How fast on the ILS..?

asgcpa said:
Really Ed? Never happened. Controllers generally have a good idea how fast certain planes can go so not as to jeopardize safety. If you have been polite and professional, I find they cut you slack. I will try to go faster until FAF, but I am not going to do something unusual after that. And basically were talking 10-15 kias in the Archer. Controllers want to work with you I find.
Click to expand...

I didn't say you WOULD get it, but be prepared for it. I've been given the option, go fast or go second. I go fast.
 
coloradobluesky said:
MY opspec.
Click to expand...
If you are wondering about the reaction you got in the post following yours, "opsspec" has a very specific meaning to air carriers and the term is often misused by people who are referring to "the way they do things" or their SOP. But it's a little unfair to expect people who do not work for air carriers to know that.

Opssecs are basically modifications or additions to the regs found in 121, 125, 135 and 145 which are applied for and/or assigned to the operator by number.

Everything you wanted to know about them here.

http://fsims.faa.gov/WDocs/8900.1/V03 Tech Admin/Chapter 18/03_018_003.htm
 
asgcpa said:
Really Ed? Never happened. Controllers generally have a good idea how fast certain planes can go so not as to jeopardize safety. If you have been polite and professional, I find they cut you slack. I will try to go faster until FAF, but I am not going to do something unusual after that. And basically were talking 10-15 kias in the Archer. Controllers want to work with you I find.
Click to expand...
I don't think you are required to do that in IMC. I knew I had heard that at some point so I tried to find it written somewhere. Actually this paragraph doesn't state anything about IMC. That said, I'm not sure how they would handle someone who wanted to go 70 knots down final at a busy airline airport. Maybe they would make you wait for a break in the traffic.

As far as teaching or experimenting with it as a maneuver, I would go for it, but that's just me. Other people can do/teach what they want. When I flew smaller airplanes I would fly them faster than "normal" down final. Less time to screw up. :D

b. Do not assign speed adjustment to aircraft:

1. At or above FL 390 without pilot consent.

2. Executing a published high altitude instrument approach procedure.

3. In a holding pattern.

REFERENCE-
FAAO JO 7110.65, Para 4-6-4, Holding Instructions.

4. Inside the final approach fix on final or a point 5 miles from the runway, whichever is closer to the runway.

c. At the time approach clearance is issued, previously issued speed adjustments must be restated if required.

d. Approach clearances cancel any previously assigned speed adjustment. Pilots are expected to make their own speed adjustments to complete the approach unless the adjustments are restated.

e. If feasible, when issuing speed adjustments to aircraft cleared along a route or procedure that has published speed restrictions, advise aircraft where to resume published speed.

f. Express speed adjustments in terms of knots based on indicated airspeed (IAS) in 10-knot increments. At or above FL 240, speeds may be expressed in terms of Mach numbers in 0.01 increments for turbojet aircraft with Mach meters (i.e., Mach 0.69, 0.70, 0.71, etc.).
Click to expand...

http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/atc/atc0507.html
 
Last edited:
Everskyward said:
I don't think you are required to do that in IMC. I knew I had heard that at some point so I tried to find it written somewhere. Actually this paragraph doesn't state anything about IMC. That said, I'm not sure how they would handle someone who wanted to go 70 knots down final at a busy airline airport. Maybe they would make you wait for a break in the traffic.

As far as teaching or experimenting with it as a maneuver, I would go for it, but that's just me. When I flew smaller airplanes I would fly them faster than "normal" down final. Less time to screw up. :D



http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/atc/atc0507.html
Click to expand...

I think it comes down to,
"Can you give me xxx knots to (some point on the approach)?"
"Unable."
"Direct KELSI and hold expect further clearance in 2017."

It's not a speed assignment/restriction, just a "well, if you really want to go that slow, you'll have to wait a long time for it.
 
Last edited:
EdFred said:
I think it comes down to,
"Can you give me xxx knots to (some point on the approach)?"
"Unable."
"Direct KELSI and hold expect further clearance in 2017."

It's not a speed assignment/restriction, just a "well, if you really want to go that slow, you'll have to wait a long time for it.
Click to expand...
Agree. You could also go somewhere else.

Ted DuPuis said:
This is an option, and one should never do something uncomfortable in IMC

That said, expanding your comfort zone is also a good idea.
Click to expand...
I think ideally people should be able to fly their airplane using all sorts of profiles, however realistically many don't fly often enough to become comfortable with this. There is also the differences in people's personalities.
 
Everskyward said:
I think ideally people should be able to fly their airplane using all sorts of profiles, however realistically many don't fly often enough to become comfortable with this. There is also the differences in people's personalities.
Click to expand...

This comes down to personal mins and picking airports logically.
 
Oh come on, its the V speeds that make airplanes fly the ILS at different speeds. Everyone knows that. That and there is this pressure by people to make pilots fly their small planes down the ILS faster, so they don't keep a scheduled flight waiting, or causing it to go around. Those are the issues. There is room for doing it differently for the same airplane. Faster isn't always better. There IS such a thing as "too fast". There is also something to be said for doing it consistently.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
This comes down to personal mins and picking airports logically.
Click to expand...
True. If you aren't comfortable with shooting an ILS at max forward speed, don't try to shoot an approach into JFK, ORD, ATL, etc. and expect to do it at 90 kts. Choose another airport.
 
jordane93 said:
True. If you aren't comfortable with shooting an ILS at max forward speed, don't try to shoot an approach into JFK, ORD, ATL, etc. and expect to do it at 90 kts. Choose another airport.
Click to expand...


So would 120kts work?
 
The difference in time to fly a 5 mile final between 75 knots and 120 knots is 1 1/2 minutes. So if the controller knows the plane is going to fly a 5 mile ILS at 75knots he would need to put an additional 1 1/2 minutes between it and the next plane.
 
coloradobluesky said:
The difference in time to fly a 5 mile final between 75 knots and 120 knots is 1 1/2 minutes. So if the controller knows the plane is going to fly a 5 mile ILS at 75knots he would need to put an additional 1 1/2 minutes between it and the next plane.
Click to expand...


What you forget is that at most busy airports, aircraft will be vectored to anywhere between an 8-30 mile final. Depends on weather, traffic, you name it.
 
Coming into a big airport like ORD during IMC may mean simultaneous ILS approaches, which means long finals because of spacing requirements with parallel runways....so you may be on a 25 mile final at 100 knots without ATC able to fill put anyone in front of you. At roughly 1.5 miles per minute for 25 miles, and the next airplane doing almost 3, you can see the how much inefficiency is created by dissimilar aircraft types. To be fair, it's just as inefficient at a busy GA airport when everyone is doing 90 knots and a jet appears on a 10 mile final doing 180.

I am happy to work slower aircraft types into O'Hare. It is a team effort between pilot and controller though. I'll stick a pilot onto a final who can confidently say he'll keep the speed up till 2 miles out, where the pilot that tells me he'll be slowing to 70 knots at the outer marker will go further back in the approach sequence simply because I need the time to build a bigger gap so I don't run airplanes out of my airspace....it's nothing personal, it's just the way the system works.
 
coloradobluesky said:
The difference in time to fly a 5 mile final between 75 knots and 120 knots is 1 1/2 minutes. So if the controller knows the plane is going to fly a 5 mile ILS at 75knots he would need to put an additional 1 1/2 minutes between it and the next plane.
Click to expand...

Most airline jets can't do 120 knots outside the final approach fix (or at all), so the space needed is much greater. Aside from that, each of the airplanes have to be 3 miles apart on final (sometimes 2.5, depending on the runway), so for a pilot doing 75 knots on a 5-mile final, the jet behind him would have to be turned into the final at least 13 miles out at 150 knots.

If you turn the 75-knot guy on at 8 miles, which is the closest he can legally be turned into an ILS, the 150-knot guy has to be 19 miles out....and a lot of them will be unable that slow that far away, usually 160 is the slowest I can assign with any consistency, so that puts us around 20 miles out, and doesn't account for the difference in true airspeed (20 miles out is around 6000' on the glide slope).
 
Have some of you guys tried to fly the ILS fast?

It doesn't take Chuck Yeager, its no big deal, its just a number. The only issue is slowing down enough to land. However, once again you are only going to see this at large airports with long runways. You could cross the numbers in a 172 at 110 indicated and still easily land on a 12K' strip. You don't have to do a full stall, brick one, landing every time. Maybe I'm missing something?
 
Jmcmanna said:
Most airline jets can't do 120 knots outside the final approach fix (or at all), so the space needed is much greater. Aside from that, each of the airplanes have to be 3 miles apart on final (sometimes 2.5, depending on the runway), so for a pilot doing 75 knots on a 5-mile final, the jet behind him would have to be turned into the final at least 13 miles out at 150 knots.

If you turn the 75-knot guy on at 8 miles, which is the closest he can legally be turned into an ILS, the 150-knot guy has to be 19 miles out....and a lot of them will be unable that slow that far away, usually 160 is the slowest I can assign with any consistency, so that puts us around 20 miles out, and doesn't account for the difference in true airspeed (20 miles out is around 6000' on the glide slope).
Click to expand...

Thanks for the valuable insight. There will be those who will pipe in saying " but that's only Chicago, so it doesn't apply to my 172". Other airports, say BNA, BHM, ORL, JAX, TPA, TYS, etc have lots of traffic and the same techniques are used.

If you're going to be obstinate and refuse to speed up for in trail separation, tell the controller early so he can get you out of the way. Or better yet, learn to fly your aircraft in real world conditions.
 
Alexb2000 said:
Have some of you guys tried to fly the ILS fast?

It doesn't take Chuck Yeager, its no big deal, its just a number. The only issue is slowing down enough to land. However, once again you are only going to see this at large airports with long runways. You could cross the numbers in a 172 at 110 indicated and still easily land on a 12K' strip. You don't have to do a full stall, brick one, landing every time. Maybe I'm missing something?
Click to expand...

Nope. You're not missing anything. Just people that have never done anything outside PTS training numbers, and instrument instructors that perpetuate the problem.
 
Last edited:
I'm not a professional pilot, and am still working on completing the IR. Personally, I could speed up if VMC and not MVFR.

For a real IMC approach:

1. Do you guys really speed up like that, and if so what speed?
2. Am guessing your not timing your approach since you're unstablized?

Am asking as I thought timing was crucial in case you needed to convert from ILS to LOC if GS was lost (i.e. debriefed both minima and clock is ON). Still learning, so flame away if necessary ....
 
danhagan said:
I'm not a professional pilot, and am still working on completing the IR. Personally, I could speed up if VMC and not MVFR.

For a real IMC approach:

1. Do you guys really speed up like that, and if so what speed?
2. Am guessing your not timing your approach since you're unstablized?

Am asking as I thought timing was crucial in case you needed to convert from ILS to LOC if GS was lost (i.e. debriefed both minima and clock is ON). Still learning, so flame away if necessary ....
Click to expand...

1) I don't speed up, I just don't slow down (as much)
2) Where is it written that faster speed = unstabilized? if I am asked to or keep my speed up, I fly that speed until I break out.

I don't switch approaches once I start flying one. Stepdowns/altitudes might vary too much between the ILS and the LOC. If the GS goes out while flying it, I'm going missed, and coming around to shoot the LOC.
 
Last edited:
danhagan said:
I'm not a professional pilot, and am still working on completing the IR. Personally, I could speed up if VMC and not MVFR.

For a real IMC approach:

1. Do you guys really speed up like that, and if so what speed?
2. Am guessing your not timing your approach since you're unstablized?

Am asking as I thought timing was crucial in case you needed to convert from ILS to LOC if GS was lost (i.e. debriefed both minima and clock is ON). Still learning, so flame away if necessary ....
Click to expand...

I wouldn't take anyones word for it, instructor or otherwise, I would just go try it with my instructor and see how it goes. Assuming you are to the point in your training that you can fly a good set of needles then give it a shot at a faster speed. I expect you'll see little difference until you get to the bottom where you'll have to slow down so you'll float a little longer. This will sound weird to some, but in really low IMC I love the Class B's or C's. They have the best facilities, lighting, experienced controllers, etc. Shooting an RANV at night to 200' into a 2500'X40' strip lined by what seems like 10 watt bulbs is much more exciting at any speed IMO. YMMV.:)
 
You got that right, Alex. Night landings at my current home drone are not for visitors...
 
Flew into JFK yesterday in single engine piston (Lancair 360). Overcast 800.

This was the interaction with the final controller:
ATC: "say airspeed"
Me: "175"
ATC: "Excellent, please keep doing that for as long as you can"
Me: "Ok, we'll do it"

There was then a shift change and the new controller issued me a 170kt restriction to a 5 mile final, along with the CRJ ahead of me, and the Virgin heavy behind me.

As I cleared the runway, another jet checked in with tower (behind the Virgin heavy jet) and was told to keep her speed up as long as possible. This was inside the 5 mile point, which is why they couldn't issue a hard speed restriction.

There is no doubt in my mind that I would've gummed up the works by waddling in at 90kts from 10 miles out.
 
coma24 said:
Flew into JFK yesterday in single engine piston (Lancair 360). Overcast 800.

This was the interaction with the final controller:
ATC: "say airspeed"
Me: "175"
ATC: "Excellent, please keep doing that for as long as you can"
Me: "Ok, we'll do it"

There was then a shift change and the new controller issued me a 170kt restriction to a 5 mile final, along with the CRJ ahead of me, and the Virgin heavy behind me.

As I cleared the runway, another jet checked in with tower (behind the Virgin heavy jet) and was told to keep her speed up as long as possible. This was inside the 5 mile point, which is why they couldn't issue a hard speed restriction.

There is no doubt in my mind that I would've gummed up the works by waddling in at 90kts from 10 miles out.
Click to expand...

Will you stop using real-world experience here? This is the internet! You must go 90! :rofl:

Nicely done. :thumbsup:
 
coma24 said:
Flew into JFK yesterday in single engine piston (Lancair 360). Overcast 800.



This was the interaction with the final controller:

ATC: "say airspeed"

Me: "175"

ATC: "Excellent, please keep doing that for as long as you can"

Me: "Ok, we'll do it"



There was then a shift change and the new controller issued me a 170kt restriction to a 5 mile final, along with the CRJ ahead of me, and the Virgin heavy behind me.



As I cleared the runway, another jet checked in with tower (behind the Virgin heavy jet) and was told to keep her speed up as long as possible. This was inside the 5 mile point, which is why they couldn't issue a hard speed restriction.



There is no doubt in my mind that I would've gummed up the works by waddling in at 90kts from 10 miles out.
Click to expand...


At what point did you start to slow from 170?
 
coma24 said:
There is no doubt in my mind that I would've gummed up the works by waddling in at 90kts from 10 miles out.
Click to expand...
And I have no doubt that had you stated that as a limitation, you would have been accommodated. As I've said before, if you can do it safely and proficiently, fine, but if you or your plane make it either inappropriate or unsafe, don't let a controller turn his/her problem into your problem.
 
At what point did you start to slow from 170?
Click to expand...

Just watched a bit of the video. I was down to 160 at the 700-800ft mark. At that point, I'd just broken out. I then leveled off, pulled power all the way back, got to gear extension speed (125kias), dropped gear and approach flap, then worked my way back down to the glide path. Touched down at the normal spot.

Note, they'd only asked for the speed up until the glideslope intercept (that's all they can do, legally, or a 5 mile final), I was just being generous by keeping it going. The reason for doing it was a) for practice, and b) I know that my speed on short final is absolutely going to cause compression with the A330 behind me, so I'd rather be outrunning him for a brief stint to anticipate that.

I also planned my touchdown and rollout to minimize the runway occupancy time (there aren't many exits on rwy 22L, which could result in higher runway occupancy time if you plant it too soon and jam on the brakes for no good reason).

Was all of this overkill? I'd have to do the math, but as it was, with all that effort, the A330 was on a 2 mile final as I exited the runway (based on a radio call that was made to another jet behind the A330). That's not a lot.

One last factor, the headwinds were pretty steep during the majority of the approach (30kts+), that would've made the compression issue even worse if I'd been at 90kias (60 or less over the ground). In other words, my % speed loss as a result of the headwind would be higher than the A330's speed loss.

Had it been an approach to minimums, I'd have to rethink it. Last time I was there it was 400 overcast, but I truthfully can't remember exactly how I flew it. I know I kept it fast until the FAF (there was an A380 behind me that time), but I think I allowed the speed to bleed off while I was tracking the glideslope...I never did the level off to bleed. This time around I planned for the level off, knowing it was 700-800 OVC.
 
Ron Levy said:
And I have no doubt that had you stated that as a limitation, you would have been accommodated. As I've said before, if you can do it safely and proficiently, fine, but if you or your plane make it either inappropriate or unsafe, don't let a controller turn his/her problem into your problem.
Click to expand...


They'd certainly accommodate you, but you wouldn't make any friends.

If flying into JFK, I'd make every effort to be comfortable flying a fast ILS.
 
dans2992 said:
Ok, just curious on this. Quick survey:

1. What aircraft do you fly?
2. What speed do you like to fly the ILS at?
3. What speed do you fly it when asked for "max forward speed" by ATC? What configuration do you use? When do you slow?
Click to expand...
1. C208B

2. Short-field is 80kts w/ 30* flaps;
"Small-ish field" is 100kts w/ 20* flaps;
"Normal field" is 120kts w/ 10* flaps;
"Large field" (ORD) is 140-160kts w/ 0*-10* flaps.

3. 175kts (Vmo/Vne) w/ 0*-10* flaps, to the numbers if needed, and slow in round-out.
 
Ron Levy said:
And I have no doubt that had you stated that as a limitation, you would have been accommodated.
Click to expand...

Absolutely.

"Lancair ****, turn right 065, climb and maintain 5000, proceed direct DUFFY and hold as published, expect further clearance at 2145, current time 2100"
 
Well, there's a chance that I'll be going back on Saturday to repeat the flight (camera angle might not be what we're after, one of the settings on the GoPro was unknowingly changed). Maybe I'll plod along at 90kts and see what happens :)

"expect further clearance Monday, time now Saturday."

I kid, I do get Ron's point, I guess it's more of a debate of what really constitutes being 'unable'.
 
coma24 said:
Just watched a bit of the video. I was down to 160 at the 700-800ft mark. At that point, I'd just broken out. I then leveled off, pulled power all the way back, got to gear extension speed (125kias), dropped gear and approach flap, then worked my way back down to the glide path. Touched down at the normal spot.

Note, they'd only asked for the speed up until the glideslope intercept (that's all they can do, legally, or a 5 mile final), I was just being generous by keeping it going. The reason for doing it was a) for practice, and b) I know that my speed on short final is absolutely going to cause compression with the A330 behind me, so I'd rather be outrunning him for a brief stint to anticipate that.

I also planned my touchdown and rollout to minimize the runway occupancy time (there aren't many exits on rwy 22L, which could result in higher runway occupancy time if you plant it too soon and jam on the brakes for no good reason).

Was all of this overkill? I'd have to do the math, but as it was, with all that effort, the A330 was on a 2 mile final as I exited the runway (based on a radio call that was made to another jet behind the A330). That's not a lot.

One last factor, the headwinds were pretty steep during the majority of the approach (30kts+), that would've made the compression issue even worse if I'd been at 90kias (60 or less over the ground). In other words, my % speed loss as a result of the headwind would be higher than the A330's speed loss.

Had it been an approach to minimums, I'd have to rethink it. Last time I was there it was 400 overcast, but I truthfully can't remember exactly how I flew it. I know I kept it fast until the FAF (there was an A380 behind me that time), but I think I allowed the speed to bleed off while I was tracking the glideslope...I never did the level off to bleed. This time around I planned for the level off, knowing it was 700-800 OVC.
Click to expand...


Most airliners do 180kts to the marker and about 125-145 on final, the longer 737s being the exception. They do closer to 150+. But in any case, if you can mimic that you'll fit in just fine.

Thanks for trying your best to be a cog in the wheel (especially exiting the runway).
 
How fast on the ILS? Bottom line, it all depends on what's behind you. If there's nobody behind you you can fly as fast or as slow as you want. If there's someone faster behind you and spacing is tight you'll want to be a nice guy and fly it as fast as you can.
 
dans2992 said:
They'd certainly accommodate you, but you wouldn't make any friends.
Click to expand...
Safety would be my concern in that case, not making friends with the people in NY TRACON.

If flying into JFK, I'd make every effort to be comfortable flying a fast ILS.
Click to expand...
So would I, but I would not compromise a properly stabilized approach at a speed appropriate to the aircraft I was flying.

Dead Stick said:
If there's someone faster behind you and spacing is tight you'll want to be a nice guy and fly it as fast as you can.
Click to expand...
A line from an old movie comes to mind -- the First Rule of Italian Driving: "What's behind me is not important." To me, being a nice guy means something more like not closing the airport by running off the end of the runway. We get way too many accidents due to pilots trying to land too fast, and as an instructor, I'm going to do my best to help damp down that unnecessary carnage.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
Safety would be my concern in that case, not making friends with the people in NY TRACON.
Click to expand...

I would say flying into a smaller airport with more similar speed aircraft is "safer" than flying into a large airport where the vast majority of planes are doing the approach almost twice as fast as Joe Pilot in his 172.

By putting a plane in the mix that is going half the speed of everyone else, you are throwing a BIG wrench in their sequencing, and they must now divert more attention on you than everyone else. Which I would say degrades safety to some degree.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top