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.
 
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 seconds are flown 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 speed 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.
 
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...
First - Make sure you slow to landing speed before you try to land. That's why you porpoised - If you are too fast, nose gear touches first, increasing your angle of attack and sending you flying again.

But, to fix the situation: Practice, VFR, no hood. Dial in the approach and follow the glideslope (or glidepath) in so that you're consistent. Fly the approach the way you would under the hood. At minimums, pull the power to idle... And you'll wonder why you couldn't get the plane slowed down before the runway. Now, try flying the approach at cruise power and doing the same - That is "best forward speed" and you'll be surprised how far in you can take it and still land at the correct speed in the touchdown zone.

Bonus points: For both 90 knots and best forward speed, find the power setting that you can dial in at minimums and arrive at your touchdown speed just as you get to where you'll flare. For a 90-knot approach, you'll probably only need to pull back about 200-300 RPM. The less of a change you make, the easier it is to fly, and the smoother it'll be for your passengers. For best forward speed, you may find that even pulling to idle at minimums doesn't slow you down enough. If that's the case, find out how far out you need to pull to idle to slow to touchdown speed.

FWIW, I say all of this because I remember how dissatisfied I was with my performance the first time I was asked for best forward speed on an approach. Going out and doing this practice made me much better at it. And this all gets easier as you gain experience.

As far as being stable, that doesn't mean you can't change anything on the way in. At least in a turbine aircraft, that means something like the following: That you must be configured for landing, on glidepath and approach path, with a sufficient power setting (n/a for pistons), and maintain speed within the appropriate limitations. Speed changes are allowable, power changes are allowable.
midlifeflyer said:
Archers float?
Click to expand...
Compared to 172s, yes. Lots more ground effect. I remember thinking the Archer was "floaty" after training in a 172.

Compared to Mooneys, no. :D
bbchien said:
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.....
Click to expand...
FWIW, ATC isn't allowed to assign a speed inside the FAF or within 5 miles of the runway. 7110.65AA 5-7-1(b)(4).

And while I love doing everything I can to help ATC, I do not recommend flying an approach as described above - That is definitely NOT stable. Bruce, I have great respect for your skills, but this is not something people should be looking to emulate. It's really not necessary - ATC knows what you're flying, and they're not going to put a jet so close behind you that you need to do heroics at minimums to get out of their way.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
First - Make sure you slow to landing speed before you try to land. That's why you porpoised - If you are too fast, nose gear touches first, increasing your angle of attack and sending you flying again.

But, to fix the situation: Practice, VFR, no hood. Dial in the approach and follow the glideslope (or glidepath) in so that you're consistent. Fly the approach the way you would under the hood. At minimums, pull the power to idle... And you'll wonder why you couldn't get the plane slowed down before the runway. Now, try flying the approach at cruise power and doing the same - That is "best forward speed" and you'll be surprised how far in you can take it and still land at the correct speed in the touchdown zone.

Bonus points: For both 90 knots and best forward speed, find the power setting that you can dial in at minimums and arrive at your touchdown speed just as you get to where you'll flare. For a 90-knot approach, you'll probably only need to pull back about 200-300 RPM. The less of a change you make, the easier it is to fly, and the smoother it'll be for your passengers. For best forward speed, you may find that even pulling to idle at minimums doesn't slow you down enough. If that's the case, find out how far out you need to pull to idle to slow to touchdown speed.

FWIW, I say all of this because I remember how dissatisfied I was with my performance the first time I was asked for best forward speed on an approach. Going out and doing this practice made me much better at it. And this all gets easier as you gain experience.

As far as being stable, that doesn't mean you can't change anything on the way in. At least in a turbine aircraft, that means something like the following: That you must be configured for landing, on glidepath and approach path, with a sufficient power setting (n/a for pistons), and maintain speed within the appropriate limitations. Speed changes are allowable, power changes are allowable.

Compared to 172s, yes. Lots more ground effect. I remember thinking the Archer was "floaty" after training in a 172.

Compared to Mooneys, no. :D

FWIW, ATC isn't allowed to assign a speed inside the FAF or within 5 miles of the runway. 7110.65AA 5-7-1(b)(4).

And while I love doing everything I can to help ATC, I do not recommend flying an approach as described above - That is definitely NOT stable. Bruce, I have great respect for your skills, but this is not something people should be looking to emulate. It's really not necessary - ATC knows what you're flying, and they're not going to put a jet so close behind you that you need to do heroics at minimums to get out of their way.
Click to expand...
Kent, I prefaced it with "you don't want to see it...."

They (The ATO) aren't supposed to require an airspeed but they do, and they do it all the time. If you don't agree they put you at a holding fix waiting for a break. Try getting a break during the 5 PM rush. Not happening. Remember, we live in C90 territory and C90 is giving the clearance. You don't get tower until you're at RUNTS. "GET YOUR FLIVVER out of my turbojet airspace" is still alive and well and is counter to aviation safety.

I point that out to the Archer pilot simply to illustrate that coping with approach speed vs landing Vref are two different skills, and it's a learned one, NOT to beat oneself up about. You learn to deal with it. Or in his situation he could fly his approaches at 85 kts not 90.

Just like the negotiation to get from 1C5 to UGN across the Charlie, there's a way to do that, too. C90 still hates us.
 
Last edited:
bbchien said:
Or in his situation he could fly his approaches at 85 kts not 90
Click to expand...
Yeah, but he doesn’t need to. Maybe an non-APV approach into a very short field, but an Archer flying an ILS or LPV approach can do 100 with no flaps and transition comfortably into a landing on the 1st third of the runway. Better off learning to deal with it.

But your comment about 85 triggers another thought to consider although I’m sure it violates someone’s idea of stability and adds a tiny bit of workload… I mentioned before that all it takes is reducing power and maintaining glidepath as flaps are incrementally added. Let’s recall that the airplane doesn’t know if it’s in the clouds or not. There’s nothing preventing us from slowing down before we break out except adding one more pitch/power/configuration combination to our “By the Numbers” chart. Since my personal preference is no-flap approaches, there are a few singles I do that with at the 1000 to go check.
 
Not to complicate your thinking and make things worse, but the last few posts about airspeed and flaps made me remember this video:


I was coming into KPWK after what seemed like being threaded through the eye of a needle by ATC. They worked me in and asked me to keep up best forward speed. I was doing 125 near short final. Landing was ugly, but got er done safely. We often think ugly = unsafe, but that’s not always true - like with a firm short field landing.

I remember on that flight ATC was telling most everyone else to slow down, others to speed up; new guy in a small jet comes on frequency from the lake and ATC tells him to slow - he whined and said unable, so ATC made him hold over the lake. She basically told him he’d be out there a while until she could squeeze him in. Gave him the other side of the speed envelope’s spam can treatment. C90.
 
I had a similar experience of getting worse before getting better during my IFR training - just keep doing it and you'll improve.

My big thing to learn was power setting. The C172's I was flying needed to be at 1900 rpm on approach or everything fell apart - ask your CFII what the suggested approach power setting is for your plane and that might help.
 
bbchien said:
A big 3x5 index card goes up on the glareshield that sez in huge letters "YOUR GEAR IS UP".
Click to expand...
Hah! I should have figured you'd be well prepared for the situation.
bbchien said:
They (The ATO) aren't supposed to require an airspeed but they do, and they do it all the time.
Click to expand...
Interesting. I've gotten "Maintain 170 to the FAF" (which is OK) a million times, but never after. IMO we need to hold their feet to the fire on this one, as it is not safe for the other 99.99% of pilots. A NASA report is a good idea for each occurrence of this, and maybe a call to the ATC facility to speak with the manager.
bbchien said:
If you don't agree they put you at a holding fix waiting for a break. Try getting a break during the 5 PM rush. Not happening.
Click to expand...
I do think that the math isn't too bad for squeezing in a flivver who can maintain 170 to the marker and "best forward speed" afterwards. Even those Southwest jets are going to be slowing down from 170 on the localizer. Maybe I'll try to figure out how big a hole they actually need later... And maybe share it with the Facebook groups that are full of controllers. :rofl:
bbchien said:
C90 still hates us.
Click to expand...
They've gotten a whole lot better over the years though. It's been a LONG time since I was denied flight following down the lakeshore, and I've even been cleared through the Bravo without asking, both IFR and VFR.
 
Go practice VFR some more. Slowing a Cherokee down from 90 kts should be practically a muscle memory thing. 200' is 2/3 of a mile - a Bonanza can be slowed in that distance to the numbers easily. Every airplane will slow down if you reduce power and pitch up. Add flaps as needed.

Suspect it's as simple as focussing on the IFR lately ahead of the rating and not enough basic stick wiggling. Bet it comes back within 10 times around the pattern.
 
I was flying today in my Archer. Thinking of this thread, I flew a straight in (towered AP) and held 105kts, no flaps to 200 ft minimums following the approach glidepath. Easily turned off in 2000 feet, could have made less, but no taxiway.
Think the last sentence of the OP is the key. "How do you maintain a stabilized approach when you only have 200 feet to go?" My short answer would be, not thinking stabilized, the runway is right in front of me. Just land.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top