All my Approaches are high.

Snaggletooth

Snaggletooth

Line Up and Wait
Joined
May 9, 2009
Messages
665
Location
Texas
Display Name
Display name:
Dustin
For a while now, when landing, my approaches have been on the high side and I can't seem to find a happy medium. During my Student Training, I had a problem with getting to low, now its the opposite. I am to high, and my landings, often rough.

So yesterday I bought and downloaded the Takeoffs and Landings Video from Sporty's to see if that would help give me some insight into what I may be doing wrong. It kinda refreshed my mind on how things should be done.

So, what would you recommend I try to get my altitude under control?
 
I'm not a CFI, and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, so I'm just thinking aloud here...

If you're flying at an airport with some sort of glideslope indicator lights, force yourself to stick to the correct glideslope until your peripheral vision gets trained to the 'correct' sight picture.

If I'm flying into an airport with a 'new' landscape (sitting on a hill, sitting in a valley, etc.) I usually use the VASI (if available) to make sure the different landscape isn't distorting my sight picture for descent.
 
Chris's suggestion of follow the VASI is a way to train yourself what to look for as a reasonable glide slope but as long as you don't hit anyone or anything too high/too low is a fine point. I don't mean to put too little emphasis on it. A good exercise for altitude is power off landings. Helps you estimate the altitude you need to glide from one point to the runway. If your normal landing altitudes are a bit higher than that, I think they're perfect.

Landing the airplane is an energy management exercise and altitude (potential energy) is part. Airspeed (kinetic energy) is the other part. If you get them both right you cross the threshold with just enough energy to flare and touch down gently. One thing to remember is that if you're high putting the nose down to lose altitude will simply turn potential into kinetic energy you'll still have to get rid of it before landing.

I find more problems with .ugh. less than perfect landings are due to lack of consistent airspeed control than altitude issues.

Joe
 
Snaggletooth said:
For a while now, when landing, my approaches have been on the high side and I can't seem to find a happy medium. During my Student Training, I had a problem with getting to low, now its the opposite. I am to high, and my landings, often rough.

So yesterday I bought and downloaded the Takeoffs and Landings Video from Sporty's to see if that would help give me some insight into what I may be doing wrong. It kinda refreshed my mind on how things should be done.

So, what would you recommend I try to get my altitude under control?
Click to expand...

This advice is probably a little amateurish, but I really do keep an eye on my altimeter and keep in mind the elevation of the airport. I try to be at 500' turning on final, so if turn on base and I'm still at 800', e.g., I'm going to be adjusting my approach (power, flaps, speed) to get to my target 500 when I turn for final.
 
The easy answer is to find a VASI and practice using it.

If not, are you established on final with sufficient distance to adjust your glide path to obtain the gradient to your liking by (simply) using power changes?

A technique that has worked for me in the past is to configure the aircraft for the approach at an altitude and distance from the runway that requires some sink prior to achieving the "slot" to fly for the remainder of the approach. I then reduce power and allow the airplane to sink to the desired sight picture, and then add sufficient power to maintain it. Being a tad high and descending to the proper slope seems to work better for most pilots, but YMMV.
 
My Airport does have a VASI, but to tell you the truth... I've never really payed much attention to it. lol
 
Snaggletooth said:
My Airport does have a VASI, but to tell you the truth... I've never really payed much attention to it. lol
Click to expand...

I fly only the little airplanes (VFR only), and flying the VASI glideslope on final will put me well on the back side of the power curve. I'd rather not do that (and I've been taught not to do that) so I don't pay attention to the VASI either.
 
What's wrong with coming in high? Slip the aircraft on final and call it a success. Its what I do. My engine ever quits on final I will make the runway.
 
steingar said:
What's wrong with coming in high? Slip the aircraft on final and call it a success. Its what I do. My engine ever quits on final I will make the runway.
Click to expand...

Yes what he said. I used to drag it in until I realized that an engine out on final would mean an off-field landing 50 feet from the runway.

So I always come in a little high and slip it if I have to (I love foward slips). It's pretty rare that a slip doesn't get me down in time to make a good landing.
 
jstro said:
This advice is probably a little amateurish, but I really do keep an eye on my altimeter and keep in mind the elevation of the airport. I try to be at 500' turning on final, so if turn on base and I'm still at 800', e.g., I'm going to be adjusting my approach (power, flaps, speed) to get to my target 500 when I turn for final.
Click to expand...
John's got an insight into solving this problem. You have to visualize the traffic pattern as a series of windows through which you fly, and have an altitude, airspeed, and configuration to be in as you fly through each one. For example, you might choose the following windows:
  1. 1/2 mile abeam midfield
  2. 1/2 mile abeam the numbers
  3. downwind with numbers 45 behind wing
  4. mid-base leg
  5. rolling out on final
  6. over the fence
Then, identify the speeds, altitudes, and configurations for each window, such as:
  1. 1/2 mile abeam midfield: flaps 0, 75 knots, 1000 AGL
  2. 1/2 mile abeam the numbers: flaps 10, 70 knots, 1000 AGL
  3. downwind with numbers 45 behind wing: flaps 10, 70 knots, 800 AGL
  4. mid-base leg: flaps 20, 65 knots, 600 AGL
  5. rolling out on final: flaps full, 60 knots, 400 AGL
  6. over the fence: flaps full, 60 knots, 50 AGL
[Note: the windows and numbers are merely exemplary, and you'll have to come up with ones to fit your aircraft's type and performance.]

Now, just fly yourself through each of those windows, adjusting power and trim as needed to hit those speeds and altitudes. If you "hit your marks" all the way around, you'll find you have no more problem rolling out on final higher than you want.


As for using the VASI, I have several concerns. First, the VASI brings you in on a bit flatter glide path than most light planes fly in the VFR pattern -- 3 degrees versus 4-5 degrees. That 3 degree VASI would put you about 300 AGL a mile from touchdown, and that's a bit low/flat for most VFR light plane flying. Second, the VASI does not give any trend data -- it doesn't tell you how far off you are unless you're so far off the lights disappear, and it doesn't tell you whether you're correcting or going further off. That's why I prefer PAPI to VASI (better resolution), and Alignment of Elements to both (trend as well as precise position). Finally, I've seen too many folks so reliant on the VASI they are lost without it (or some other VGSI). Just as I teach visual landmark navigation before GPS, I'd rather folks learn how to land without the visual aids, and learn to use them as secondary aids rather than primary tools.
 
Last edited:
Snaggletooth said:
For a while now, when landing, my approaches have been on the high side and I can't seem to find a happy medium. During my Student Training, I had a problem with getting to low, now its the opposite. I am to high, and my landings, often rough.

So yesterday I bought and downloaded the Takeoffs and Landings Video from Sporty's to see if that would help give me some insight into what I may be doing wrong. It kinda refreshed my mind on how things should be done.

So, what would you recommend I try to get my altitude under control?
Click to expand...

Another useful tip is to watch landing videos on youtube. A lot of times in the comment sections, you will have CFI's chime in and say they are too high or too low.
 
The VASI will help you get the picture for a 3 degree slope.

But IMHO in a GA single you really don't want or need to be flying that slope from the turn to base to final.

:dunno:

I was taught gradual flaps but have since turned to the dark side :frog:

--------------WARNING: Technique Suggestion Follows!--------------

I ensure I'm flying my final approach speed plus 10 by midfield downwind, then add 20 degrees abeam the numbers. Add whatever nose up trim is required to maintain your target approach speed (if it's 65 knots, there's no reason to be that slow this far out. So in a 65 "over the fence" airplane I'll shoot for 80).

Check for traffic, turn, check the sight picture (This is important! Too many students saw at the throttle on final -- by then it's too late).

Ron's method uses "windows" -- that's fine if your brain works that way.

My brain requires a mental image, so through practice I've acquired that image and look left (in a standard pattern) to see if I am high or low.

It may sound like too much work, but this height-judging thing is critical -- it may save your bacon should the fan up front quit.

A good exercise is to fly with a CFI in the right seat that doesn't need the panel (they are becoming rare, sadly!), and fly about 10 circuits. Once in a while have him/her tell you your altitude at different parts. You will quickly be amazed how accurate you can be at your home field -- with practice you'll know if you're 100' high or low.

Why only at the home field? Because eventually you will then have to add the ability to judge height in different terrain, different runway lengths and widths, and even different visibility conditions. This skill will have to be developed through practice in -- you guessed it -- varying conditions. :thumbsup:

In my opinion, the look-out-the-window-and-judge technique has improved my overall landing performance. I was taught to use the altimeter and different flaps settings abeam the numbers, base, final, and the rest. The problem (I later learned from a far more experienced CFI) was that I was dependent on the instruments in VFR conditions.

Not good. :nono:

So now that I fly an airplane with a bare bones 70-year-old panel, I fly looking out the window. And when I fly more modern airplanes, the skills carry over.

-------END OF TECHNIQUE!!!!-----------------

I warned you that my post is merely a discussion of a different technique, which is another approach, but not necessarily better or worse than others provided here. If the CFI you fly with has yet another -- great.

A technique is "wrong" when it exceeds the airplane's performance capabilities, regulations, or your ability at the time.
 
Just look at the situation and fix it. If you're too high pull the power and slip need be. Don't overthink it - just have the tools to fix it and then fix it immediately.

I've flown with a number of pilots before that realize they are too high but then make absolutely no change to fix it. Some people have this idea that they can't change anything about their landing procedure and if it isn't getting them the result they want they don't know what to do.

It's just a matter of noticing and making a change to correct.
 
The problem with the mental image is that it is highly subject to terrain and runway dimensions. If you fly at an airport with a 3000x75 runway, and then go to Chorman (D74) with its 3600x37 runway, the "mental image" may fool you. That's why I teach windows and angles, not mental images or landmarks under the pattern. But, as Dan said, it's technique, not procedure, so find what works for you. Just make sure it works everywhere, not just on the main runway at your home field.
 
jesse said:
Just look at the situation and fix it. If you're too high pull the power and slip need be.
Click to expand...
Yes, there are times and places when a slip is necessary, but if you always end up high and having to slip because of your own performance (rather than, say, due to obstructions and a short runway), you're just not doing it as well as you should. I like my trainees to strive for better than that, and it sounds like that's what Dustin wants.
 
Ron Levy said:
Yes, there are times and places when a slip is necessary, but if you always end up high and having to slip because of your own performance (rather than, say, due to obstructions and a short runway), you're just not doing it as well as you should. I like my trainees to strive for better than that, and it sounds like that's what Dustin wants.
Click to expand...

Yes, thats exactly what I want. :thumbsup: Could not have said it better myself.
 
Ron Levy said:
The problem with the mental image is that it is highly subject to terrain and runway dimensions. If you fly at an airport with a 3000x75 runway, and then go to Chorman (D74) with its 3600x37 runway, the "mental image" may fool you. That's why I teach windows and angles, not mental images or landmarks under the pattern. But, as Dan said, it's technique, not procedure, so find what works for you. Just make sure it works everywhere, not just on the main runway at your home field.
Click to expand...

*IF* you know how high AGL you are, you should be able to do the math and figure out how high you should be at each window.

In varying terrain (such as we have aplenty here), you don't always know.

In addition, the able to judge altitude by the view out the window will come in *very* handy should you have to squeeze that C172 onto a football field surrounded by towers and buildings.

There may come an occasion when you will not have time to check the altimeter and you will not be able to do the required math.
 
Ron Levy said:
Yes, there are times and places when a slip is necessary, but if you always end up high and having to slip because of your own performance (rather than, say, due to obstructions and a short runway), you're just not doing it as well as you should. I like my trainees to strive for better than that, and it sounds like that's what Dustin wants.
Click to expand...

I slip nearly every time in the Chief because it's just so much fun. :D

But, I agree, having to slip is not the same as planning to.
 
dmccormack said:
*IF* you know how high AGL you are, you should be able to do the math and figure out how high you should be at each window.

In varying terrain (such as we have aplenty here), you don't always know.
Click to expand...
If you don't know what the runway elevation is (no matter how varying the terrain is around it), you have other problems. But even if you don't, you can still picture those windows and the configuration and speed you want to be as you approach that football field. Just working off the mental image developed by looking at your regular 3000x75 runway won't help much when approaching one which is 300x150 (just remember there's plenty of room between the goal posts and the sideline so you can go next to the posts rather than over them on short final).
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
If you don't know what the runway elevation is (no matter how varying the terrain is around it), you have other problems.
Click to expand...
I've landed plenty of times in areas where I didn't know exactly what the runway elevation was. I just looked out the window. It's not hard.
 
i just judge the approach angle and fix it. the nice thing about monitoring the angle to the touchdown point instead of altitude is that you don't have to worry about ground elevation and altimeter when all you worry about is the angle.
 
tonycondon said:
i just judge the approach angle and fix it. the nice thing about monitoring the angle to the touchdown point instead of altitude is that you don't have to worry about ground elevation and altimeter when all you worry about is the angle.
Click to expand...
+1. My eyes are out of the airplane. Much simpler.
 
Snaggletooth said:
Yes, thats exactly what I want. :thumbsup: Could not have said it better myself.
Click to expand...
Dustin, what exactly do you mean by "Approaches are high"? Are you having to dive for the runway on short final? Do you end up too fast into the flare and float way down the runway? Does your aiming point shift forward down the runway all the way down final? Do you end up closing the throttle and/or slipping aggressively during the last half of the final?

In most trainers you can make your approach with a GS angle anywhere from about 2 degrees to something close to 6 degrees. The ideal for a VFR arrival is probably around 4-4.5 degrees if there are no obstructions. That's not so steep that you can't carry a little power yet steep enough that you aren't "dragging it in". The VASIs are usually set for 3 degrees because that's the nominal GS angle for an ILS but IMO it's a bit shallow for normal approaches in a single.
 
Ron Levy said:
Finally, I've seen too many folks so reliant on the VASI they are lost without it (or some other VGSI).
Click to expand...

Ron made a good point - if you get too reliant on the VASI/PAPI for your approach, you are going to have trouble when you end up having to approach and land on a runway that doesn't have one and there are a whole lot that don't.
 
I had this issue for a short time and in the end analysis for me it boiled down to carrying too much speed on downwind. In getting slowed down I would then end up above or at pattern altitude when I didn't want to be. Kind of like the windows that Ron speaks of.
 
Ron Levy said:
If you don't know what the runway elevation is (no matter how varying the terrain is around it), you have other problems. But even if you don't, you can still picture those windows and the configuration and speed you want to be as you approach that football field. Just working off the mental image developed by looking at your regular 3000x75 runway won't help much when approaching one which is 300x150 (just remember there's plenty of room between the goal posts and the sideline so you can go next to the posts rather than over them on short final).
Click to expand...

:sigh:

I really don't think you read posts before you respond to them.

dmccormack said:
A good exercise is to fly with a CFI in the right seat that doesn't need the panel (they are becoming rare, sadly!), and fly about 10 circuits. Once in a while have him/her tell you your altitude at different parts. You will quickly be amazed how accurate you can be at your home field -- with practice you'll know if you're 100' high or low.

Why only at the home field? Because eventually you will then have to add the ability to judge height in different terrain, different runway lengths and widths, and even different visibility conditions. This skill will have to be developed through practice in -- you guessed it -- varying conditions. :thumbsup:
Click to expand...
 
Depending on whether all other factors in your approach don't change(where you turn base, speeds etc) If you are just coming in high, you probably aren't descending enough. If you are in the pattern, and are using 45 degree's off your back as reference to turn base, then it is probably your rate of descent.

Are you flying a certain speed once you get abeam the numbers and pull the power back? I have my students descend at 90 once abeam the numbers, 80 on base, 70 on final slowing to 65 over the fence. Students have a tendency to focus on speed and neglect rate of descent. Its largely dependent on which airplane I am teaching in, but for a 172 or similar I like a 500 FPM rate of descent in the pattern. It seems to work very well at bringing the aircraft in on glide path.

Next time check how much you are descending in the pattern and adjust accordingly.

Also how soon are you noticing a problem? As soon as you get wings level on base are you noticing it? or not till final? If you are high on the start of base, you have plenty of time to fix it by cutting some power and increasing the rate of descent.

You can also try power off approaches and tighten the pattern a bit. Thats how I teach students in just about every tailwheel aircraft.
 
EppyGA said:
I had this issue for a short time and in the end analysis for me it boiled down to carrying too much speed on downwind. In getting slowed down I would then end up above or at pattern altitude when I didn't want to be. Kind of like the windows that Ron speaks of.
Click to expand...

I've also seen this common problem with a root cause of slowing down too much towards the end of the downwind leg (after power reduction).
 
The Colorado Pilot's Association mountain flying course offered something they called a "precision visual approach" which turned out to be the same thing I was taught in PP training. It is a straightforward technique to flying a specified profile to just about any desired landing point.

Downwind at a comfortable speed (not full rental power) and selected altitude, usually 1,000' agl.

Abeam the desired touchdown point, reduce power to predetermined approach power setting (I think we used 1,400 rpm in the 160 hp 172), drop first notch of flaps (use 10 degrees if you fly one of those things with the wings on top), hold altitude to reduce airspeed to target (usually 1.3*Vso +10), and begin descent. Target descent rate is 400 fpm (you've already determined power setting to get this rate).

Base turn (normal 45 degrees lookback over shoulder). Add another notch of flaps (or add 10 more degrees for the high wing) and get on speed (usually 1.3*Vso+5) and the 400 fpm descent rate. Very little trim change required (usually).

Turn to final. Add more flaps if desired. Get on speed (usually 1.3*Vso). Monitor touchdown point and add or subtract power to land as desired. You'll usually still be at about 400 fpm descent.

Slow over the fence by reducing rate of descent, pull power and land the aircraft as slow as possible by holding it 6" off the runway. Use all of your arm strength to hold it there until you hear scraping noises from the rear of the aircraft.:wink2:

After a few repetitions you'll start to learn the variations and corrections. The method works just about anywhere since everything references the selected touchdown point, not terrain. Of course if yer flying in the mountains make sure you don't bump into nearby terrain while being "precise."

Oh, and all of that is for a 1/2 to 3/4 mile pattern. It won't work if yer pretending to be a 787.

Note: standard disclaimers apply. If I omitted anthing, too bad, it's yer butt that has to deal with it! Don't bend yer airplane or break yerself.
 
Last edited:
I agree with above, downwind is usually where this problem begins.
Make sure that you continue a very consistent decent rate after power reduction. Once the nose is lowered most planes tend to shallow out of the decent. It can be easy to miss until you turn final and realize you are high.
Practice this until you can roll out right on the VASI. You might be surprised to see how much you have to focus on keeping the nose down until you get to final.


bottom line is there can be a resistance to come down (from plane and pilot) at the needed rate of decent
 
dmccormack said:
I'm not sure what you mean ...?

All the singles I've flown require full or near-full nose up trim with 14"/15" or 1500 RPM to maintain the best approach and glide speed.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about small fixed prop stuff. But I have seen students lower the nose actually pick up speed/RPM and the plane's decent rate shallows up a bit
 
If you're flying the 3/4 or 1/2 mile pattern, you should have 500 feet between yourself and the ground as you turn final. The 172 I fly has some fancy thing where it makes some beeps at the 500' markers, and when I first started flying it, whenever I would make my base to final call, I would always get "Danville traffic, 7SP BEEPBEEPBEEP...pause...left base to final, 27 Danville". Now I plan for it, so it's not an issue.
 
Clark1961 said:
Downwind at a comfortable speed (not full rental power) and selected altitude, usually 1,000' agl.
Click to expand...

This actually took some getting used to for me. I trained at KLBB with 2 mile runways at a highish altitude, so we left it WFO the whole downwind. When I went to GTU with a much shorter runway and 600' MSL I kept wondering why the eff am I feeling so rushed in my pattern?
 
dmccormack said:
All the singles I've flown require full or near-full nose up trim with 14"/15" or 1500 RPM to maintain the best approach and glide speed.
Click to expand...
Sounds like you've flown only a limited number of single-engine airplanes. There's a lot more variation out there when it comes to best approach speed. However, best glide speed in the best glide configuration (usually very different from best approach speed/configuration) usually does take a lot of nose-up trim.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top