busy environment. Just IMHO. Come on out to OZW, it's a nice friendly little place.
 
Ed, Ted, and everyone,

Good morning! Wow, I can't believe how many responses my little cry for help here has generated.

After sleeping on it, I've decided to try BOTH Option 1 and Option 2. Option 1 (add flaps before FAF) I'll try at one of the two untowered fields, but practice Option 2 everywhere else. The only problem with Option 1 is, as Bruce said on the other board, the 172 is probably a little less stable pitch-wise with flaps. That might be part of my problem trying to recapture the GS after adding them on the descent. But I'm comfortable with Option 2, except...

Ed, yes you have 200 feet below DG to dirty up the plane and land, but seriously, would you start adding flaps right after breaking out? It's very easy to climb a little with the added lift of the flaps and if you pop back into the clouds, you're going missed. I'll try adding 10* in the last 100 feet or so and see how that works. I haven't practiced no-flaps landings since my primary training but as others have said, it's got plenty of drag and ILS runways are long. Right, it's not as if I'm going to be doing enough landings during IR training to worry about the extra wear on the tires.

About going below the GS: I understand what everyone is saying but just to play devil's advocate for a moment, what my CFII is talking about is to go slightly low, as in put the needle on the top of the circle instead of centered. Also, at least on the approaches we've practiced and all of the ones I've studied the plates for, you are still above the LOC-only MDA at the altitudes he's advocating doing this (500 feet or so above DH).

Ray, of course I know the ILS at PHN! I've flown it (visually) about a dozen times in the Cardinal RG, and a couple times with foggles. We will for sure do that one in the 172.

Dennis, I saw the ad for Troy Air Experience last night by the water cooler at VLL. Nice to meet you! I didn't notice what kind of airplane(s) you have? BTW I'm with the Warren Flying Club. There, you know who my CFII is, too. :smile:

Thanks again, everyone! Keep 'em coming...
 
SkyHog said:
At the FAF, drop the first notch of flaps and fly the speed required to keep that notch in. Upon breaking out, dirty up the plane and land normally.

I never really had a problem dumping the rest of the flaps in the amount of time left (from DH, it was usually around 30 seconds).
Click to expand...

The only issue with that is if you're in a situation where it's beneficial to go through the approach fast (busy airport) you probably can't do it well.

As a trainee or early instrument pilot, that is the way to go. Once you get some more experience under your belt, going down the pike faster gets you on the ground sooner and frees up the approach for someone else to do. I've never had to hold for someone else, but I made someone hold for me in training. Poor guy, his wife was NOT happy. It was a bumpy day out. If I know there are other people around, I'd rather get the approach done fast so they (hopefully) won't have to wait.
 
azure said:
Ed, yes you have 200 feet below DG to dirty up the plane and land, but seriously, would you start adding flaps right after breaking out? It's very easy to climb a little with the added lift of the flaps and if you pop back into the clouds, you're going missed. I'll try adding 10* in the last 100 feet or so and see how that works. I haven't practiced no-flaps landings since my primary training but as others have said, it's got plenty of drag and ILS runways are long. Right, it's not as if I'm going to be doing enough landings during IR training to worry about the extra wear on the tires.
Click to expand...

My suggestion (if you were going to wait until 200' or whenever you "break out") reduce power, slip it a little losing a bit more altitude, then get coordinated and add flaps. If done smoothly and correctly, you shouldn't climb back up above whatever your breakout altitude was - what you could do is practice this while NOT doing the IFR stuff. Go out to a sleepy field by yourself with the plane, and see how it feels/works. If you're ok with it, try it at the end of an approach next time. If you don't like it, do it anyway! Just kidding.
 
EdFred said:
My suggestion (if you were going to wait until 200' or whenever you "break out") reduce power, slip it a little losing a bit more altitude, then get coordinated and add flaps. If done smoothly and correctly, you shouldn't climb back up above whatever your breakout altitude was - what you could do is practice this while NOT doing the IFR stuff. Go out to a sleepy field by yourself with the plane, and see how it feels/works. If you're ok with it, try it at the end of an approach next time. If you don't like it, do it anyway! Just kidding.
Click to expand...

You're gonna slip in at 200' and a 1/2 in a GA single?

Why? Why not maintain centerline, reduce power, and touchdown at or before the TDZ?
 
One of the frustrations of teaching (and flying) in the Part 142 schools is that they adhere strictly to stabilized approaches because that's what the FAA wants, and the FAA is frequently in the building observing training and check rides. So for sim week, we're slowed to 140 and approach flaps outside the marker, drop the gear a half-dot before intercept and reduce power to 600# to fly the ILS at 120-125 based on weight.

The day after we leave the center, we know that approach will want the King Air to maintain 170 to the marker (180 in the jet) and that we will want to be at Vref of 102 at the threshold. The arithmetic tells us that we will be about 50 over the desired approach speed at the marker and 70 over threshold speed if we accept ATC instructions. BTW, "unable" is always an acceptable answer if you feel like they're jamming you or as PIC you decide you just don't want to do it.

After you do it for a while, it's not hard to fly the approach while losing the required 70 knots and making the configuration changes without scaring the passengers to death, but you must plan ahead and be ready to move the levers and know where to put them. Copilots are handy gadgets for such endeavors, as are 5" flight directors and other goodies.

So learning all the necessary hoop-jumping may be a part of your future, and maybe that's why your instructor has his cart and horse confused. At this point you have "stolen more chain than you can swim with" just flying the airplane the regular old-fashioned way, and that's where you need to spend your time and money now.

Do what Ron and the others recommend.

Ron Levy said:
I'd like to make clear that my comments are directed towards initial IR training. Pilots with a lot of total time and instrument experience may well find more efficient ways of flying instrument approaches. However, when you're trying to get a relatively inexperienced PP-ASEL (say, less than 500 hours) through an IR course in a cost- and time-effective manner, it's important to simplify the process. Peter Dogan's "Instrument Flight Training Manual" is the bible on getting folks through instrument flight training quickly and successfully, and Chapter 3 covers the issue of configurations and configuration changes in detail. I suggest this book for any CFI-IA's out there -- it will help your trainees get through IR training and the IR practical test with a minimum of fuss and flight time. Then, after they get the rating and some actual IFR experience on their own, they can think about getting fancier with their procedures.

BTW, most examiners compliment my trainees on slowing down and configuring early in the approach, and I've never had one say anything negative about the practice.
Click to expand...
 
azure said:
After sleeping on it, I've decided to try BOTH Option 1 and Option 2. Option 1 (add flaps before FAF) I'll try at one of the two untowered fields, but practice Option 2 everywhere else. The only problem with Option 1 is, as Bruce said on the other board, the 172 is probably a little less stable pitch-wise with flaps. That might be part of my problem trying to recapture the GS after adding them on the descent. But I'm comfortable with Option 2, except...
Click to expand...
Before you go trying all that as part of an approach, try establishing the pitch/power settings for your configurations out in the practice area with no procedural distractions like trying to comply with clearances and keeping needles centered.

If you don't have a copy of Peter Dogan's "Instrument Flight Training Manual," I suggest you find one and read Chapter 3, especially the sections on "Pitch, Power, and Trim," "The Six Configurations," and "Rate Climbs and Descents." Getting these fundamentals down pat before you start trying to fly approaches is essential to effective instrument training. If you're still hunting for the best configuration and pitch/power settings when you leap into flying approahces, you're going to have the sorts of problems you've described.

And I really wish I had the opportunity to spend a day or two in the plane with you on these fundamental issues.
 
Last edited:
azure said:
Dennis, I saw the ad for Troy Air Experience last night by the water cooler at VLL. Nice to meet you! I didn't notice what kind of airplane(s) you have? BTW I'm with the Warren Flying Club. There, you know who my CFII is, too. :smile:...
Click to expand...
My condolences :rolleyes:
We have 2 172Ss, a 182T, and a Columbia (Cessna) 350. All with G1000 panels.
I don't know what the flying club rules are, but I'd be glad to fly with you in your plane(s) as well.
 
wabower said:
The day after we leave the center, we know that approach will want the King Air to maintain 170 to the marker (180 in the jet) and that we will want to be at Vref of 102 at the threshold. The arithmetic tells us that we will be about 50 over the desired approach speed at the marker and 70 over threshold speed if we accept ATC instructions. BTW, "unable" is always an acceptable answer if you feel like they're jamming you or as PIC you decide you just don't want to do it.

After you do it for a while, it's not hard to fly the approach while losing the required 70 knots and making the configuration changes without scaring the passengers to death, but you must plan ahead and be ready to move the levers and know where to put them. Copilots are handy gadgets for such endeavors, as are 5" flight directors and other goodies.
Click to expand...

Yeah, sounds like a lot of my approaches in the Aztec. Especially when they cut me too far in, too high, and I haven't slowed down. Sometimes it causes a bit of ear popping, but I'm generally able to do it while still being nice to the engines and the passengers not noticing anything out of the ordinary. Of course, the dogs rarely complain. :D
 
dmccormack said:
You're gonna slip in at 200' and a 1/2 in a GA single?

Why? Why not maintain centerline, reduce power, and touchdown at or before the TDZ?
Click to expand...

Yep. Because in the plane Liz is flying in, she's at about double or more Vso.
 
EdFred said:
Yep. Because in the plane Liz is flying in, she's at about double or more Vso.
Click to expand...

Why?

The airplane is a 1976 C-172M with a 150hp engine and the old-style Cessna flaps lever that you have to hold down. Cruise airspeed is 100-105 kts tops, but even at 2200 RPM level it still pulls 90-95 kts. Deploying any degree of flaps is strictly prohibited above 85 kts.
Click to expand...

70 knots all the way down should be easy.
 
wabower said:
So learning all the necessary hoop-jumping may be a part of your future, and maybe that's why your instructor has his cart and horse confused. At this point you have "stolen more chain than you can swim with" just flying the airplane the regular old-fashioned way, and that's where you need to spend your time and money now.
Click to expand...
Exactly. I think too many people get too concerned about airplanes they might fly in the future and try to apply those techniques to trainers. Even if you think 747s are in your future fly your 172 like a 172 especially if you are just learning. Another thing I've noticed is that it seems like CFIs, having more experience and skill than their students, will try to encourage fancy maneuvers. These might be OK to experiment with if the student has already mastered the basics but CFIs need to remember that the student is not able to think or react as fast as they can when learning something new.
 
Good conversation -- need more threads like this :)
 
wabower said:
One of the frustrations of teaching (and flying) in the Part 142 schools is that they adhere strictly to stabilized approaches because that's what the FAA wants, and the FAA is frequently in the building observing training and check rides. So for sim week, we're slowed to 140 and approach flaps outside the marker, drop the gear a half-dot before intercept and reduce power to 600# to fly the ILS at 120-125 based on weight.

The day after we leave the center, we know that approach will want the King Air to maintain 170 to the marker (180 in the jet) and that we will want to be at Vref of 102 at the threshold. The arithmetic tells us that we will be about 50 over the desired approach speed at the marker and 70 over threshold speed if we accept ATC instructions. BTW, "unable" is always an acceptable answer if you feel like they're jamming you or as PIC you decide you just don't want to do it.

After you do it for a while, it's not hard to fly the approach while losing the required 70 knots and making the configuration changes without scaring the passengers to death, but you must plan ahead and be ready to move the levers and know where to put them. Copilots are handy gadgets for such endeavors, as are 5" flight directors and other goodies.

So learning all the necessary hoop-jumping may be a part of your future, and maybe that's why your instructor has his cart and horse confused. At this point you have "stolen more chain than you can swim with" just flying the airplane the regular old-fashioned way, and that's where you need to spend your time and money now.

Do what Ron and the others recommend.
Click to expand...


Really really informative post. Reminds me of what I heard the first time I deployed as a swimmer at an operational station:
"That stuff's fine in E-City, son, but this here's the fleet"

I know that in the bigger airplanes or sims I've flown that they've all had ways to add significant drag while still at a fairly high speed. Whether it's speed brakes, gear extend speeds north of 180 knots, or props that turn into speedbrakes at flat pitch and low power, they can lose speed in ways that some GA airplanes (Mooneys without brakes come to mind) can't.

Mari's advice about flying the appropriate way for the airplane you're actually flying is good too. If I tried to fly a Diamond the way I flew a Cessna it wouldn't work out too well.
 
Just out of curiosity, Liz... How much time do you have in this particular plane other than under the hood during IR training?

Transitioning to a new plane - even the same model - while trying to learn instruments at the same time can add a lot of unnecessary stress to the situation.

When I used to fly a 177RG, I found the 'sweet spot' where I could raise the gear and retract flaps at the same time and there wouldn't be any noticeable pitch change. Same thing with the 182RG I fly now - I can lower the gear and add 10* of flaps at the right time, and I only need a quick flick of trim to get things smoothed back out. It's little things like that that make IR flying much less stressful. Unfortunately, those little 'tricks' are hard to teach, and usually come with experience in the a/c. If you're struggling with fighting the 172 with pitch/speed changes on an approach it might be worth the time and $$ to go out and get more comfortable with this particular plane.

Just another idea from the arm-chair CFII crowd. ;)
 
dmccormack said:
Why?



70 knots all the way down should be easy.
Click to expand...

Read the original post - she's basically being forced to fly it at 90kts because of other traffic. Soooooooooo...having those cards that are being dealt...
 
EdFred said:
Read the original post - she's basically being forced to fly it at 90kts because of other traffic. Soooooooooo...having those cards that are being dealt...
Click to expand...

Still... 90 knots to short final speed is no big deal in a 172 -- reduce power, maintain pitch, add flaps -- slowed.

But I question the "keep up speed" exercise for an IFR student -- especially this early in the game.
 
dmccormack said:
Still... 90 knots to short final speed is no big deal in a 172 -- reduce power, maintain pitch, add flaps -- slowed.

But I question the "keep up speed" exercise for an IFR student -- especially this early in the game.
Click to expand...

I don't think the speed would be an issue if it had the 110kts flap deployment speed like later model 172s. Speed is relative, I would rather fly your Bo or My Comanche at 120kts as opposed to 60. But I'd rather fly a 152 at 60 than 120...ok...not that a 152 will make 120....
 
Speed would not be an issue except that her instructor is demanding that she learn approaches in the busiest environment he can find, where they get booted out if they don't fly approaches at jet-compatible speed. I don't hold with that practice, perferring that the trainee learn how to fly approaches somewhere quiet and peaceful and then, only after she's mastered the procedures, moving into busier airspace. Consider it an instructional philosophy issue rather than a procedural one.
 
Ron Levy said:
Speed would not be an issue except that her instructor is demanding that she learn approaches in the busiest environment he can find, where they get booted out if they don't fly approaches at jet-compatible speed. I don't hold with that practice, perferring that the trainee learn how to fly approaches somewhere quiet and peaceful and then, only after she's mastered the procedures, moving into busier airspace. Consider it an instructional philosophy issue rather than a procedural one.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with that, but at some point - hopefully before training is finished - every instrument pilot is "forced" to fly the approach at a faster speed.
 
No they're not. They may be requested to fly faster, but nobody makes the pilot fly the approach differently--if they are real approaches in IMC conditions. "Unable" is always an option.

EdFred said:
I don't disagree with that, but at some point - hopefully before training is finished - every instrument pilot is "forced" to fly the approach at a faster speed.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
No they're not. They may be requested to fly faster, but nobody makes the pilot fly the approach differently--if they are real approaches in IMC conditions. "Unable" is always an option.
Click to expand...

True, but dammit if I don't get sick of the people unwilling to try something just a bit outside their comfort zone once in a while.
 
azure said:
.

My CFII insists on Option 3: reconfigure for approach speed once established. He recommends 2200 RPM, which as I said gives about 95 kts level. Once you've intercepted the GS, pull power back to 2000 RPM or so and ride it down to a few hundred feet (no more than 500) above DH. Then get one dot below the GS, level off (without reducing power) and add 10* of flaps once in the white arc. Then use forward pressure to get the airplane back onto the GS.

quote]

Ducking under the glideslope is bad technique for all the reasons everybody has stated already. It's also a great way to have a low altitude wake trubulence encounter due to all those large/heavy jets your CFII insists you train with.:nonod:

As Ron and the rest said, you should do initial training at small relatively quite fields where you can use stabilized approach configurations. When you are comfortable with that, then practice different configurations at the quite fields. Only after you have that mastered, should your CFII take you somwhere to mix it up with the fast movers and fast talkers.

Using the fire hose method from the start is again bad technique. Talk to your CFII and see if he can adapt for you. If not, fire him and get a new one.

Good Luck!!
Click to expand...
 
I'm the first to agree that it goes a lot more smoothly if you can fit into the flow. If you frequently fly into the same high-density airports, the controllers soon learn who can hack it and who screws with their spacing and sequencing issues. You will be treated better over time if you're thought to be one of the good guys, but I don't think that happens without some time in the seat and starting with the fundamentals.

EdFred said:
True, but dammit if I don't get sick of the people unwilling to try something just a bit outside their comfort zone once in a while.
Click to expand...
 
azure said:
Oops... brain fart. I meant to say above 85 knots.
Click to expand...
Take a good look at the POH and the airspeed indicator. My c-172M has an airspeed indicator marked in MPH, not knots. Yours might, too. If so, that 85 kts translates to 100 MPH flap speed, which makes the 172 a lot easier and safer in a landing.
 
EdFred said:
True, but dammit if I don't get sick of the people unwilling to try something just a bit outside their comfort zone once in a while.
Click to expand...
It's pretty obvious that flying an ILS of any kind is outside her comfort zone. She should be comfortable with "plain vanilla" ILS's before she's forced to deal with radical configuration changes inside the FAF and inordinately high approach speeds. And that, I believe, is the underlying problem here.
 
CJones said:
Just out of curiosity, Liz... How much time do you have in this particular plane other than under the hood during IR training?

Transitioning to a new plane - even the same model - while trying to learn instruments at the same time can add a lot of unnecessary stress to the situation.
Click to expand...
Good question, Chris, and you're right: I don't have much time in that particular airplane. I flew a '78 172N back at 76G that also had the white arc limitation on 10* flaps but never bothered to refine my technique beyond holding level at reduced power to slow down, add the flaps, then beginning the descent. I also have about 100 hours in a 177RG and there, I did pretty much what you did in the pattern, used the drag from putting the gear down to cancel the extra lift from the flaps. You're right, there's a "sweet spot" there that makes doing both at once, properly timed, a very smooth maneuver.

I took my training airplane out today to test out my CFII's suggestions and found that at approach descent power (1950 RPM, give or take a few), it will stabilize inside the white arc in level flight. From starting to level off to starting to descend again with 10* flaps takes me about 20 seconds. I had planned to take the plane to OZW and fly the ILS there visually and see whether I could easily recapture the glideslope but the rain started to move in and I had to turn back early. But in that plane descent on the GS is about 450 fpm, so by that math I would be about 150 feet above the GS at that point if I started right on the GS as everyone here recommends. Starting from 500 feet above DH that's almost 1/3 of the rest of the way down... I'm not sure, but that doesn't sound like an easy task.

Ron, you're right that I'm not totally comfortable yet flying the ILS but I'm not sure why you think I'm still at the stage of figuring out the settings for the different configurations? I took all of the club planes out before I even started IR training and found the power/pitch settings for cruise and cruise climbs and descents. Then when we started flying approaches, I did the same (in this plane only though) for approach level and descent. With all respect, I don't think my problem is the basic numbers, and actually flying the ILS at 90 knots was starting to click about 5 hours ago. Actually it was my suggestion that we take the next step, which my CFII said would be configuring for landing. That's where I'm falling apart completely, because what my CFII teaches is to add the flaps coming down the GS, close to the bottom but before breaking out, and it's just too much for me at this point. I gather not too many people here make major configuration changes on that segment of the ILS either.

And Ed, bingo: this would be no problem at all in our later 172, a '81 P model where 10 of flaps is permitted up to, I think, 110 knots. Unfortunately that bird has been abused, has lots of mx issues, has a crappy COM2 radio that can't pick up an AWOS unless you're almost over the transmitter, and on top of it is badly out of rig. Or, I could train in our 182, which I have more hours in than the other two combined (not counting IR training) and have flown lots of short hops in and one longer one down to CMH. It's a very sweet, stable airplane, and 10 of flaps seems like it would be a very natural part of configuring for the approach. My CFII thinks that the constant speed prop would be too much extra work for me, but again, I flew a 177RG for three years and am very comfortable with it. Why don't I use it? It's got a lot of mx issues too, the engine is already past TBO, and they've upped the mx reserve to the point where I really can't afford to fly 40 hours in it just for training. It's so much more expensive to fly than the 172s at this point that I figure it'll be cheaper in the long run to transition to it after the checkride... if they don't sell it by then, which is a whole different story (sigh).

I really wish at this point that I had bought my friend's 177RG when she sold it as it would have been the best airplane I've ever flown for IR training... but that's water wayyyy under the bridge now.
 
EdFred said:
During my instrument training in the 172 and then the Warrior, 90kts was the target speed, specifically for this reason.

Now - in regards to the flaps. As Jesse said, a 172 is never going to be mistaken for a slick airplane. The worst case for flying an ILS is that you break out at 200 feet. I think that by the time you start instrument training, you should be able to make a 172 as dirty as possible in the last 200' on a 3 degree approach angle. What's your descent rate on a 3 degree angle at 90KIAS? 475' fpm - that's 25 seconds to get dirtied up. And that's a WORST case scenario.
Click to expand...

That is how I always did it in the 172, 90kts clean down the GS, at DH, yank the throttle, dump the flaps, bleed off the speed, and land.

In the Archer, it seemed to like one click of flaps, so down the GS at 90kts with one click, then at DH, yank the throttle, yank the flap handle, bleed speed, and land.

The Mooney, 90kts clean to the FAF, then gear down and takeoff flaps. It normally goes right down the pipe at 90kts with maybe a small pitch and/or throttle change. Good thing about this configuration is it is also takeoff configuration and nearly same trim (Vy is 88), so a miss is already pre-setup.
 
Bill Jennings said:
That is how I always did it in the 172, 90kts clean down the GS, at DH, yank the throttle, dump the flaps, bleed off the speed, and land.
Click to expand...
Well, I'm fairly new to this and could still be convinced otherwise, but that's the way I'm leaning too. On my flight today I stopped at PTK for fuel and added 10* of flaps on final without any ballooning, and landed that way. I started slowing down about 400 AGL but could have done it from 100-150 AGL if necessary. I did float a ways down the runway before touching down but my parking was at the far end anyway, and I had half of the 5000-foot runway still ahead of me by the time I was slow enough to turn off. I don't know of any runways with ILSs that are shorter than 5000 feet.

Maybe it's not the ideal way to teach low time students who've only done a couple hundred landings, but I think that for me dirtying up the airplane after breaking out, even if it's down at DH, will work a lot better than trying to reconfigure the airplane and keep those needles centered at the same time.
 
Liz, my suggestion is thus:

Since any experienced instrument pilot can fly the approach at a wide variety of airspeeds, pick one configuration, one power setting, and learn to fly that one. You are NOT training to learn how to land. You already know how to do that. If you're at 200 agl and fast, dump ower, slip like heck, dump flaps, and get it down.

If you can learn to fly it slow, do that.
Just MASTER ONE OF THEM, the rest will follow. It's easy to be overwhelmed. Just master ONE of them, just like your first landing that you did as a PVT solo student.
 
Point taken, Bruce, but I still have to show that I can land the airplane safely, right? I mean, after flying the approach down to minimums whether I fly it slow or fast, isn't the whole object to be able to land? He hasn't said it in so many words, but I'm pretty sure that my CFII won't consider that I've learned how to shoot an ILS if I'm so hot at DH that all I can do is a low approach. That's why he wants me to reconfigure during the descent.
 
Liz I wouldn't worry about it unless you're flying a DA40 or a Mooney. There's hardly a Cessna that you can't get slowed down in the last 200 vertical feet, and stopped in 3000 feet. heck, that's 25 seconds.

Remember, you already know how to land. And I'll bet you're okay at the emergency landing in which you find yourself high. Out come the flaps (to half), in goes the slip nose up, the airspeed goes to heckinabasket, the nose goes down, the barn door full flaps come out, and you flare.

Yes, the 172 is placarded against slips with full flaps, but it's not an operating limitation, and the phugoid is not alarming.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure what you mean by this...

azure said:
From starting to level off to starting to descend again with 10* flaps takes me about 20 seconds. I had planned to take the plane to OZW and fly the ILS there visually and see whether I could easily recapture the glideslope but the rain started to move in and I had to turn back early. But in that plane descent on the GS is about 450 fpm, so by that math I would be about 150 feet above the GS at that point if I started right on the GS as everyone here recommends. Starting from 500 feet above DH that's almost 1/3 of the rest of the way down... I'm not sure, but that doesn't sound like an easy task.
Click to expand...
What is it that takes 20 seconds? I think that if you are going to try to reconfigure inside the FAF you should be more concerned with staying on the glideslope than your speed. You shouldn't let the airplane balloon when adding flaps by adding some forward pressure and/or trim. Your speed will stabilize after awhile. It's also not such an exact science. Your descent rate on the glideslope is dependent on your groundspeed which is going to be different each time depending on the wind. You should have some ballpark numbers for power and descent rate in mind but you need to adjust what is necessary to give the desired result. Make the airplane do what YOU want it to do. :)

That said, I think it will be easier for you to either configure before the FAF, which would be my choice for you, or after you break out.
 
I'm far from IFR training -- my plane is IFR Certified -- however, this has been one of the most interesting and informative threads posted in ages.

HR
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top