Instrument approach: horrible energy management before flare

J

JVerb

Pre-Flight
Joined
Nov 8, 2020
Messages
81
Display Name
Display name:
JVerb
I've got roughly 12 hours remaining for the IFR 40 (roughly 175 hours total, all since PPL in Archer III's), and somehow in the last couple weeks my landings have gone to complete ****.

On the 120nm XC, flying into a Class C yesterday, was told to maintain best forward speed, but I still held 90kts and 10d flaps after FAF, and had a pretty stable ILS descent. When I tossed the blinders at the 200' AGL minimums, I did an absolutely horrible job of slowing it down and remaining stable. Basically ended up touching down at ~75kts and porpoised for the first time ever. That was NOT on my bucket list and really got me down for a bit. CFII was kind about it, but I seem to be getting worse on this and not better, and that's got to stop!

I usually am fine when it's a non-precision approach, but what are some of your tricks/methods for slowing down between minimums and the flare while still keeping a stabilized approach when you have only a couple hundred feet to go?
 
Well… best forward speed is kinda relative.

Don’t fly what ya can’t handle. Sounds like 90 is a bit much at this point. So fly slower.

You don’t have a lot of time. Practice vmc higher speed approaches, then incorporate that into IFR practice and finally actual IFR/IMC. Don’t let a controller decide the rhythm of your progression. Best forward speed for you will increase at your pace!

As in all training and experience accrual, you will have temporary “setbacks” as your overall awareness expands. You likely picked up on something new, sort of blocking something old. It’ll come back. Be patient.
 
Mostly sounds like you are trying to force it to land before it is ready when fast stop about 5-10 feet above the runway and let it slow down, ie. wait until you can get the nose up without ballooning before you go below 5 feet. Also make sure you get the power all the way off, even 100kts over the fence with a warrior power off will get down surprisingly short (for 100kts) just don't rush, wait until you get the nose up i.e. the big AOA indicator just above the instrument panel. And you aren't' going to be doing many maximum forward speed approaches to a short runway.


Brian
CFIIG/ASEL
 
JVerb said:
I've got roughly 12 hours remaining for the IFR 40 (roughly 175 hours total, all since PPL in Archer III's), and somehow in the last couple weeks my landings have gone to complete ****.

On the 120nm XC, flying into a Class C yesterday, was told to maintain best forward speed, but I still held 90kts and 10d flaps after FAF, and had a pretty stable ILS descent. When I tossed the blinders at the 200' AGL minimums, I did an absolutely horrible job of slowing it down and remaining stable. Basically ended up touching down at ~75kts and porpoised for the first time ever. That was NOT on my bucket list and really got me down for a bit. CFII was kind about it, but I seem to be getting worse on this and not better, and that's got to stop!

I usually am fine when it's a non-precision approach, but what are some of your tricks/methods for slowing down between minimums and the flare while still keeping a stabilized approach when you have only a couple hundred feet to go?
Click to expand...
What airplane are you flying?
 
in an Archer, there should be no difficulty slowing from 90 with 10 degrees flaps on the FAS to make a normal landing. I don’t have a trick for it; it pretty much every instrument approach in an airplane that type. Reduce power, maintain the same glide path, add landing flaps as you slow, and land.

Sounds a little like you were so intent on remaining “stable” until the threshold that you refused to do anything until over the numbers and destabilized the landing itself.
 
Last edited:
I have middle aged eyes that mostly still work fine, but I had to be more deliberate about the visual transition to get my focus up and well down the runway.

do you add a 2nd notch when you "break out"?

Even if you flew right into the roundout at 90knots, why are you touching down too fast? I assume you had *a lot* of runway to let your airspeed bleed off?

Presumably your CFII is wanting you to be aimed right at the TDZ markings on the ILS - do you feel some pressure to lawn dart to that spot?
 
Archers float like crazy too… you gotta lose 40 of your 90 kts, while descending. It’s a handful that takes a lot of practice.
 
Pitch for airspeed, power for altitude. Concentrate on using the yoke & trim for the airspeed you want, and add power as necessary to maintain your profile. I find that if I think “trim” but I haven’t, then I’m probably doing something wrong with airspeed. It’s a good mental check when things get busy fast.

Add a VFR flight between IFR lessons and bang out a bunch of landings trying to slow down after 200 ft AGL.

If your CFI is not too concerned, go with your CFIs gut.
 
midlifeflyer said:
in an Archer, there should be no difficulty slowing from 90 with 10 degrees flaps on the FAS to make a normal landing. I don’t have a trick for it; it pretty much every instrument approach in an airplane that type. Reduce power, maintain the same glide path, add landing flaps as you slow, and land.

Sounds a little like you were so intent on remaining “stable” until the threshold that you refused to do anything until over the numbers and destabilized the landing itself.
Click to expand...
The issue I typically see as an instructor when a approach is high or fast is pilots often wait to reduce the power, which is the one control that is adding energy to the equation that already has to much energy. Every thing else, flaps, slips, excess speed subtract energy from that equations. As soon as you realize you are high or fast, get the power off, after that you can start doing other things like adding flaps or slipping.

I think part of the issue is some pilots have been taught or are used to landing with power or carrying power all the way to the flare. There are a few SE GA Airplanes that benefit from this but most don't need it. Usually carrying power just allows you to fly the approach slower but then you need the power to flare and touch down nicely. Can be useful for short field approaches but not needed for normal approaches. A few extra knots on the approach with the power off will do the same thing.

It has been few years since I have flown a warrior, I don't recall it really liking power for the touch down. I fly Hershey Bar Cherokee's at lot more and they can like a bit of power to give it enough elevator authority to touch down on the mains 1st, especially when the CG is forward. If you get slow on the approach with the Hershey Bar wing you will need some power to slow the descent for touch down.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL
 
brcase said:
The issue I typically see as an instructor when a approach is high or fast is pilots often wait to reduce the power, which is the one control that is adding energy to the equation that already has to much energy. Every thing else, flaps, slips, excess speed subtract energy from that equations. As soon as you realize you are high or fast, get the power off, after that you can start doing other things like adding flaps or slipping.

I think part of the issue is some pilots have been taught or are used to landing with power or carrying power all the way to the flare.
Click to expand...
I agree but I'm not sure it's about landing with power. That may be a part of it but I think carrying excess power is an unfortunate byproduct/subset of an overemphasis on the "stabilized approach." Yes, it's important to avoid wild and crazy gyrations, but we are not jets which have to be on final airspeed and landing configuration at 1000' AGL.

The transition from even a no-flap instrument approach to a full-flap landing in something like a PA28 or C172 is nothing more than a power reduction while keeping glidepath stable and incrementally adding flaps. If one pulled out the data logged by a number of modern Garmin avionics and uploaded them to Cloud Ahoy or FlySto, chances are one wouldn't even notice anything other than an incremental smooth airspeed reduction.

I think part of the problem is FAA's description of the stabilized approach. From the Airplane Flying Handbook:
Stabilized Approach Concept
A stabilized approach is one in which the pilot establishes and maintains a constant-angle glide path towards a predetermined point on the landing runway. It is based on the pilot’s judgment of certain visual clues and depends on maintaining a constant final descent airspeed and configuration.
Separate those two sentences. The first, the definition of what it is, is perfect: a stabilized approach involves a constant glidepath to the aiming point. But while constant airspeed and configuration is one way to get there and very important from a primary instruction standpoint, it's a means to a end and not the only way to get there.

(Not to mention that it also leads to huge traffic patterns)
 
Last edited:
Tools said:
Archers float like crazy too… you gotta lose 40 of your 90 kts, while descending. It’s a handful that takes a lot of practice.
Click to expand...

Why "while descending"? Once the runway was made, I think I'd level off until the proper final approach speed, and only then continue with a normal final approach and landing.
 
JVerb said:
I've got roughly 12 hours remaining for the IFR 40 (roughly 175 hours total, all since PPL in Archer III's), and somehow in the last couple weeks my landings have gone to complete ****.

On the 120nm XC, flying into a Class C yesterday, was told to maintain best forward speed, but I still held 90kts and 10d flaps after FAF, and had a pretty stable ILS descent. When I tossed the blinders at the 200' AGL minimums, I did an absolutely horrible job of slowing it down and remaining stable. Basically ended up touching down at ~75kts and porpoised for the first time ever. That was NOT on my bucket list and really got me down for a bit. CFII was kind about it, but I seem to be getting worse on this and not better, and that's got to stop!

I usually am fine when it's a non-precision approach, but what are some of your tricks/methods for slowing down between minimums and the flare while still keeping a stabilized approach when you have only a couple hundred feet to go?
Click to expand...
Have you ever wondered why they put a marking named the aim point on the runway?
 
midlifeflyer said:
I agree but I'm not sure it's about landing with power. That may be a part of it but I think carrying excess power is an unfortunate byproduct/subset of an overemphasis on the "stabilized approach." Yes, it's important to avoid wild and crazy gyrations, but we are not jets which have to be on final airspeed and landing configuration at 1000' AGL.

The transition from even a no-flap instrument approach to a full-flap landing in something like a PA28 or C172 is nothing more than a power reduction while keeping glidepath stable and incrementally adding flaps. If one pulled out the data logged by a number of modern Garmin avionics and uploaded them to Cloud Ahoy or FlySto, chances are one wouldn't even notice anything other than an incremental smooth airspeed reduction.

I think part of the problem is FAA's description of the stabilized approach. From the Airplane Flying Handbook:
Stabilized Approach Concept
A stabilized approach is one in which the pilot establishes and maintains a constant-angle glide path towards a predetermined point on the landing runway. It is based on the pilot’s judgment of certain visual clues and depends on maintaining a constant final descent airspeed and configuration.
Separate those two sentences. The first, the definition of what it is, is perfect: a stabilized approach involves a constant glidepath to the aiming point. But while constant airspeed and configuration is one way to get there and very important from a primary instruction standpoint, it's a means to a end and not the only way to get there.
Click to expand...

Exactly: It tell my students that for most GA aircaft the concept a Stabilized approach is a bit overemphasized especially the "Constant... Configuration part". What we really are looking for is a nice stable looking approach, i.e make changes deliberately and smoothly. As new students it is probably rare we are going to have the airplane perfectly configured and flown for each approach not requiring configuring (power or other change.) Instead be consistently evaluating (am I High, Low, or about Right )the approach and when something is not quite right make a change early (small power reduction early, vs power off/full flaps later), but if you need power off and full flaps or a slip, use them. Just do the transitions smoothly. Almost all of our approaches are stable approaches, if it isn't you will know it when you see it, and is probably a good time to go around.

I think you are correct that the FAA concept of a Stabilized approach is probably aimed more at Jet / Higher performance aircraft where being on speed (still important in small aircraft) and configuration changes need to be done earlier in the approach.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL
 
Two thoughts:

#1 - If you are flying and ILS or LPV into a really long runway, you have plenty of time to slow to the proper landing speed. No reason to sweat hitting the numbers at the end of the runway; you have plenty of room to land so no reason to try to force the plane down prematurely.

#2 - There is no reason that most light singles can't be slowed down to the POH landing speed between the VDP or DA and the runway. And certainly if you break out earlier than that. In my AA-5, I fly approaches at 90 kt, then when I break out and making the runway is assured, I reduce power, put down flaps, and reduce speed to the recommended approach speed (75 mph). It takes some practice to learn how quickly to reduce power and raise the nose to maintain a relatively constant descent, but after a while it becomes natural. If I'm flying alone, I don't mind throwing in a forward slip to kill speed quickly if necessary. (Passengers other than my spouse--also a certificated pilot--might freak out if I do this.)
 
FastEddieB said:
Why "while descending"? Once the runway was made, I think I'd level off until the proper final approach speed, and only then continue with a normal final approach and landing.
Click to expand...
I don't think a level off is necessary. Or even desirable. I have broken out 200', not too much more than 1/2 NM mile from the threshold. I want to maintain that path (or a VASI/PAAPI) path to the runway, not level off.
 
In a slow airplane, like the Archer, I'd go to idle when I commit to the landing then use pitch to maintain the glidepath to the beginning of the flare.

If you want more flaps, add them as you slow below the appliable flap speeds. This will add to the complexity of your pitch control and wouldn't be necessary on long runways.
 
You may want to try some no flap landings, to get used to getting the plane down at a faster than typical speed.
 
Fly VFR on your own, do some pattern work, or a for-fun XC flight. This could probably be burnout.
 
Summary: you were distracted.
You know what to do!

You don't want to see my ILS 31C into MDW....."tower at RUNTS maintain 170 on the Localizer..."
So the last 30 secons are flow two dots low;

So then, it's breakout (with wheels up), Hellacious nose up slip, get slowed to 160 (first flaps), bigger slip, 2nd notch of flaps, get to 120....full flaps put the wheels out. Lose the slip, with all the boards out its' a BRICK, get down to 95 mph, hold it off until 75-80 (mph).....touch. Make the high pseed turnoff at Kilo, and get the heck outta de way.....

You'll develop the tools.....
 
Last edited:
bbchien said:
Summary: you were distracted.
You know what to do!

You don't want to see my ILS 31C into MDW....."tower at RUNTS maintain 170 on the Localizer..."
So the last 30 secons are flow two dots low;

So then, it's breakout (with wheels up), Hellacious nose up slip, get slowed to 160 (first flaps), bigger slip, 2nd notch of flaps, get to 120....full flaps put the wheels out. Lose the slip, with all the boards out its' a BRICK, get down to 95 mph, hold it off until 75-80 (mph).....touch. Make the high pseed turnoff at Kilo, and get the heck outta de way.....

You'll develop the tools.....
Click to expand...
For some reason breaking out gear up doesn’t sound like a tool I want to use.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top